| Literature DB >> 34234182 |
Toni Fleischer1,2, Christine Ulke3, Manfred Beutel4, Harald Binder5, Elmar Brähler4, Hamimatunnisa Johar6,7, Seryan Atasoy6,7,8, Johannes Kruse8, Daniëlle Otten4, Ana N Tibubos4, Daniela Zöller5, Sven Speerforck3, Hans J Grabe9, Karl-Heinz Ladwig6,7, Georg Schomerus3.
Abstract
Childhood maltreatment has been shown to relate to adult obesity. In this epidemiological study, we investigate the association between childhood maltreatment and waist-to-height-ratio (WHtR) in a sample of the German adult population, comprising of N = 2936 participants. WHtR, an indicator for risk of obesity, was the primary outcome. Childhood maltreatment was assessed by the Childhood Trauma Screener (CTS), which assesses emotional and physical neglect, abuse as well as sexual abuse. Cohort-data were harmonized and analyzed within DataSHIELD. We used multivariable regression models to estimate the association of childhood maltreatment and WHtR at different levels of adjustments for potential confounders. Overall childhood maltreatment was associated with a higher WHtR in both sexes (women: p = 0.004, men: p < 0.001); associations were no longer significant in women after adding socioeconomic variables, but remained significant in men (p = 0.013). Additionally, we were able to identify sex specific patterns for childhood maltreatment predicting the WHtR. Emotional neglect and abuse had stronger impacts on the WHtR in women than in men, whereas physical neglect and abuse had stronger impacts in men. To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive population-based study testing various types of childhood maltreatment with WHtR in sex-, region- and weight-stratified analyses. Future studies in clinical populations are warranted to examine U-shaped correlations between increased WHtR and childhood maltreatment.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34234182 PMCID: PMC8263764 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-93242-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Descriptive analysis of the pooled data and the individual cohorts.
| Total | KORA (F4) | SHIP2/Leg | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | |
| n | 1578 | 1358 | 944 | 858 | 634 | 500 |
| 0.05 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 |
| Mean | 50 | 51 | 50 | 50 | 51 | 52 |
| Median | 51 | 51 | 51 | 50 | 51 | 53 |
| 0.95 | 66 | 66 | 66 | 66 | 66 | 66 |
| 0.05 | 8.8 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Mean | 12.1 | 12.5 | 11.8 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.4 |
| Median | 11.2 | 11.6 | 11 | 12 | 11.5 | 11 |
| 0.95 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 |
| > 34 h | 507 | 965 | 227 | 640 | 280 | 325 |
| % | 32.2 | 71.1 | 24.1 | 74.6 | 44.2 | 65.1 |
| 15 – 34 h | 429 | 41 | 309 | 23 | 120 | 18 |
| % | 27.2 | 3.02 | 32.7 | 2.7 | 19.0 | 3.6 |
| < 15 h | 124 | 22 | 110 | 13 | 14 | 9 |
| % | 7.86 | 1.62 | 11.7 | 1.5 | 2.2 | 1.8 |
| unemployed | 517 | 329 | 298 | 182 | 219 | 147 |
| % | 32.78 | 24.24 | 31.6 | 21.2 | 34.6 | 29.5 |
| 0.05 | 0.41 | 0.46 | 0.41 | 0.50 | 0.41 | 0.45 |
| Mean | 0.52 | 0.55 | 0.52 | 0.56 | 0.52 | 0.55 |
| Median | 0.51 | 0.54 | 0.51 | 0.55 | 0.51 | 0.54 |
| 0.95 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.68 | 0.67 | 0.66 |
| n | 116 | 39 | 59 | 21 | 57 | 18 |
| % | 7.35 | 2.87 | 6.3 | 2.5 | 9.0 | 3.6 |
| 0.05 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Mean | 7.7 | 7.8 | 8.2 | 8.3 | 7.11 | 7.0 |
| Median | 6.6 | 7.3 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 |
| 0.95 | 13.6 | 12.6 | 14.0 | 13.0 | 13.0 | 12.0 |
WHtR = Waist-to-Height-Ratio, an index between 0 and 1 (optimal 0.5). CTS = Childhood Trauma Screener sum: sum of all five childhood trauma categories (each with 5 levels). Depression was defined by the PHQ-9 = Patient Health Questionnaire (KORA) and BDI-2 = Beck Depression Inventory-II (SHIP). Sum scores were taken and binarised none-mild vs moderate to severe depression. For further information see methods.
Figure 1Prevalence of child maltreatment in five categories. Emotional categories as well as sexual abuse were more often reported by women, the physical categories were more often reported by men. Figure was created in R 3.5.2.
Overview of models used in the following analysis. 1 – 6 = baseline, 1a – 6a = follow-up. Models b – e are used in the sensitive analysis.
| Model Nr | Model description |
|---|---|
| 1, 1a | WHtR ~ CTS sum |
| 2, 2a | WHtR ~ CTS sum + age + educational years + occupation + current depression |
| 3–6, | |
| 3a : e–6a : e | WHtR ~ childhood trauma category |
Results from the multivariable regression models with body shape as outcome−baseline. Model 1 uses the CTS score as predictor for body shape (WtHR) only. To compare the strength of the effect, model 2 includes known sociodemographic variables predicting an increased WHtR. Follow-up: Concerning the CTS sum score as predictor of the WHtR in men, the strength of the effect was similar to the baseline. However, in women the effect was reversed. Age (increased) and educational years (decreased) are the strongest predictors for changes in body shape.
| Pooled data model | Variables | Women | Men | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta | Beta | ||||
| CTS sum | |||||
| CTS sum | 0.028 | ||||
| Age | |||||
| Education years | |||||
| Occuation | 0.003 | ||||
| Current depression | − 0.002 | 0.051 | |||
| WHtR ~ CTS sum | |||||
| CTS sum | 0.007 | ||||
| Age | |||||
| Education years | |||||
| Occupation | − 0.050 | ||||
| Current depression | 0.012 | ||||
+p < = 0.1, *p < = 0.05, **p < = 0.01, ***p < = 0.001. Statistical significant results are highlighted in bold.
Secondary analysis, results from the multivariable regression models with body shape as outcome—baseline: Model 3 – model 6 are showing the effect of each childhood trauma category on body shape. We could identify distinct differences between the sexes. In women, both emotional categories are predictors for an increased WHtR, while in men, the physical categories are relevant. Follow-up: Similar to the baseline, the sexes are affected by different categories. The trend was stable with emotional categories being more relevant in women, while physical trauma was more relevant in men.
| Pooled data model | Variables | Women | Men | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta | Beta | ||||
| Emotional neglect | |||||
| Physical neglect | 0.035 | ||||
| Emotional abuse | 0.043 | ||||
| Physical abuse | 0.024 | ||||
| Sexual abuse | −0.007 | −0.009 | |||
| Emotional neglect | |||||
| Physical neglect | 0.017 | ||||
| Emotional abuse | 0.025 | ||||
| Physical abuse | 0.013 | ||||
| Sexual abuse | 0.000 | 0.018 | |||
+p < = 0.1, *p < = 0.05, **p < = 0.01, ***p < = 0.001. Statistical significant results are highlighted in bold.
Results of the multivariable regression models of the sensitivity analysis—baseline. At BMI > = 25, the effect of childhood trauma categories was more stable in men than in women. Physical neglect remained the main predictor for an increased WHtR in men, in women, emotional neglect remained the strongest predictor for an increased WHtR, however, compared to the main analysis, physical abuse became a significant predictor as well.
| Pooled dataBMI > = 25 | Model | Women | Men | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta | Beta | |||||
| Emotional neglect | 0.038 | |||||
| Physical neglect | ||||||
| Emotional abuse | 0.044 | 0.033 | ||||
| Physical abuse | 0.050 | |||||
| Sexual abuse | −0.003 | −0.002 | ||||
| Emotional neglect | ||||||
| Emotional abuse | 0.024 | 0.013 | ||||
| Physical abuse | 0.033 | |||||
| Sexual abuse | −0.004 | 0.022 | ||||
+p < = 0.1, *p < = 0.05, **p < = 0.01, ***p < = 0.001. Statistical significant results are highlighted in bold.
Results of the multivariable regression models of the sensitive analysis for follow-up. In the obese group, the strength of childhood trauma in women became even weaker and less relevant. However, in the follow-up, we could identify sexual abuse as predictor for a lower WHtR. In men, physical neglect remained the most relevant predictor, however, emotional abuse was significant in the baseline as well.
| Pooled data BMI > = 30 | Model | Women | Men | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta | Beta | |||
| Emotional neglect | −0.003 | 0.046 | ||
| Physical neglect | 0.049 | |||
| Emotional abuse | 0.054 | |||
| Physical abuse | 0.060 | 0.056 | ||
| Sexual abuse | −0.014 | -0.014 | ||
| Emotional neglect | −0.064 | 0.047 | ||
| Physical neglect | 0.033 | |||
| Emotional abuse | 0.017 | 0.013 | ||
| Physical abuse | 0.039 | 0.016 | ||
| Sexual abuse | − | −0.006 | ||
+p < = 0.1, *p < = 0.05, **p < = 0.01, ***p < = 0.001. Statistical significant results are highlighted in bold.