Kelly C Young-Wolff1, Amy Alabaster1, Brigid McCaw2, Nicole Stoller1, Carey Watson3, Stacy Sterling1, Kathryn K Ridout4, Tracy Flanagan5. 1. 1 Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California. 2. 2 Family Violence Prevention Program, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California. 3. 3 Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaiser Antioch Medical Center, Antioch, California. 4. 4 Department of Psychiatry, Kaiser Permanente San Jose, San Jose, California. 5. 5 The Permanente Medical Group, Regional Offices, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Little is known about how exposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and protective factors, such as resilience, influence prenatal mental and behavioral health. This study examined associations between exposure to ACEs and mental and behavioral health during pregnancy overall and among women with high versus low levels of resilience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women in two Kaiser Permanente Northern California medical centers were screened for ACEs and resilience during prenatal care (∼14-23 weeks of gestation; N = 355). Multivariable logistic regression analyses examined associations between ACEs and prenatal mental and behavioral health conditions overall and for women with low (≤32) versus high (>32) resilience on the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale. RESULTS: Overall, 54% of women reported 0 ACEs, 28% 1-2 ACEs, and 18% 3+ ACEs. Relative to women with 0 ACEs, those with 1-2 ACEs had higher odds of an anxiety or depressive disorder and intimate partner violence (IPV) (odds ratios [ORs] 2.42-3.12, p < 0.05), and those with 3+ ACEs had higher odds of an anxiety or depressive disorder, depression symptoms, and IPV (ORs 3.08-4.71, p < 0.05). In stratified analyses by high (56%) and low (44%) resilience, having one or more ACEs (vs. 0 ACEs) was only associated with worse mental and behavioral health in women with low resilience. CONCLUSIONS: ACEs predicted mental and behavioral health conditions among pregnant women, and associations were the strongest among women with low levels of current resilience. Longitudinal research is needed to understand the causal mechanisms underlying these associations.
INTRODUCTION: Little is known about how exposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and protective factors, such as resilience, influence prenatal mental and behavioral health. This study examined associations between exposure to ACEs and mental and behavioral health during pregnancy overall and among women with high versus low levels of resilience. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Women in two Kaiser Permanente Northern California medical centers were screened for ACEs and resilience during prenatal care (∼14-23 weeks of gestation; N = 355). Multivariable logistic regression analyses examined associations between ACEs and prenatal mental and behavioral health conditions overall and for women with low (≤32) versus high (>32) resilience on the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale. RESULTS: Overall, 54% of women reported 0 ACEs, 28% 1-2 ACEs, and 18% 3+ ACEs. Relative to women with 0 ACEs, those with 1-2 ACEs had higher odds of an anxiety or depressive disorder and intimate partner violence (IPV) (odds ratios [ORs] 2.42-3.12, p < 0.05), and those with 3+ ACEs had higher odds of an anxiety or depressive disorder, depression symptoms, and IPV (ORs 3.08-4.71, p < 0.05). In stratified analyses by high (56%) and low (44%) resilience, having one or more ACEs (vs. 0 ACEs) was only associated with worse mental and behavioral health in women with low resilience. CONCLUSIONS: ACEs predicted mental and behavioral health conditions among pregnant women, and associations were the strongest among women with low levels of current resilience. Longitudinal research is needed to understand the causal mechanisms underlying these associations.
Authors: Robert F Anda; Vincent J Felitti; J Douglas Bremner; John D Walker; Charles Whitfield; Bruce D Perry; Shanta R Dube; Wayne H Giles Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2005-11-29 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Daniel P Chapman; Charles L Whitfield; Vincent J Felitti; Shanta R Dube; Valerie J Edwards; Robert F Anda Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2004-10-15 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Andrea Schulz; Mathias Becker; Sandra Van der Auwera; Sven Barnow; Katja Appel; Jessie Mahler; Carsten Oliver Schmidt; Ulrich John; Harald J Freyberger; Hans J Grabe Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Manfred E Beutel; Ana N Tibubos; Eva M Klein; Gabriele Schmutzer; Iris Reiner; Rüya-Daniela Kocalevent; Elmar Brähler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Shannon D Donofry; Chelsea M Stillman; Jamie L Hanson; Margaret Sheridan; Shufang Sun; Eric B Loucks; Kirk I Erickson Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2021-10-05 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Chad Lance Hemady; Lydia Gabriela Speyer; Aja Louise Murray; Ruth Harriet Brown; Franziska Meinck; Deborah Fry; Huyen Do; Siham Sikander; Bernadette Madrid; Asvini Fernando; Susan Walker; Michael Dunne; Sarah Foley; Claire Hughes; Joseph Osafo; Adriana Baban; Diana Taut; Catherine L Ward; Vo Van Thang; Pasco Fearon; Mark Tomlinson; Sara Valdebenito; Manuel Eisner Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 3.105
Authors: Nichole Nidey; Katherine Bowers; Robert T Ammerman; Anita N Shah; Kieran J Phelan; Margaret J Clark; Judith B Van Ginkel; Alonzo T Folger Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Carey Watson; Julia Wei; Nicole Varnado; Normelena Rios; Tracy Flanagan; Amy Alabaster; Mary Staunton; Stacy A Sterling; Erica P Gunderson; Kelly C Young-Wolff Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Natalie M Leblanc; Kamila Alexander; Sierra Carter; Hugh Crean; Ladrea Ingram; James Kobie; James McMahon Journal: Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle) Date: 2020-05-19