Search

Children exposed to early adversity (eg, financial hardship, family violence, parent mental health difficulties) are at greater risk of poor health outcomes. Physiological stress is one mechanism thought to explain this pathway. We investigated associations between adversity and young children's health and whether child stress (measured using hair cortisol) mediated these associations. This was a cross-sectional study of 3-year-old children whose mothers were recruited during pregnancy, through the right@home trial, for their experience of adversity. Using total counts of 9 sociodemographic and 9 psychosocial indicators of adversity, regression models examined relationships among adversity risk counts, child hair cortisol (potential mediator), and 5 health outcomes: externalizing and internalizing problems, physical and socioemotional wellbeing, and overweight/obesity. Hair cortisol data were available for 297 out of 500 (59%) participating children. When examined separately, sociodemographic adversity risk was associated with higher externalizing problems, and psychosocial adversity risk was associated with higher externalizing problems and poorer physical/socioemotional wellbeing. When examined together in a single model, psychosocial (but not sociodemographic) adversity was associated with higher externalizing problems (unstandardized mean difference [β], 0.53; P =.002) and poorer physical wellbeing (β, 1.19; P =.009); higher hair cortisol was associated with higher externalizing problems (β, 0.76; P =.02). There was no evidence that stress (hair cortisol) mediated associations between adversity and health. In 3-year-old children, we found no evidence that physiological stress (hair cortisol) mediated associations between adversity risk and children's health. Hair cortisol may be limited as a single measure of stress, or physiological stress may not be a mechanism for explaining the effects of adversity on these young children's health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Australian data on the prevalence and distribution of antenatal risk factors are scarce. This study aimed to investigate (i) the feasibility and acceptability of an antenatal risk factor survey collected in public settings and (ii) whether the survey risk factors co-occur with more sensitive risk factors that are privately asked by clinicians.Methods: Design and setting: study-designed survey linked with clinician-collected risk factors.Participants: pregnant women attending antenatal clinics at two Victorian hospitals.Measures: (i) study-designed survey: young pregnancy, no support, poor/fair/good general health, anxious mood, not finishing high school, no income, long-term illness, living without another adult, not employed, never had a job and proxy poverty measures; (ii) Clinician-collected data: smoking, alcohol/marijuana/drug use, domestic violence, social issues, history of mental health problems and depression symptoms.Analyses: (i) feasibility and acceptability were assessed through survey completion. Each item was assessed for whether they discriminated risk; dichotomised into risk versus no risk; with a total count calculated. (ii) Co-occurrence was assessed by examining how the risk factor count agreed with clinician-collected items.Results: One hundred and sixty-six of 186 (89%) eligible women completed the survey; 139 of 166 (84%) consented to linking clinician-collected data. The high response and zero missing data demonstrated feasibility and acceptability. Of women with linked data, 92 of 139 (66%) had ≥1 survey risk factor and 30 of 139 (22%) had ≥3; 36 of 139 (26%) had at least one co-occurring clinician-collected risk factor.Conclusions: This survey provides a simple, rapid approach to gathering antenatal risk data publicly. It may be a helpful addition to clinicians' standard history collection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]