Skip to main content

New Article Finds Different Effects of Protective versus Adverse Childhood Events


In a new article, my former nursing honors student Linda Driscoll Powers wrote about the measurement properties of a survey called PACES -- standing for Positive and Adverse Childhood Experiences Survey -- developed by Dr. Laurie Leitch. The instrument combines items from the widely used ACEs (Adverse Childhood Experiences) measure with a set of protective factors such as having a supportive family, having a positive relationship with an adult outside the family, or belonging to social groups like a team or a church. ACEs items have been found to predict a variety of health outcomes in adulthood, either directly or by way of social support, but positive childhood experiences are under-studied. 

Besides having satisfactory psychometric properties (a stable factor structure, good internal consistency reliability, no evidence of response bias), the PACES items split cleanly into two independent subscales, one measuring positive experiences and the other measuring negative ones. The fact that these subscales were orthogonal (independent) to one another means that a person could have had negative experiences as a child, positive experiences as a child, both, or neither -- in other words, positive experiences aren't the same as just an absence of negative ones. There was also some suggestion in preliminary analyses that items measuring positive relationships within the family could be differentiated from positive relationships outside the family, but ultimately it made the most sense to group those items together for analysis, meaning that any positive relationship has about the same benefits, regardless of who it's with.

To me, the most interesting piece of Linda's paper was the comparison of positive vs. negative early experiences with a range of other measures. The data were gathered in a large sample (n = 589) of clients seen in rural Colorado treatment programs for opioid use disorder over about a year's time. In this group, a higher number of ACEs correlated with having more symptoms of depression, medical problems, and pain, more alcohol and other substance use, more current legal problems, and more psychological distress, as well as more family conflict, housing problems, and fewer economic and social resources. All of these relationships were expected based on prior literature about the later-life risks associated with ACEs. People with a history of childhood adverse experiences were also more likely to report having been victims of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse over the past 30 days, which in a previous paper we found to be associated with higher pain scores and therefore perhaps a higher risk for opioid use relapse.

We also found that the positive childhood experiences subscale was linked to less depression, a lower chance of hospitalization, more social and economic resources, a lower likelihood of legal problems, and less family-related distress. A couple of surprising effects were relationships between positive childhood experiences and current physical pain or health concerns, which we interpreted to mean that perhaps people were more in tune with their bodies and willing to ask for help. People with more positive childhood experiences were also more likely to be using prescription pain medication (e.g., as opposed to heroin or other street drugs). Nevertheless, the greater attention to current pain among people with more positive childhood experiences might suggest a unique risk factor for relapse. 

Overall, the most important conclusion from this study is that it's important for clinicians to ask about positive as well as negative experiences that people might have had in childhood. The different pattern of relationships with other variables for the positive and adverse experience subscales, and the fact that these scales were independent of one another, suggest that the two subscales of the PACES are likely to convey non-overlapping information. Asking about positive childhood experiences also can help clinicians to avoid an exclusive focus on deficits or problems, highlighting what has gone right in a person's life and what resources they might bring to current challenges. This fits with a strengths-focused approach to clinical care, and can help clinicians to support patients on their road to recovery.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Prototypes and Willingness: The Theory of Planned Behavior Revisited

  You may recall my blog post from last year on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) , titled "in praise of a failed model." My evaluation of this model was that it accurately describes the Narrative Mind, which does control intentions. But the ultimate goal of the TPB is to predict behavior, and the relationship between intentions and behavior is weak at best -- in fact, it is entirely attributable to the fact that when someone says they don't intend to do something, they probably won't do it. When they say they do intend to do it, their actual results are no better than chance, a result of the intention-behavior gap as described in Two Minds Theory.  The full TPB is shown in this diagram: Cognitive constructs like attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (i.e., self-efficacy) are Narrative-system phenomena, and they do indeed have relationships with each other and with intentions (which are also products of the Narrative Mind). Perceived behavi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Leventhal's Common-Sense Model and Two Minds Theory

Leventhal, Diefenbach, and Leventhal's (1992) "common sense model" of self-regulation. My 2018 paper describing Two Minds Theory (TMT) cites work by my colleague and coauthor Dr. Paula Meek, who conducted studies of patients experiencing the symptom of breathlessness due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD). Paula's research used a model by Howard and Elaine Leventhal (with Michael Diefenbach) that was an early iteration of the dual-process approach also used in TMT. She found that people who focused their attention on different aspects of the feeling of breathlessness then in turn had different interpretations of what that symptom meant for them, and that those interpretations changed their perception of the symptom's intensity. This example illustrates a back-and-forth between perceptions and thoughts, which is characteristic of Leventhal's model. Leventhal's dual-process model, sometimes called the "common sense model" of self-reg...
Post a Comment
Read more

Intuitive Decision-Making by People with Diabetes

People with diabetes often find it challenging to maintain their blood sugar levels, in part because diabetes is a complicated disease. When the kidneys don't produce enough insulin fast enough to adjust for changes in digestion or activity, blood sugar can fluctuate rapidly, even over the course of a single day. To manage this, people with diabetes often need to make changes in multiple areas: adopting a low-carbohydrate diet, managing the timing and amount of exercise they get, keeping track of the times when their blood sugar rises and falls, potentially giving themselves a dose of insulin around mealtimes, managing stress, and other preventive measures as well.  But despite all of this complexity, the people who manage their diabetes most successfully are often the least  obsessive about the fine details. When my Dad was first diagnosed with diabetes, he checked his blood sugar often (using finger sticks; continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] devices weren’t yet a thing). Bu...
Post a Comment
Read more