Search

Background: Childhood adversity places individuals in a vulnerable position, resulting in potentially enduring disadvantage across life domains like health and work. Studying the manifestation of this disadvantage is crucial for understanding which resources society can provide to mitigate or prevent it, which makes this subject a fundamental public health concern. This study investigated whether disadvantage patterns after childhood adversity differ by gender and educational level, using out-of-home care as proxy for early adversity. Methods: We used register data from a 1953 Swedish birth cohort. Distinct profiles of socioeconomic and health disadvantage in individuals with out-of-home care experience were identified using group-based multi-trajectory modelling. Multinomial logistic regression was then used to determine whether gender and education, individually or in interaction with each other, predict group membership. Results: In the population without history of out-of-home care, adulthood disadvantage was highly gendered, with women being more likely to experience disadvantage related to unemployment and poor health, while criminality and substance misuse was more common among men. History of out-of-home care was associated with a general increase in adulthood disadvantage, but the gender differences were largely absent. Women in this group were however less likely than men to experience disadvantage across multiple life domains (complex disadvantage OR = 0.56, p = 0.046; unemployment-related disadvantage OR = 0.51, p = 0.005). Higher level of education was associated with reduced likelihood of membership in the group marked by disabling health disadvantage (OR = 0.55, p = 0.002) and complex disadvantage (OR = 0.37, p = 0.001). An interaction term between gender and education was not significant. Conclusions: Adulthood disadvantage was more common in the group with history of out-of-home care. The gender differences in disadvantage present in the full cohort were largely attenuated among individuals with out-of-home care history. We showed that using administrative data on outcomes across multiple life domains can provide rich descriptions of adult experiences after childhood adversity. Future research could examine gender differences in mechanisms translating into resilient or vulnerable trajectories, including the protective potential of education in relation to specific disadvantage patterns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Psychiatric disorders are a substantial public health concern, and childhood adversity a well-known risk factor for it. Investigating gender differences in vulnerability and resilience processes following out-of-home care (OHC) as proxy for childhood adversity can help map opportunities for the prevention of psychiatric disorders. Methods: We followed a large birth cohort for psychiatric disorders (anxiety, depression, and self-harm, and substance misuse) between age 25–62 years, comparing individuals with and without OHC experience. We investigated different extra-familial risk and resources factors following OHC via gender-stratified mediation and moderation analyses to approximate risk accumulation (vulnerability processes) and buffers of risk (resilience processes). Results: OHC is prospectively associated with psychiatric disorders in adulthood. Lower school grades, delinquency, and early parenthood are mediators of the association, with the exception of education in girls in relation to anxiety, depression, and self-harm, and early parenthood in boys in relation to substance misuse. Number of best friends moderates OHC experience in boys, and there is a trend for higher educational achievement to also act as buffer, even though this trend was not statistically significant. Leisure time activities did not act as buffer. Conclusion: Vulnerability and resilience processes after childhood adversity are gendered: Risk accumulation runs via delinquency and poorer educational outcomes in boys more than in girls, while early parenthood is a more dominant risk factor in girls. Having more best friends and higher grades may act as buffer, especially in boys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Childhood adversity is associated with a host of negative health and socioeconomic outcomes far into adulthood. The process of avoiding such outcomes is often referred to as resilience. Mapping resilience comprehensively and across contexts is highly relevant to public health, as it is a step towards understanding environments and interventions that contribute to preventing or reversing negative outcomes after early adverse experiences., Objectives: This review scoped out the literature on resilience factors in relation to adulthood outcomes as diverse as mental health and educational attainment. Our aim was to understand where there is untapped research potential, by examining the current evidence base on resilience factors in terms of (a) resources that can buffer the impact of childhood adversity and (b) the pathways linking adversity to long-term outcomes. Furthermore, we aimed to identify gender patterns in these resources and pathways, which has not been a primary interest of reviews on resilience to date, and which can add to our understanding of the different ways in which resilience may unfold., Eligibility Criteria: Studies had to include an adversity experienced in childhood, an outcome considered indicative of resilience in adulthood, and at least one putative resilience factor, which had to be approached via mediation or moderation analysis. We considered cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies., Sources of Evidence: We searched PubMed, Scopus and PsycINFO and included original, peer-reviewed articles published before 20 July 2023 in English, German, French, Spanish, Dutch and Swedish., Charting Methods: All three authors collaborated on the extraction of information relevant to answering the research questions. The results were visually and narratively summarised., Results: We included 102 studies. Traditionally anchored in the field of psychology, the resilience literature focuses heavily on individual-level resilience factors. Gender was considered in approximately 22% of included studies and was always limited to comparisons between men and women. There is no evidence that childhood adversity impacts men and women differently in the long term, but there is some evidence for gender differences in resilience factors., Conclusions: There is untapped potential in resilience research. By considering structural-level factors simultaneously with individual-level factors, and including gender as one of the elements that shape resilience, we can map resilience as a heterogeneous, multilevel process from a public health perspective. This would complement the extensive existing literature on individual-level factors and help reframe resilience as a concept that can be intervened on at a structural level, and that is subject to societal norms and forces, such as gender. There is a lack of quantitative studies including transgender and gender-non-conforming persons., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)