Unraveling the Concept of Childhood Adversity in Psychosis Research: A Systematic Review.

IF 5.3 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Sjur S Sætren, Jone R Bjørnestad, Akiah A Ottesen, Helen L Fisher, Daniel A S Olsen, Kari Hølland, Wenche Ten Velden Hegelstad
{"title":"Unraveling the Concept of Childhood Adversity in Psychosis Research: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Sjur S Sætren, Jone R Bjørnestad, Akiah A Ottesen, Helen L Fisher, Daniel A S Olsen, Kari Hølland, Wenche Ten Velden Hegelstad","doi":"10.1093/schbul/sbae085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>During the last decades, an abundance of studies has investigated childhood adversity in relation to psychosis. This systematic review critically examines the methodologies employed to investigate childhood adversity in psychosis over the past decade, including operational definitions, measurement tools and characteristics, and psychometric properties of instruments used in these studies.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines (registration number CRD42022307096), and the search used the following electronic databases: PsychINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, African Index Medicus (AIM), LILACS, CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. The search included variations and combinations of the terms targeting childhood adversity and psychosis.</p><p><strong>Study results: </strong>Out of 585 identified studies published between 2010 and 2023, 341 employed a validated instrument to investigate childhood adversity. Our findings show \"childhood trauma\" being the most frequently examined construct, followed by \"child maltreatment\" or \"child abuse.\" The short version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire was the dominant instrument. Physical abuse, emotional abuse, and sexual abuse were most frequently investigated, and indeed the field appears generally to focus on child abuse and neglect over other adversities. Significant psychometric heterogeneity was observed in the selection and summarization of instrument items, with only 59% of studies documenting original psychometric validation and 22% reporting reliability in their datasets.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review highlights substantial methodological heterogeneity in the field, pointing out biases in the research on childhood adversity and psychosis. These findings underline the need for standardized definitions and high-quality measurement tools to enhance the validity of future research in this area.</p>","PeriodicalId":21530,"journal":{"name":"Schizophrenia Bulletin","volume":" ","pages":"1055-1066"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11349006/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Schizophrenia Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbae085","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: During the last decades, an abundance of studies has investigated childhood adversity in relation to psychosis. This systematic review critically examines the methodologies employed to investigate childhood adversity in psychosis over the past decade, including operational definitions, measurement tools and characteristics, and psychometric properties of instruments used in these studies.

Study design: This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines (registration number CRD42022307096), and the search used the following electronic databases: PsychINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, African Index Medicus (AIM), LILACS, CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. The search included variations and combinations of the terms targeting childhood adversity and psychosis.

Study results: Out of 585 identified studies published between 2010 and 2023, 341 employed a validated instrument to investigate childhood adversity. Our findings show "childhood trauma" being the most frequently examined construct, followed by "child maltreatment" or "child abuse." The short version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire was the dominant instrument. Physical abuse, emotional abuse, and sexual abuse were most frequently investigated, and indeed the field appears generally to focus on child abuse and neglect over other adversities. Significant psychometric heterogeneity was observed in the selection and summarization of instrument items, with only 59% of studies documenting original psychometric validation and 22% reporting reliability in their datasets.

Conclusion: This review highlights substantial methodological heterogeneity in the field, pointing out biases in the research on childhood adversity and psychosis. These findings underline the need for standardized definitions and high-quality measurement tools to enhance the validity of future research in this area.

解读精神病研究中的童年逆境概念:系统回顾。
背景:在过去的几十年中,有大量研究调查了儿童逆境与精神病的关系。本系统性综述批判性地研究了过去十年间调查儿童逆境与精神病的方法,包括这些研究中使用的工具的操作定义、测量工具和特点以及心理测量特性:本系统性综述遵循 PRISMA 指南(注册号 CRD42022307096),并使用以下电子数据库进行检索:PsychINFO、SCOPUS、Web of Science、African Index Medicus (AIM)、LILACS、CINAHL、EMBASE 和 MEDLINE。研究结果:研究结果:在 2010 年至 2023 年间发表的 585 项已确认研究中,有 341 项采用了经过验证的工具来调查儿童逆境。我们的研究结果表明,"童年创伤 "是最常被研究的概念,其次是 "虐待儿童 "或 "虐待儿童"。童年创伤问卷简版是最主要的调查工具。对身体虐待、情感虐待和性虐待的调查最为频繁,事实上,该领域似乎普遍关注虐待和忽视儿童,而不是其他逆境。在工具项目的选择和总结方面,我们观察到了显著的心理测量异质性,只有 59% 的研究记录了原始心理测量验证,22% 的研究报告了其数据集的可靠性:本综述强调了这一领域在方法上的巨大异质性,指出了儿童逆境和精神病研究中的偏差。这些发现强调了标准化定义和高质量测量工具的必要性,以提高该领域未来研究的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Schizophrenia Bulletin
Schizophrenia Bulletin 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
6.10%
发文量
163
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Schizophrenia Bulletin seeks to review recent developments and empirically based hypotheses regarding the etiology and treatment of schizophrenia. We view the field as broad and deep, and will publish new knowledge ranging from the molecular basis to social and cultural factors. We will give new emphasis to translational reports which simultaneously highlight basic neurobiological mechanisms and clinical manifestations. Some of the Bulletin content is invited as special features or manuscripts organized as a theme by special guest editors. Most pages of the Bulletin are devoted to unsolicited manuscripts of high quality that report original data or where we can provide a special venue for a major study or workshop report. Supplement issues are sometimes provided for manuscripts reporting from a recent conference.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信