A meta-analytic examination of sensitive responsiveness as a mediator between depression in mothers and psychopathology in children.

The current meta-analysis examined the mediating role of sensitive-responsive parenting in the relationship between depression in mothers and internalizing and externalizing behavior in children. A systematic review of the path of maternal sensitive responsiveness to child psychopathology identified eligible studies. Meta-analytic structural equation modelling (MASEM) allowed for the systematic examination of the magnitude of the indirect effect across 68 studies (N = 15,579) for internalizing and 92 studies (N = 26,218) for externalizing psychopathology. The synthesized sample included predominantly White, English-speaking children (age range = 1 to 205 months; Mage = 66 months; 47% female) from Western, industrialized countries. The indirect pathway was small in magnitude and similar for externalizing (b = .02) and internalizing psychopathology (b = .01). Moderator analyses found that the indirect pathway for externalizing problems was stronger when mother-child interactions were observed during naturalistic and free-play tasks rather than structured tasks. Other tested moderators were not significant.

Parental sensitivity and child behavioral problems: A meta-analytic review.

Meta-analytic associations between observed parental sensitivity and child behavioral problems were examined (children aged 0-17 years). Studies (k = 108, N = 28,114) contained sociodemographically diverse samples, primarily from North America and Europe, reporting on parent-child dyads (95% mothers; 54% boys). Sensitivity significantly related to internalizing (k = 69 studies; N = 14,729; r = -.08, 95% CI [-.12, -.05]) and externalizing (k = 94; N = 25,418; r = -.14, 95% CI [-.17, -.11]) problems, with stronger associations found for externalizing. For internalizing problems, associations were significantly stronger among samples with low socioeconomic status (SES) versus mid-high SES, in peer-reviewed versus unpublished dissertations, and in studies using composite versus single scale sensitivity measures. No other moderators emerged as significant.

Child Language Difficulties and Internalizing and Externalizing Symptoms: A Meta-Analysis.

This study conducted two meta-analyses to synthesize the association between children's language skills and two broad-band dimensions of psychopathology: internalizing and externalizing. Pooled estimates across 139 samples (externalizing k = 105; internalizing k = 90) and 147,305 participants (age range: 2-17 years old; mean % males: 53.75; mean % White participants: 55.59; mean % minority participants: 43.12) indicated small but significant associations between child language skills and externalizing problems (Hedges' g = .22) and between language skills and internalizing problems (Hedges' g = .23). The association between language difficulties and externalizing problems was stronger amongst males and in children with low versus high sociodemographic risk. Implications of the results for theory and practice are discussed.

Feasibility of training service providers on the AMBIANCE-Brief measure for use in community settings.

The Atypical Maternal Behavior Instrument for Assessment and Classification-Brief (AMBIANCE-Brief) was developed to provide a clinically useful and psychometrically sound assessment of disrupted parenting behavior for community practitioners. With prior evidence of this tool's reliability and validity in laboratory settings, this study aimed to determine whether providers from family service agencies could become reliable in the use of the level of disrupted communication following a brief training. Providers (N = 46) from three agency sites participated in a 2-day AMBIANCE-Brief training and, at the end of the training, coded eight videotaped mother-child interactions. Novice participant coding was compared to expert consensus ratings using intraclass correlations. On average, participants' interrater agreement was good (ICCmean  = .84, SD = 0.10), with 89% meeting the reliability standards of ICC ≥ .70. In response to queries, 100% of participants indicated that they would recommend the AMBIANCE-Brief training to their colleagues, 85% reported that the AMBIANCE-Brief measure would be useful or very useful for their clinical practice, and 56% of participant clinicians believed that parents would find the measure acceptable or very acceptable for integration into intervention or support planning. Altogether, these findings speak to the feasibility of using the AMBIANCE-Brief in community settings. Future studies are needed in diverse clinical and community contexts to evaluate whether use of this assessment tool can inform more targeted interventions tailored to the specific needs of families.

El Instrumento Abreviado para Evaluación y Clasificación de la Conducta Materna Atípica (AMBIANCE-Abreviado; Madigan, Bronfman, Haltigan y Lyons-Ruth, 2018) se desarrolló para ofrecer a quienes practican en la comunidad una evaluación clínicamente útil y sicométricamente acertada de la conducta de crianza trastornada. Con la anterior evidencia de la confiabilidad y validez de esta herramienta en el marco de los laboratorios (Cooke, Eirich, Racine, Lyons-Ruth y Madigan, 2020), este estudio se propuso determinar si se podría confiar en quienes proveen el servicio como parte de las agencias de servicio a las familias después de un breve entrenamiento. Los proveedores (N = 46) de tres lugares de agencias participaron en un entrenamiento de dos días sobre AMBAIANCE-Abreviado y, al final del entrenamiento, codificaron ocho interacciones madre-niño grabadas en video. Se comparó la forma de codificar de los novatos con el puntaje consenso de los expertos usando correlaciones dentro de clases. El acuerdo entre los evaluadores fue bueno (ICC media = .84, SD = 0.10), con un 89% de los participantes que lograron el estándar de confiabilidad de ICC > .70. En respuesta a preguntas, el 100% de los participantes indicó que ellos recomendarían el entrenamiento de AMBIANCE-Abreviado a sus colegas, 85% reportó que la medida AMBIANCE-Abreviado sería útil o muy útil en su práctica clínica, y 56% creían que los progenitores encontrarían la medida aceptable o muy aceptable para ser integrada en la intervención o el planeamiento de apoyo. En conjunto, estos resultados hablan de la factibilidad de usar AMBIANCE-Abreviado en el marco comunitario.

L'Instrument d'Evaluation et de Classification-Brève du Comportement Maternel Atypique (AMBIANCE-Bref; Madigan, Bronfman, Haltigan, & Lyons-Ruth, 2018) a été développé afin d'offrir une évaluation du comportement de parentage perturbé, cliniquement utile et saine du point de vue psychométrique, pour les acteurs communautaires. Avec des preuves préalables de la fiabilité et de la validité de cet outil en laboratoire (Cooke, Eirich, Racine, Lyons-Ruth, & Madigan, 2020), cette étude s'est donné pour but de déterminer si les prestataires des agences de service à la famille pouvaient devenir fiables pour son utilisation après une formation courte. Des prestataires (N = 46) de trois sites d'agence ont participé à une formation AMBIANCE-Bref de deux jours et à la fin de la formation ont codé huit interactions mère-enfant filmées. Le codage du participant débutant a été comparé aux évaluations par consensus d'expertes en utilisant des corrélations intraclasses. Le coefficient d'objectivité était bon (moyenne des coefficient de corrélation intraclasse [ICC] = 84, SD = 0,10), avec 89% des participants remplissant les standards de fiabilité d'ICC ICC ³,70. En répondant aux questions, 100% des participants ont indiqué qu'ils ou elles recommanderaient la formation AMBIANCE-bref à leurs collègues, 85% ont indiqué que la mesure AMBIANCE-bref serait utile ou très utile pour leur pratique clinique, et 56% ont déclaré qu'ils ou elles croyaient que les parents trouveraient cette mesure acceptable ou très acceptable pour une intégration à une intervention ou le plan de soutien. Au total, ces résultats parlent de la viabilité de l'utilisation de l'AMBIANCE-bref dans des contextes communautaires.

Associations between adverse childhood experiences and substance use: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) can be associated with negative health outcomes such as substance use. However, extant literature assessing this association is mixed. OBJECTIVE: The present meta-analysis was conducted to obtain a pooled effect size for the association between ACEs and substance use (i.e., smoking, problematic alcohol use, heavy alcohol use, illicit drug use, and cannabis use). PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: The present meta-analyses included 102 studies (N = 901,864), where 42.32 % of participants were male, and the mean age was 30.91 years. METHODS: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO in August 2021 and moderators were examined. Inclusion criteria included studies that measured ACEs prior to age 18 and substance use, and were published in English. All analyses were completed in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software, Version 3.0 (Borenstein et al., 2009). RESULTS: Pooled effect sizes between ACEs and smoking [OR = 1.803 (95 % CI 1.588, 2.048)], problematic alcohol use [OR = 1.812 (95 % CI 1.606, 2.044)], heavy alcohol use [OR = 1.537 (95 % CI 1.344, 1.758)], cannabis use [OR = 1.453 (95 % CI 1.184, 1.786)] and illicit drug use [OR = 1.695 (95 % CI 1.530, 1.878)] were significant. Significant moderators contribute to the understanding of the association between ACEs and substance use, and are discussed extensively. CONCLUSIONS: ACEs confer risk for substance use and trauma-informed approaches to substance use treatment should be considered. Study limitations and implications are discussed.

Adverse childhood experiences: a meta-analysis of prevalence and moderators among half a million adults in 206 studies.

Exposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), including maltreatment and family dysfunction, is a major contributor to the global burden of disease and disability. With a large body of international literature on ACEs having emerged over the past 25 years, it is timely to now synthetize the available evidence to estimate the global prevalence of ACEs and, through a series of moderator analyses, determine which populations are at higher risk. We searched studies published between January 1, 1998 and August 5, 2021 in Medline, PsycINFO and Embase. Study inclusion criteria were using the 8- or 10-item ACE Questionnaire (±2 items), reporting the prevalence of ACEs in population samples of adults, and being published in English. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022348429). In total, 206 studies (208 sample estimates) from 22 countries, with 546,458 adult participants, were included. The pooled prevalence of the five levels of ACEs was: 39.9% (95% CI: 29.8-49.2) for no ACE; 22.4% (95% CI: 14.1-30.6) for one ACE; 13.0% (95% CI: 6.5-19.8) for two ACEs; 8.7% (95% CI: 3.4-14.5) for three ACEs, and 16.1% (95% CI: 8.9-23.5) for four or more ACEs. In subsequent moderation analyses, there was strong evidence that the prevalence of 4+ ACEs was higher in populations with a history of a mental health condition (47.5%; 95% CI: 34.4-60.7) and with substance abuse or addiction (55.2%; 95% CI: 45.5-64.8), as well as in individuals from low-income households (40.5%; 95% CI: 32.9-48.4) and unhoused individuals (59.7%; 95% CI: 56.8-62.4). There was also good evidence that the prevalence of 4+ ACEs was larger in minoritized racial/ethnic groups, particularly when comparing study estimates in populations identifying as Indigenous/Native American (40.8%; 95% CI: 23.1-59.8) to those identifying as White (12.1%; 95% CI: 10.2-14.2) and Asian (5.6%; 95% CI: 2.4-10.2). Thus, ACEs are common in the general population, but there are disparities in their prevalence. They are among the principal antecedent threats to individual well-being and, as such, constitute a pressing social issue globally. Both prevention strategies and downstream interventions are needed to reduce the prevalence and mitigate the severity of the effects of ACEs and thereby reduce their deleterious health consequences on future generations.