Exploring the individual contributions of the 8 adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) domains to substance use.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Fares Qeadan, Jacob France, William A Barbeau
{"title":"Exploring the individual contributions of the 8 adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) domains to substance use.","authors":"Fares Qeadan, Jacob France, William A Barbeau","doi":"10.1016/j.jad.2025.119923","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traditionally, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are grouped together into a cumulative score to predict substance use.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the effect of individual ACE domains (physical, emotional, sexual abuse, exposure to domestic violence, parental separation, household incarceration, household substance use and household mental illness) on later life substance use.</p><p><strong>Participants and setting: </strong>BRFSS data from 2019 to 2022 were used to construct 3 cohorts analyzing 5 different substance use outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Logistic regression models were constructed to determine adjusted odd ratios (aORs) of substance used for each ACE domain. Random forest models served for sensitivity analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Effect sizes varied across ACE domains and substances. Household substance use was the strongest predictor, with the highest aORs for smoking (aOR = 1.336, 95 % CI [1.266-1.410]), e-cigarette use (aOR = 1.451, 95 % CI [1.317-1.597]), and binge drinking (aOR = 1.256, 95 % CI [1.181-1.335]). Emotional abuse was the second most influential domain, particularly associated with marijuana use (aOR = 1.475, 95 % CI [1.349-1.613]). In contrast, exposure to domestic violence showed no significant associations with any substance use outcome. Sensitivity analyses using random forest models validated these findings, emphasizing the differential contributions of individual ACE domains to substance use behaviors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings emphasize that ACEs are not all entirely equal, and a cumulative score does not represent the individual effect each ACE has on substance use outcomes. Tailoring interventions and policies toward addressing specific ACE domains could significantly reduce substance use rates in later life.</p>","PeriodicalId":14963,"journal":{"name":"Journal of affective disorders","volume":" ","pages":"119923"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of affective disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.119923","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Traditionally, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are grouped together into a cumulative score to predict substance use.

Objective: To determine the effect of individual ACE domains (physical, emotional, sexual abuse, exposure to domestic violence, parental separation, household incarceration, household substance use and household mental illness) on later life substance use.

Participants and setting: BRFSS data from 2019 to 2022 were used to construct 3 cohorts analyzing 5 different substance use outcomes.

Methods: Logistic regression models were constructed to determine adjusted odd ratios (aORs) of substance used for each ACE domain. Random forest models served for sensitivity analyses.

Results: Effect sizes varied across ACE domains and substances. Household substance use was the strongest predictor, with the highest aORs for smoking (aOR = 1.336, 95 % CI [1.266-1.410]), e-cigarette use (aOR = 1.451, 95 % CI [1.317-1.597]), and binge drinking (aOR = 1.256, 95 % CI [1.181-1.335]). Emotional abuse was the second most influential domain, particularly associated with marijuana use (aOR = 1.475, 95 % CI [1.349-1.613]). In contrast, exposure to domestic violence showed no significant associations with any substance use outcome. Sensitivity analyses using random forest models validated these findings, emphasizing the differential contributions of individual ACE domains to substance use behaviors.

Conclusions: These findings emphasize that ACEs are not all entirely equal, and a cumulative score does not represent the individual effect each ACE has on substance use outcomes. Tailoring interventions and policies toward addressing specific ACE domains could significantly reduce substance use rates in later life.

探索8种不良童年经历(ace)域对物质使用的个人贡献。
背景:传统上,不良童年经历(ace)被分组成一个累积分数来预测药物使用。目的:确定个体ACE域(身体、情感、性虐待、家庭暴力、父母分离、家庭监禁、家庭物质使用和家庭精神疾病)对后期生活物质使用的影响。参与者和环境:使用2019年至2022年的BRFSS数据构建3个队列,分析5种不同的物质使用结果。方法:建立Logistic回归模型,确定各ACE域所用物质的调整奇比(aORs)。随机森林模型用于敏感性分析。结果:效应大小在ACE领域和物质之间存在差异。家庭物质使用最强的预测,抽烟的最高司令部(aOR = 1.336,95 % CI[1.266 - -1.410]),包括烟使用(aOR = 1.451,95 % CI[1.317 - -1.597]),和酗酒(aOR = 1.256,95 % CI[1.181 - -1.335])。情绪虐待是第二个最具影响力的领域,特别是与大麻使用有关(aOR = 1.475,95 % CI[1.349-1.613])。相比之下,暴露于家庭暴力与任何药物使用结果没有显着关联。使用随机森林模型的敏感性分析验证了这些发现,强调了个体ACE域对物质使用行为的不同贡献。结论:这些研究结果强调ACE并非完全相等,累积得分并不代表每个ACE对药物使用结果的个体影响。针对特定ACE领域量身定制的干预措施和政策可以显著降低晚年的物质使用率。
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
Journal of affective disorders
Journal of affective disorders 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
6.10%
发文量
1319
审稿时长
9.3 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Affective Disorders publishes papers concerned with affective disorders in the widest sense: depression, mania, mood spectrum, emotions and personality, anxiety and stress. It is interdisciplinary and aims to bring together different approaches for a diverse readership. Top quality papers will be accepted dealing with any aspect of affective disorders, including neuroimaging, cognitive neurosciences, genetics, molecular biology, experimental and clinical neurosciences, pharmacology, neuroimmunoendocrinology, intervention and treatment trials.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信