Hannah Cohen-Cline1, Kyle G Jones2, Sheetal Kulkarni-Rajasekhara3, Heather M Polonsky4, Keri B Vartanian5. 1. Providence Health & Services, Center for Outcomes Research and Education, 5251 NE Glisan Street, Portland, OR 97213, United States. Electronic address: Hannah.Cohen-Cline@providence.org. 2. Providence Health & Services, Center for Outcomes Research and Education, 5251 NE Glisan Street, Portland, OR 97213, United States. Electronic address: Kyle.jones2@providence.org. 3. Providence Health & Services, Center for Outcomes Research and Education, 5251 NE Glisan Street, Portland, OR 97213, United States. Electronic address: sheetaljkulkarni@gmail.com. 4. Providence Health & Services, Center for Outcomes Research and Education, 5251 NE Glisan Street, Portland, OR 97213, United States. Electronic address: Heather.polonsky@providence.org. 5. Providence Health & Services, Center for Outcomes Research and Education, 5251 NE Glisan Street, Portland, OR 97213, United States. Electronic address: Keri.Vartanian@providence.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extensive research has documented the association between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and poor outcomes later in life, as well as the high prevalence of ACEs in the American population. Studies consistently find that over half of American adults have experienced at least one ACE. Despite this, research on the long-term impacts of ACEs is challenging due to the complex nature of adversity. OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to define underlying constructs of adversity, and explore how they changed throughout childhood, in a low-income population. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: We fielded a survey to Medicaid-enrolled adults in the Portland, OR metropolitan area. METHODS: Our survey captured different experiences in childhood, including relationships and support, educational challenges, housing and employment stability, neighborhood environment, discrimination, abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction; questions were asked for 6-12 and 13-18 years of age. We then used factor analysis to identify underlying constructs of adversity in the two age ranges. RESULTS: We identified two factors - Inadequate Emotional Support and Instability - in each age range. Inadequate Emotional Support remained consistent in both time periods while the Instability factor changed, expanding from household-centric experiences in childhood to a wider variety of experiences in adolescence. Additionally, a number of variables did not load on either factor in either age range. CONCLUSIONS: These results underscore the importance of expanding how we think about instability specifically, and childhood adversity in general.
BACKGROUND: Extensive research has documented the association between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and poor outcomes later in life, as well as the high prevalence of ACEs in the American population. Studies consistently find that over half of American adults have experienced at least one ACE. Despite this, research on the long-term impacts of ACEs is challenging due to the complex nature of adversity. OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to define underlying constructs of adversity, and explore how they changed throughout childhood, in a low-income population. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: We fielded a survey to Medicaid-enrolled adults in the Portland, OR metropolitan area. METHODS: Our survey captured different experiences in childhood, including relationships and support, educational challenges, housing and employment stability, neighborhood environment, discrimination, abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction; questions were asked for 6-12 and 13-18 years of age. We then used factor analysis to identify underlying constructs of adversity in the two age ranges. RESULTS: We identified two factors - Inadequate Emotional Support and Instability - in each age range. Inadequate Emotional Support remained consistent in both time periods while the Instability factor changed, expanding from household-centric experiences in childhood to a wider variety of experiences in adolescence. Additionally, a number of variables did not load on either factor in either age range. CONCLUSIONS: These results underscore the importance of expanding how we think about instability specifically, and childhood adversity in general.