| Literature DB >> 31159325 |
Margherita Cameranesi1, Lisa M Lix2, Caroline C Piotrowski3.
Abstract
A history of childhood abuse has been linked to serious and long-lasting problems in adulthood. We developed two theoretical models concerning how early adverse experiences affect health in adulthood, and we tested the empirical fit of the two models in a population-based representative sample of Canadian adults (N = 25,113) using a structural equation modelling (SEM) technique, path analysis. The first model included direct pathways by which a history of three types of childhood abuse-exposure to intimate partner violence, physical abuse, and sexual abuse-affected adult physical and mental health, as well as indirect pathways by which perceived social support and everyday life stress acted as mediators of these associations. The second model included only indirect pathways and tested mediating effects. Global statistics indicated that both models were a good fit to the data, and local statistics supported the hypothesized associations between independent, dependent, and mediator variables.Entities:
Keywords: adult survivor; child abuse; family/domestic violence; life course health development; path analysis; structural equation modelling
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31159325 PMCID: PMC6603908 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16111942
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Model 1 representing direct and indirect effects of childhood exposure (EXP) to intimate partner violence (IPV), physical abuse (PA), and sexual abuse (SA) on adult physical and mental health through adult self-perceived social support (SS) and self-perceived everyday life stress (STRESS).
Figure 2Model 2 representing indirect effects of childhood exposure to IPV (EXP), physical abuse (PA), and sexual abuse (SA) on adult physical and mental health mediated by adult self-perceived social support (SS) and self-perceived everyday life stress (STRESS).
Sociodemographic characteristics of the total sample (N = 25,113).
| Variable | N (%) | Variable | N (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SEX | OCCUPATION | ||
| AGE GROUP | Unable to work | 502 (2.0) | |
| 15–34 | 7936 (31.6) | PERSONAL INCOME | |
| MARITAL STATUS | HOUSEHOLD INCOME |
Note: Unweighted sample, N = 25,113; Population, N = 28,314,716.
Parameter estimates of direct effects and covariances.
| Parameter | Model 1 | Model 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unst. | Stand. | Unst. | Stand. | |
| EXP → PHYSIC_H | −0.04 | −0.01 | - | - |
| PA → PHYSIC_H | −0.14 | −0.04 | - | - |
| EXP → SS | −0.71 | −0.06 | −0.82 | −0.07 |
| SS → PHISIC_H | 0.05 | 0.21 | 0.05 | 0.23 |
| CV EXPPA | 0.04 | 0.39 | 0.04 | 0.39 |
Note: EXP, exposure to IPV; PV, physical abuse; SA, sexual abuse; SS, social support; STRESS, everyday stress; PHYSIC_H, physical health; MENTAL_H, mental health; CV, covariance; D, disturbances. Unst., unstandardized; Stand., standardized.
Parameter estimates of indirect effects.
| Indirect Path | Estimations | |
|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | |
| EXP → SS → PHYSIC_H | −0.715 (0.05) = −0.03 | −0.82 (0.05) = −0.04 |
| PA → SS → PHYSIC_H | −1.16 (0.05) = −0.06 | −1.44 (0.05) = −0.07 |
| SA → SS → PHYSIC_H | −0.68 (0.05) = −0.03 | −1.13 (0.05) = −0.06 |
| EXP → SS → MENTAL_H | −0.715 (0.06) = −0.04 | −0.82 (0.065) = −0.05 |
| PA → SS → MENTAL_H | −1.16 (0.06) = −0.07 | −1.44 (0.065) = −0.09 |
| SA → SS → MENTAL_H | −0.68 (0.06) = −0.04 | −1.13 (0.065) = −0.07 |
| EXP → STRESS → PHYSIC_H | 0.215 (−0.17) = 0.04 | 0.24 (−0.19) = −0.04 |
| PA → STRESS → PHYSIC_H | 0.19 (−0.17) = −0.03 | 0.24 (−0.19) = −0.04 |
| SA → STRESS → PHYSIC_H | 0.33 (−0.17) = −0.06 | 0.41 (−0.19) = −0.08 |
| EXP → STRESS → MENTAL_H | 0.215 (−0.27) = −0.06 | 0.24 (−0.30) = −0.07 |
| PA → STRESS → MENTAL_H | 0.19 (−0.27) = −0.05 | 0.24 (−0.30) = −0.07 |
| SA → STRESS → MENTAL_H | 0.33 (−0.27) = −0.09 | 0.41 (−0.30) = −0.12 |
Note: EXP, exposure to IPV; PV, physical abuse; SA, sexual abuse; SS, social support; STRESS, everyday stress; PHYSIC_H, physical health; MENTAL_H, mental health.
Global fit indexes of Model 2 for two subgroups of Canadian males and females.
| Fit Index | Male Subsample (nm = 11,340) | Female Subsample (nf = 13,773) |
|---|---|---|
| SRMR | 0.02 | 0.03 |
| GFI–AGFI | 0.99–0.98 | 0.99–0.97 |
| NFI | 0.97 | 0.96 |
Note: SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; GFI and AGFI, Goodness-of-Fit Index and Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index; NFI, Bentler–Bonett Normed Fit Index.