Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38811352›Full record

SynthesisSchizophrenia bulletin2024

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

Sjur S Sætren, Jone R Bjørnestad, Akiah A Ottesen, Helen L Fisher, Daniel A S Olsen, Kari Hølland, Wenche Ten Velden Hegelstad

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Schizophrenia bulletin, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Childhood adversity and late-life cognitive and brain health in a diverse cohort.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sjur S SætrenDepartment for Child and Adolescent Research, Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-5265-364X
Jone R BjørnestadTIPS Centre for Clinical Research in Psychosis, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-0381-1741
Akiah A OttesenNORMENT, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital & Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Helen L FisherSocial, Genetic & Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4174-2126
Daniel A S OlsenTIPS Centre for Clinical Research in Psychosis, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Kari HøllandInstitute of Social Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Wenche Ten Velden HegelstadTIPS Centre for Clinical Research in Psychosis, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.

Funding

A COMPREHENSIVE CONSIDERATION OF SOURCE MEMORYF32MH012567 · NIMH · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MARSH, ELIZABETH J · 2000 to 2002
$110k
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Centre for Society and Mental Health at King's College London ES/S012567/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring 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

designThis 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

resultsOut 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.

conclusionThis 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.

Indexed as

Adverse Childhood ExperiencesPsychotic DisordersAdult Survivors of Child Adverse EventsChildChild AbuseHumansPsychometricsassessmentchildhood adversitychildhood traumachild maltreatmentmeasurementpsychosis

Identifiers

PMID38811352
PMCPMC11349006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.