Cited by 751Child Abuse and TraumaChild Welfare and AdoptionChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Maltreatment in childhood substantially increases the risk of adult depression and anxiety in prospective cohort studies: systematic review, meta-analysis, and proportional attributable fractions

Open access
Li, M., D'Arcy, C., Meng, X.·2016·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Background: Literature supports a strong relationship between childhood maltreatment and mental illness but most studies reviewed are cross-sectional and/or use recall to assess maltreatment and are thus prone to temporality and recall bias. Research on the potential prospective impact of maltreatment reduction on the incidence of psychiatric disorders is scarce. Method: Electronic databases and grey literature from 1990 to 2014 were searched for English-language cohort studies with criteria for depression and/or anxiety and non-recall measurement of childhood maltreatment. Systematic review with meta-analysis synthesized the results. Study quality, heterogeneity, and publication bias were examined. Initial screening of titles and abstracts resulted in 199 papers being reviewed. Eight high-quality articles met eligibility criteria. Population attributable fractions (PAFs) estimated potential preventive impact. Results: The pooled odds ratio (OR) between any type of maltreatment and depression was 2.03 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37–3.01] and 2.70 (95% CI 2.10–3.47) for anxiety. For specific types of maltreatment and depression or anxiety disorders, the ORs were: physical abuse (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.25–3.19), sexual abuse (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.88–3.75), and neglect (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.35–2.23). PAFs suggest that over one-half of global depression and anxiety cases are potentially attributable to self-reported childhood maltreatment. A 10–25% reduction in maltreatment could potentially prevent 31.4–80.3 million depression and anxiety cases worldwide. Conclusion: This review provides robust evidence of childhood maltreatment increasing the risk for depression and anxiety, and reinforces the need for effective programs and policies to reduce its occurrence.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291715002743

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These social concerns are well-known risk factors for mental health and psychosocial wellbeing.

    “These social concerns are well-known risk factors for mental health and psychosocial wellbeing [37, 38].”

    From Mental health and psychosocial support for South Sudanese refugees in northern Uganda: a needs and resource assessment (2016) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Introduction identifies childhood maltreatment as a contributor to depression and anxiety and a threat to relationships and other aspects of psychosocial development. It does not establish that social concerns generally are risk factors; support is limited to the specific concern of childhood maltreatment. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Systematic reviews and meta-analyses consistently show associations between childhood maltreatment and a range of psychiatric disorders, including depression, anxiety, psychosis, suicidality, non-suicidal self-injury, ADHD, conduct disorder, and substance abuse.

    “For example, systematic reviews and meta-analyses consistently show associations between childhood maltreatment and a range of psychiatric disorders, such as depression (1), anxiety (2), psychosis (3), suicidality (4), non-suicidal self-injury (5), attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (6), conduct disorder (7), and substance abuse (8).”
  • Childhood maltreatment is a well-established risk factor for mental health problems.

    “Childhood maltreatment is a well-established risk factor for mental health problems.”
  • The genetic contribution to MDD is estimated between 30-40%.

    “The genetic contribution to MDD is estimated between 30-40%, with higher heritability in family and twin-based studies than single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based estimates from genome-wide association studies (GWAS).”

    From Major depressive disorder (2016) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Introduction and Abstract discuss childhood maltreatment as a risk factor for depression and anxiety, not genetic contribution to MDD. Searches for the 30–40% estimate and for heritability, twin studies, SNPs, and GWAS found no passage addressing the claim in our copy; the available passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Heritability estimates for MDD are higher in family and twin-based studies than in SNP-based estimates from GWAS.

    “with higher heritability in family and twin-based studies than single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based estimates from genome-wide association studies (GWAS)”

    From Major depressive disorder (2016) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Introduction describes a review of childhood maltreatment and later depression or anxiety, and the Meta-analysis section reports pooled estimates of those associations. Searches for heritability, family and twin studies, SNPs, and GWAS found no passage comparing heritability estimates. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Stroup D, Berlin J, Morton S, Ingram O, Williamson G, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB, the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group (2000). Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Journal of the American Medical Association 283, 2008-2012.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, M., D'Arcy, C., & Meng, X.
Affiliations
  • University of Saskatchewan (CA)
  • Douglas Mental Health University Institute (CA)
Corresponding author
Meng, X.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2015-12-28
Volume
46
Issue
4
Pages
717-730
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2230117712
Cited by
751
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 79 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 85 · 2023: 91 · 2022: 102 · 2021: 87 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 10
FWCI
3.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
child abuse, depression, anxiety disorders, physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, population attributable fraction, prospective cohort, prevention of mental illness, temporality, recall bias
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Prospective Studies, Odds Ratio, Adult Survivors of Child Abuse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review