| Literature DB >> 29301670 |
Jasmin Wertz1, Jessica Agnew-Blais2, Avshalom Caspi3, Andrea Danese4, Helen L Fisher2, Sidra Goldman-Mellor5, Terrie E Moffitt3, Louise Arseneault6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Childhood conduct problems are associated with poor functioning in early adulthood. We tested a series of hypotheses to understand the mechanisms underlying this association.Entities:
Keywords: conduct problems; externalizing problems; functional outcomes; longitudinal
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29301670 PMCID: PMC5772703 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2017.09.437
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry ISSN: 0890-8567 Impact factor: 8.829
Effect of Childhood Conduct Problems on Age-18 Functional Outcomes, Using Different Symptoms Thresholdsa to Identify a Childhood History of Conduct Problems as Well as a Continuous Measure of Conduct Disorder Symptomsb
| Measurement of Childhood History of Conduct Problems | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3+ Symptoms (37.8% of Sample) | 4+ Symptoms (23.3% of Sample) | 5+ Symptoms (14.5% of Sample) | Continuous Measure | |
| IRR (95% CI) | IRR (95% CI) | IRR (95% CI) | IRR (95% CI) | |
| NEET | 1.90 (1.46, 2.48) | 2.07 (1.55, 2.75) | 1.28 (1.22, 1.35) | |
| Parenthood | 2.29 (1.28, 4.09) | 2.07 (1.11, 3.86) | 1.35 (1.20, 1.52) | |
| Cautions and convictions | 2.74 (2.03, 3.71) | 3.33 (2.49, 4.46) | 1.37 (1.30, 1.44) | |
| Overweight | 1.35 (1.13, 1.61) | 1.49 (1.23, 1.80) | 1.12 (1.06, 1.17) | |
| Daily cigarette smoking | 2.08 (1.73, 2.50) | 2.08 (1.72, 2.52) | 1.26 (1.21, 1.30) | |
| Heavy drinking | 1.57 (1.30, 1.90) | 1.63 (1.33, 2.00) | 1.15 (1.11, 1.21) | |
| Visits to ED | 1.18 (.98, 1.41) | 1.20 (.98, 1.47) | 1.10 (1.04, 1.16) | |
| Suicide attempts/self-harm | 1.51 (1.21, 1.90) | 1.53 (1.18, 1.99) | 1.14 (1.06, 1.22) | |
| Social isolation | 1.58 (1.31, 1.92) | 1.50 (1.22, 1.84) | 1.15 (1.09, 1.21) | |
| Low life satisfaction | 1.66 (1.36, 2.04) | 1.87 (1.52, 2.31) | 1.19 (1.14, 1.25) | |
Note: All analyses are adjusted for participants’ sex. ED = emergency department; IRR = incidence-rate ratio; NEET = Not in Education, Employment, or Training.
Participants were categorized as having a childhood history of conduct problems if they displayed equal to or more than the threshold number of conduct disorder symptoms at 1 or more assessment time points during childhood. Results reported in the main article using a threshold of 5+ symptoms are shown in boldface type.
The continuous measure was computed by averaging conduct disorder symptoms across all assessment time points in childhood, for children with valid data at all 3 time points (n = 2,116).
Effect of Childhood Conduct Problems on Cumulative Poor Functioning, Using Different Symptoms Thresholdsa to Identify a Childhood History of Conduct Problems as Well as a Continuous Measure of Conduct Disorder Symptomsb
| Measurement of Childhood History of Conduct Problems | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3+ Symptoms | 4+ Symptoms | 5+ Symptoms | Continuous Measure | |
| IRR (95% CI) | IRR (95% CI) | IRR (95% CI) | IRR (95% CI) | |
| Does a childhood history of conduct problems predict cumulative poor functioning at age 18 years? | ||||
| Effect of conduct problems (adjusted for sex) | 1.65 (1.49, 1.82) | 1.75 (1.58, 1.95) | 1.20 (1.17, 1.23) | |
| Is the effect accounted for by young adult psychopathology? | ||||
| Effect of conduct problems (adjusted for sex and young-adult psychopathology) | 1.49 (1.37, 1.63) | 1.50 (1.37, 1.65) | 1.15 (1.12, 1.17) | |
| Is the effect accounted for by well-established risk factors? | ||||
| Effect of conduct problems (adjusted for sex, young-adult psychopathology and well-established risk factors) | 1.32 (1.21, 1.45) | 1.31 (1.19, 1.45) | 1.11 (1.08, 1.14) | |
| Is the effect accounted for by unmeasured familial risk factors? | ||||
| Effect of conduct problems within twin pairs (adjusted for young-adult psychopathology) | 1.23 (1.08, 1.41) | 1.25 (1.07, 1.45) | 1.08 (1.01, 1.14) | |
Note: IRR = Incidence-rate ratio.
Children were categorized as having a childhood history of conduct problems if they displayed equal to or more than the threshold number of conduct disorder symptoms at 1 or more assessment time points during childhood. Results reported in the main article using a threshold of 5+ symptoms are shown in boldface type.
The continuous measure was computed by averaging conduct disorder symptoms across all assessment time points in childhood, for children with valid data at all 3 time points (n = 2,116).
Descriptive Information for Age-18 Functional Outcomes
| Outcomes | Definition | Prevalence (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Boys | Girls | ||
| NEET | NEET status as self-reported in the age-18 interview | 11.6 | 11.0 | 12.1 |
| Parenthood | Any past live birth or current pregnancy (girls) or having caused a pregnancy that resulted in a live birth (boys) self-reported in the age-18 interview | 2.6 | 1.1 | 4.0 |
| Cautions and convictions | Official record of any UK cautions or convictions, beginning at age 10 through age 19 | 10.2 | 15.4 | 5.5 |
| Overweight | BMI ≥25, assessed at the time of the age-18 interview | 25.8 | 22.7 | 28.7 |
| Daily cigarette smoking | Current, daily smoking self-reported in the age-18 interview | 22.3 | 23.5 | 21.3 |
| Heavy drinking | High (among top 20% of participants) self-reported consumption of alcoholic drinks in a typical week at the time of the age-18 interview | 20.3 | 25.6 | 15.5 |
| Visits to ED | Any visits to an ED within past year, self-reported in the age-18 interview | 20.8 | 22.8 | 19.0 |
| Suicide attempts/self-harm | Any suicide attempts or incidents of self-harm between ages 12 and 18 years, self-reported in the age-18 interview | 14.3 | 10.5 | 17.6 |
| Social isolation | High score (among top 20% of participants) on a self-report scale reverse-coded to assess social isolation at age 18 years | 20.0 | 24.0 | 16.5 |
| Low life satisfaction | High score (among top 20% of participants) on self-report scale reverse-coded to assess low life satisfaction at age 18 years | 18.7 | 19.9 | 17.6 |
Note: Further information on all outcomes is provided in Supplement 1, available online. BMI = body mass index; ED = emergency department; NEET = Not in Education, Employment, or Training.
Effects of a Childhood History of Severe Conduct Problems on Age-18 Functional Outcomes, Using Different Thresholds to Classify Poor Functioning
| Childhood History of Conduct Problems | |
|---|---|
| IRR (95% CI) | |
| Heavy drinking | |
| 20% Cut-off | |
| 15% Cut-off | 1.65 (1.28, 2.13) |
| 10% Cut-off | 1.71 (1.23, 2.39) |
| Social isolation | |
| 20% Cut-off | |
| 15% Cut-off | 1.86 (1.41, 2.46) |
| 10% Cut-off | 1.96 (1.42, 2.68) |
| Low life satisfaction | |
| 20% Cut-off | |
| 15% Cut-off | 2.05 (1.56, 2.70) |
| 10% Cut-off | 2.10 (1.53, 2.89) |
Note: All analyses are adjusted for participants’ sex. Results reported in the main article using the 20% cut-off are shown in boldface type. IRR = incidence-rate ratio.
Figure 1Differences in functional outcomes between participants with a childhood history of severe conduct problems and those without. Note: Panel a presents the percentages of 18-year-olds who experienced a poor functional outcome among those with versus without a childhood history of severe conduct problems. Panel b indicates the incidence-rate ratio (interpretable as relative risk) for experiencing each outcome for those with a childhood history of severe conduct problems. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. NEET = not in education, employment or training.
Figure 2Heat map illustrating associations among poor functional outcomes, as indicated by tetrachoric correlations. Note: ED = emergency department; NEET = not in education, employment or training.
A Childhood History of Severe Conduct Problems Predicts Poor Cumulative Functioning at Age 18 Years
| Predictor | Bivariate Model | Multivariate Model |
|---|---|---|
| IRR (95% CI) | IRR (95% CI) | |
| Panel A. Does a childhood history of conduct problems predict cumulative poor functioning | ||
| Childhood conduct problems | 1.96 (1.75, 2.18) | — |
| Panel B. Is the effect accounted for by young-adult psychopathology? | ||
| Childhood conduct problems | 1.96 (1.75, 2.18) | 1.61 (1.45, 1.79) |
| Young-adult psychopathology | 2.22 (2.03, 2.43) | 2.06 (1.89, 2.25) |
| Panel C. Is the effect accounted for by well-established risk factors? | ||
| Childhood conduct problems | 1.94 (1.74, 2.16) | 1.40 (1.26, 1.56) |
| Young-adult psychopathology | 2.22 (2.03, 2.43) | 1.94 (1.78, 2.12) |
| Socioeconomic disadvantage | 1.41 (1.32, 1.50) | 1.23 (1.16, 1.31) |
| Exposure to violence | 1.50 (1.35, 1.66) | 1.13 (1.02, 1.24) |
| Parental antisocial behavior | 1.27 (1.21, 1.33) | 1.05 (1.00, 1.11) |
| Maternal depression | 1.31 (1.17, 1.46) | 1.04 (0.95, 1.15) |
Note: The number of participants within each panel is restricted to participants with nonmissing data on all variables included in the multivariate model within a panel. IRR = incidence-rate ratio.
The cumulative poor functioning measure is the sum of all poor functional outcomes.
Results are adjusted for all other predictors within a panel and for participants’ sex.
Effect of Childhood Conduct Problems on a Measure of Cumulative Poor Functioning at Age 18 Years, Leaving Out 1 Outcome at a Time
| Childhood History of Conduct Problems | |
|---|---|
| IRR (95% CI) | |
| Excluding NEET | 1.92 (1.73, 2.13) |
| Excluding parenthood | 1.92 (1.73, 2.13) |
| Excluding cautions and convictions | 1.87 (1.67, 2.08) |
| Excluding overweight | 2.05 (1.82, 2.31) |
| Excluding daily cigarette smoking | 1.89 (1.70, 2.11) |
| Excluding heavy drinking | 2.00 (1.79, 2.24) |
| Excluding visits to emergency department | 2.03 (1.80, 2.28) |
| Excluding suicide attempts/self-harm | 1.94 (1.74, 2.16) |
| Excluding social isolation | 1.92 (1.73, 2.14) |
| Excluding low life satisfaction | 1.99 (1.77, 2.23) |
Note: All analyses are adjusted for participants’ sex. Results reported in the main article using a measure that includes all outcomes are shown in boldface type. IRR = incidence-rate ratio; NEET = not in education, employment, or training.