Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Jul 8.
Published in final edited form as: Dev Psychopathol. 2024 Oct 16;37(3):1543–1555. doi: 10.1017/S0954579424001561

Patterns of Early Childhood Adversity and Neighborhood Deprivation Predict Unique Challenges in Adolescence: A UK Birth Cohort Study

Zhenyu Z Zhang 1, Benjamin L Bayly 2
PMCID: PMC12181069  NIHMSID: NIHMS2081297  PMID: 39410763

Abstract

This study applies a comprehensive bioecological perspective to address a significant gap in the childhood adversity literature by employing latent profile analysis to examine the impact of diverse combinations of early childhood adversities and protective factors on adolescent psychosocial and behavioral outcomes. Drawing from the UK’s Millennium Cohort Study (N = 19,444), we identified eight unique profiles of early childhood adversity and protective factors. These profiles provide a nuanced understanding of adversity combinations and allow for differentiation between groups with similar profiles. Latent profile membership was a significant predictor of all adolescent outcome variables, indicating that profiles differed significantly from one another on psychosocial and behavioral outcomes (Wald values ranged from 10.10 – 623.22; p <.001). Some findings support the cumulative risk model, indicating that exposure to multiple early adversities increases the likelihood of adverse outcomes. However, we also found that specific adversities, such as parental psychopathology, parental alcohol use and neighborhood deprivation, uniquely impact adolescent outcomes. This study highlights the necessity for tailored interventions and policies to support children with distinct early life experiences, emphasizing the importance of addressing both cumulative and specific adversities at multiple levels to prevent psychosocial and behavioral problems in adolescence.

Keywords: early childhood adversity, adolescence, neighborhood deprivation, latent profile analysis, birth cohort study

Childhood adversity or adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) refer to experiences that involve threat (e.g., child maltreatment, exposure to community violence) and deprivation (e.g., parental separation) that occur before adulthood and are likely to require significant adaptation by a child (McLaughlin, 2016). It is well established that exposure to childhood adversity is associated with numerous negative outcomes, including poor physical and mental health, school performance, behavioral problems, and premature mortality (Kalmakis & Chandler, 2015; McLaughlin & Lambert, 2017), thus posing a great challenge to public health. Further, childhood adversity is highly prevalent, such that approximately half of children in the U.S. are exposed to adversity with the majority experiencing multiple types of adversity (Grummitt et al., 2021). These rates are disproportionately higher among families experiencing economic disadvantage (Suglia et al., 2022).

Because childhood adversity is multidimensional in terms of kind, severity, developmental timing, and duration of exposure, it has shown to be a challenging effort to capture the complexity of the influence of childhood adversity on later outcomes. One approach that has shown to be promising is the use of person-centered statistical methods (e.g., latent profile analysis; LPA) to identify unique patterns of childhood adversity, then analyze the impact of these patterns on distal outcomes. Further, given that timing of adversity has been shown to carry important implications for development, examining patterns of childhood adversity during sensitive periods (e.g., early childhood) may be especially important to understand the how unique combinations of childhood adversity impact development and inform prevention and policies. In the current study, we attempt to address these gaps by utilizing LPA with multidimensional measures of early adversity and examine how latent profile membership predicted adolescent psychosocial and behavioral outcomes at ages 14 and 17.

Early Childhood Adversity

Because there is significant brain plasticity in early childhood, which increases vulnerability to environmental effects, this period is often regarded as a sensitive window (Grasso, Ford & Briggs-Gowan, 2013). The genetic predispositions that influence developing brain architecture and long-term health can bear a persistent imprint from early experiences and environmental factors (Shonkoff et al., 2012). The developing brain is vulnerable to prolonged and severe stress, which result in a hyperactive hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis and amygdala, decreased activity in the hippocampus, changes in brain networks involving cognitive and affective functions, and other irregularities in brain functioning (Gee, 2021). Recent study has found a sensitive period from birth to 5 years old for the impact of stress and adversity on hippocampal volume in adolescence, which may impact stress-related mental and physical health outcomes (Humphreys et al., 2019). Therefore, exposure to early childhood adversity can change individuals’ developmental trajectories and confers great risks to a broad range of negative consequences in adolescence and adulthood.

A systematic review (Grummitt et al., 2021) found that childhood adversity accounted for approximately 439,072 deaths annually in the U.S., representing 15% of total U.S. mortality in 2019. Additionally, childhood adversity contributes to unhealthy behaviors such as smoking, illicit drug use, and physical inactivity, with over 10 million cases of smoking. Research has shown that exposure to early childhood adversity is associated with physical and mental health issues, substance use, violent and antisocial behaviors in both adolescence (Benjet et al., 2010; Brown & Shillington, 2017; Oh et al., 2018) and adulthood (Kalmakis & Chandler, 2015; McLaughlin & Lambert, 2017; Roos et al., 2016). Though early childhood as a sensitive period is associated with vulnerability, especially when children are exposed to adversity, this period also presents opportunities for promoting resilience and delivering effective interventions. Ultimately, early childhood adversity is preventable and examining patterns of early childhood adversity has great implications for not only prevention and treatment, but also changes in policies that prevent adversity from occurring in the first place.

A Bioecological Model of Childhood Adversity and Protection

The bioecological model of development posits that development is driven by an ongoing, inextricable interaction between biology and ecology (i.e., social and physical environment), starting from the perinatal period and lasts through infancy, childhood, and beyond (Shonkoff et al., 2012). Childhood adversity is a multidimensional construct that occurs within different environments (e.g., parental neglect and neighborhood violence), which makes it important to study through an ecological perspective. Most prior research on childhood adversity and its association with later outcomes has been focused on the individual (i.e., physical injuries) and family (i.e., maternal depression) levels in isolation. To understand how elements at higher levels of ecology may contribute to the association between childhood adversity and later outcomes, it is critical to examine the function of the neighborhood where children grow up. However, the role of the neighborhood environment has been understudied, which limits the impact of research on childhood adversity in terms of potential cost-benefit, social justice, and mitigation of health disparities (Karatekin et al., 2022). The neighborhood’s influence on development is consistent with multi-level theories of health, such as the socio-ecological model (McLeroy et al., 1988; Shonkoff et al., 2012), and extensive empirical research that demonstrates neighborhood effects in childhood adversity research (Schroeder et al., 2022; Skiendzielewski et al., 2022). For example, children and adolescents who grow up in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods are more likely to have low birth weight, childhood injury, and exposure to child maltreatment, and are more susceptible to negative outcomes, including poor physical and mental health, low quality of life, delinquency and behavioral problems (Minh et al., 2017; van Vuuren et al., 2014; Visser et al., 2021).

While long-term impacts of childhood adversity are well-established, less is known regarding how unique combinations of childhood adversity impact development. This gap in the literature stems from how childhood adversity has often been defined and assessed. Historically, researchers have adopted either specificity or cumulative risk approach (see McLaughlin et al., 2021; Smith & Pollak, 2021). The specificity model focuses on individual types of adversities, such as physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, parental divorce in isolation. There are significant limitations of this model, including failure to account for the co-occurrence of adversity, and that different types of adversity may carry different implications for later development (Bayly, Hung & Cooper, 2022). To account for co-occurrence of different adversities, the cumulative risk model has been introduced. Researchers adopting this approach count the number of adverse events experienced by the child to create a risk score regardless of the type, severity of exposure, or chronicity (Smith & Pollak, 2021). Cumulative risk model is limited in that the assumption is made that discrete forms of adversity have additive effects on outcomes and the effect of each form of adversity is equal (Evans, Li & Whipple, 2013), which has been shown to not always be the case (Thompson et al., 2019). An alternative approach, taken in the current study, is to identify unique combinations of childhood adversity using LPA and examine how experiencing these combinations of adversity impact development (Ballard et al., 2015).

Multilevel Protective Factors

Even though ACEs are highly prevalent and multidimensional, their detrimental effects can potentially be mitigated through various protective factors at different levels of influence. For example, the child-parent relationship plays a pivotal role in offering a sense of security, stability, and emotional support especially to children who have experienced ACEs (Herbers et al., 2014). A nurturing and supportive parental figure can create a safe environment where children can form secure attachment and develop healthy coping mechanisms to navigate the challenges posed by ACEs (Murphy et al., 2014; Ranson & Urichuk, 2008). In addition, children’s self-regulation skills can serve as another significant protective factor against the negative impact of ACEs. When children possess the ability to regulate their emotions, thoughts, and behaviors effectively, they can better manage stress and adversity, ultimately promoting resilience in the face of adversity (Aspinwall, 2004; Bakker et al., 2011; Daniel, Abdel-Baki & Hall, 2020). By recognizing and harnessing the power of these protective factors, professionals, caregivers, and society as a whole can work collaboratively to support children who have experienced ACEs, fostering their well-being and facilitating their path towards healing and growth.

Current Study

Existing approaches studying the impact of childhood adversity have notable limitations. The specificity model, which focuses on one type of adversity at a time, fails to account for the co-occurrence and differential impacts of various adversities. The cumulative risk model, which sums all exposures together, assumes additive effects and equal impact of all forms of adversity, which is not always the case. Both approaches often ignore the multidimensionality of childhood adversity, such as the developmental timing and duration of exposure, and typically focus on one level of adversity, either individual or family, without considering broader ecological contexts. Additionally, many studies have ignored protective factors that could inform interventions and have been restricted to certain populations, relying on retrospective reports from adults, which can introduce recall bias.

The current study aims to bridge gaps in the literature by examining patterns of childhood adversity and examining how these patterns relate to adolescent outcomes. First, LPA was used to identify different combinations of early childhood adversity and protective factors (i.e., parent-child relationship and children’s self-regulation). LPA, a data-driven approach, facilitates the identification of distinct groups within a dataset based on observed patterns. This method allowed for the examination of how different types of adversity exposures clustered across early childhood, offering a nuanced alternative to summing all exposures or examining the impact of a single type of adversity in isolation. Second, given that exposure to adversity during sensitive periods can result in detrimental consequences for children, the current study focuses on adversity exposure during early childhood (i.e., from birth to five-years-old; Humphreys et al., 2019). Third, we incorporated neighborhood deprivation as a distal form of childhood adversity along with other proximal indicators of individual and family level adversities into the model for a more comprehensive and bioecological view of adversity to inform prevention, treatment, and policy reform. Fourth, we examined the impact of combinations of early childhood adversity on developmental outcomes in the middle and late adolescence (at ages of 14 and 17). A wide variety of psychological and behavioral outcomes in adolescence were explored for a transdiagnostic perspective on the relationship of childhood adversity and later outcomes. Fifth, we used a large-scale national birth cohort study to examine unique patterns, which ensured results of the current study were relatively generalizable to the broader population. By addressing these objectives, the study contributes to existing knowledge by providing a more refined and nuanced understanding of the complexity of childhood adversity. The findings will have practical implications for prevention, treatment, and policy reform. Identifying specific patterns of adversity and their developmental impacts can inform targeted, timely, and cost-effective interventions and policies aimed at mitigating the negative consequences of early childhood adversity, ultimately promoting resilience and improving long-term outcomes for affected children.

Method

Participants

All study procedures were approved by the authors’ University Institutional Review Board. Data came from the Millenium Cohort Study (MCS, University College London, 2023). MCS is a birth cohort study from the United Kingdom (UK), with the sample coming from all births in a 12-month period beginning in September 2000 for England and Wales and three months later in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Included participants were living in the UK at nine months of age and whose families were eligible to receive Child Benefit at that age. The study aimed to reflect the UK’s increasing diversity and included oversampling from deprived backgrounds and areas with high ethnic minority concentrations. Children living in selected electoral wards were identified using the Child Benefit register, and Health Visitors helped recruit families who moved into the areas during the study period. MCS has followed participants through eight data collection sweeps from when participants were 9-months old to age 23 with the goal of aiding our understanding of physical, social-emotional, cognitive, and behavioral development (Plewis et al., 2007). In the current study, data comes from sweeps 1–3 (when participants were 9-months, three-years-old, and five-years-old) and sweeps six and seven (when participants were 14 and 17 years old).

At sweep 1, data was collected from 18,818 participants. At sweep 2, 1,389 families were added to the sample as they were deemed to have been eligible for participation at sweep 1 but excluded from sweep 1 as the study team did not have their addresses in time to collect data. Over time, families dropped out of the study due to a variety of factors including death, emigration, and permanent refusal with attrition occurring from each subsequent time point (72% of eligible families responded at sweep 7). We used data from all participants who provided responses on our variables of interest at any sweep used in the current study (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 6, 7; N = 19,444). Children were fairly evenly split between male (51.4%) and female (48.6%) and were predominantly White (82%). Seven percent of children were Pakistani or Bangladeshi, 4% Black or Black British, 3% Biracial, and 3% Indian. These race and ethnicity demographic statistics were consistent with the demographics of the UK at the time of data collection owning to the birth cohort data collection design. To account for missing data all analyses were weighted using an overall longitudinal sample weight, which was calculated using multiple imputation to predict non-response and adjusted results to account for attrition and differential response patterns (Plewis et al., 2007).

Measures

LPA Indicators

LPA indicators were selected to capture adverse experiences and protective factors at the individual, family, and neighborhood levels and were collected via parent report when the child was nine months, three-years-old, and five-years-old.

Individual Level Indicators.

Children’s independence/self-regulation and emotion dysregulation were collected via the Child Social Behaviour Questionnaire and informed by the Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE; Sammons et al., 2004) and the Effective Pre-school Provision in Northern Ireland Project (EPPNI; Melhuish et al., 2004) projects, as well as the adaptive social behaviour inventory (ASBI). When the child was three and five years old, the “primary” parent (approximately 98% were the child’s mother) rated on a 3-point scale how true a given statement was for their child (1=not true; 2=somewhat true; 3=certainly true). Independence/self-regulation was captured with five items (e.g., “child likes to work things out for self” and “child persists in the face of difficult tasks”). Emotion dysregulation was also captured with five items on the same scale (e.g., “child shows mood swings” and “child is easily frustrated”). Scores on items were averaged to create a score for both independence/self-regulation (three-years-old: M = 2.46, SD = .35, α = .58; five-years-old: M = 2.52, SD = .35, α = .59) and emotion dysregulation (three-years-old: M = 1.88, SD = .45, α = .63; five-years-old: M = 1.73, SD = .46, α = .66).

Family Level Indicators.

Family level indicators included the primary parents’ anxiety and depressive symptoms when the child was nine months and three and five years of age; mothers’ drinking when pregnant with child; parents’ heavy episodic drinking when child was three and five; and parent-child relationship quality when child was three (both conflict and closeness).

Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms.

Parents’ anxiety and depression were captured at sweep 1 (i.e., when the child was nine months) with nine items from the Malaise Inventory (Rutter et al., 1970). Responses are given as ‘yes’ or ‘no” and sample items include “do you feel tired most of the time?” and “do you often feel miserable or depressed?” (M = 1.70, SD = 1.79, α = .72). When the child was three and five-years-old parents completed the six-item Kessler (K6) scale (Kessler et al., 2003). Parents were prompted by the interviewer to think about how they’ve felt the past 30 days and rate how often they experienced a statement (e.g., “how often did you feel hopeless?”; “how often did you feel so depressed that nothing could cheer you up?”) on a 5-point scale (0 = none of the time; 4 = all of the time). Scores were then totaled across all items (three-years-old: M = 3.28, SD = 3.76, α = .88; five-years-old: M = 3.20, SD = 3.85, α = .88).

Parents Drinking Behaviors.

When the child was 9-months old, mothers’ reported frequency of alcohol consumption when pregnant on a 7-point scale (0 = never; 6 = every day; M = .55; SD = 1.04). At sweeps 2 and 3, parents reported how frequently they consumed alcohol (i.e., “which of these best describes how often you usually drink alcohol”). Responses were given on a 7-point scale ranging from ‘0’ (never) to ‘6’ (every day; three-years old: M = 2.01, SD = 1.55; five-years-old: M = 2.07, SD = 1.57).

Parent-child Relationship Quality.

Parent-child conflict and closeness were both captured via parent report when the child was three years old using the Child-Parent Relationship Scale Short Form (Pianta, 1995) which was adapted from the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta, 1992). Responses were given on a 5-point scale and closeness was captured with seven items (e.g., “I share an affectionate, warm relationship with child,” “when I praise child, he/she beams with pride) and conflict was captured with eight items (e.g., “dealing with child drains my energy,” “child and I always seem to be struggling with each other”). Scores are then summed to create an overall measure of closeness (M = 33.51, SD = 2.46, α = .70) and conflict (M = 17.14, SD = 5.91, α = .77).

Neighborhood Level Indicator.

At sweeps 1, 2, and 3 UK deciles of neighborhood deprivation were calculated using the index of multiple deprivation (IMD). The IMD is a measure of multiple distinct types of deprivation, including indicators of income, employment, health, education, housing, living environment, and crime, in a small area (e.g., neighborhood, Lloyd et al., 2023). Because the MCS oversampled children from deprived backgrounds more families fell within the most deprived decile (e.g., 17.5% at sweep 1) than the least deprived decile (7.3% at sweep 1) and mean scores were slightly below 5 (sweep 1: M = 4.58, SD = 2.92; sweep 2: M = 4.98, SD = 2.98; sweep 3: M = 4.88, SD = 2.97).

Dependent Variables

Our dependent variables were selected to capture adolescent psychosocial and behavioral challenges at age 14 (sweep 6) and age 17 (sweep 7). Psychosocial outcomes included depressive symptoms, emotional symptoms, peer problems, and hyperactivity and inattention. Behavioral outcomes included smoking, heavy episodic drinking, and antisocial behaviors.

Psychosocial Outcomes.

Emotional symptoms, peer problems, and hyperactivity/inattention at ages 14 and 17 were assessed with parents’ completion of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997). The SDQ asks parents to rate how true a given statement is for their child on a 3-point scale (0=not true; 1=somewhat true; 2=certainly true). All subscales consist of five items and total scores are calculated. Sample items for the emotional symptoms subscale include “my child often seems worried” and “my child is often unhappy.” Sample items for the peer problems subscale include “my child tends to play alone” and “my child is picked on or bullied by other children.” Sample items for the hyperactivity/inattention subscale include “my child is easily distracted” and “my child is restless, overactive, cannot stay still” (14-years-old: emotional symptoms M = 2.05, SD = 2.14, α = .72; peer problems M = 1.74, SD = 1.82, α = .62; hyperactivity/inattention M = 2.99, SD = 2.40, α = .78; 17-years-old: emotional symptoms M = 2.04, SD = 2.24, α = .76; peer problems M = 1.77, SD = 1.79, α = .61; hyperactivity/inattention M = 2.49, SD = 2.27, α = .77).

Behavioral Outcomes.

A categorical smoking variable was created at age 14 and 17, by taking adolescent responses to two questions that asked the on a likert-scale the frequency they smoked cigarettes (1=I have never smoked cigarettes; 6=I usually smoke more than six cigarettes a week) or electronic cigarettes (1=I’ve never used or tried electronic cigarettes; 4=I smoke e-cigarettes every day). If the participant reported never smoking cigarettes or only every trying cigarettes once and reported never using electronic cigarettes, they were coded as ‘0’ (i.e., not a smoker; 83.4% of 14-year-olds, SD = .37 and 66.9% of 17-year-olds, SD = .47). If the participant reported trying cigarettes more than once or using electronic cigarettes they were coded as ‘1’ (i.e., a smoker; 16.6% of 14-year-olds and 33.1% of 17-year-olds).

Adolescents self-reported their drinking behaviors as both age 14 and 17. Adolescents were asked on a 5-point likert scale “how many times have you had five or more alcoholic drinks at a time in the last 12 months?” (1=never; 5=10 or more times). Responses were dichotomized to separate adolescents who had engaged in heavy episodic drinking in the past 12 months (coded as ‘1’) and those who had not (coded as ‘0’; at age 14, 8.3% of adolescents reported heavy episodic drinking in the past 12 months compared to 91.7% who did not, SD = .28; at age 17, 52.0% of adolescents reported heavy episodic drinking in the past 12 months compared to 48.0% who did not, SD = .50).

Adolescents also self-reported on six antisocial behaviors (e.g., “have you pushed or shoved/hit/slapped/ punched someone?”; “have you taken something from a shop without paying for it?”) in the past 12 months at age 14 and 17. Responses were either “no” (scored as ‘0) or “yes” (scored as ‘1’). Responses were then totaled across the six items (14-year-olds: M = .41, SD = .71; 17-year-olds: M = .30, SD = .57).

Plan for Analysis

Our analysis plan consisted of two steps. First, we conducted LPA with the aforementioned indicators and selected a model based on model fit indices, as well as the size, distinctiveness, and interpretability of the profiles. Second, participants were weighted to the various latent profiles and weighted regressions were conducted using the approach introduced by Bolck, Croon, and Hagenaars (2004; BCH) to examine how latent profile membership predicted our dependent variables when participants were 14 and 17 years old. The BCH approach is a bias-adjusted approach, where participants probability of profile membership is weighted based on the inverse of classification errors (Bakk & Vermunt, 2016). Simulation studies have indicated that the BCH approach is less biased than other mixture modeling methods and is an appropriate method for examining the impact of latent profile membership on distal outcomes (Bakk & Vermunt, 2016). All analyses were conducted with Latent Gold 5.1 (Vermunt & Magidson, 2016), weighted with a longitudinal weight to adjust for attrition and non-response bias, and models were run with 1,000 random start values.

Results

Model Selection

LPA models were run with 1 – 12 latent profile solutions. LPA model fit was assess using Bayesian information criterion (BIC), Akaike information criterion (AIC), and consistent AIC (CAIC) and bootstrap likelihood ratio tests (BLRT) were conducted to assess improvements in model fit. In addition, we considered profile size and interpretability when selecting our final LPA model (Lanza et al., 2003). Table 1 includes fit indices) for all profile solutions. Fit indices continued to improve throughout the models and BLRT results indicated a statistically significant improvement in fit through the 11-profile model. When assessing profile size, the 10, 11, and 12 profile solutions produced profiles that consisted of less than 5% of the sample, raising concerns for power when examining the impact of profile membership on adolescent outcomes. The eight and 9-profile solutions were very similar in terms of fit and sizes of the profiles; however, the eight profiles produced by the 8-profile solution seemed to be more distinct and well differentiated than the 9-profile solution. The 9-profile solution provided an additional profile that was very similar to one profile in the 8-profile solution with the only difference being a slightly different neighborhood deprivation mean score (i.e., deprivation decile in one profile was 6.67 at nine months and 7.09 in the other profile). Because of the distinctness in profiles produced with the 8-profile solution, ease of profile interpretability, and the comparability of fit indices of the profile solutions, we elected to select the more parsimonious 8-profile solution as our LPA model.

Table 1.

Fit Indices for Models One through Twelve

Number of classes Entropy AIC BIC CAIC BLRT Smallest profile size
1 1.00 864993.39 865229.34 865259.34 -- --
2 .96 742036.23 742515.99 742576.99 p < .001 32%
3 .90 718274.68 718998.25 719090.25 p < .001 15%
4 .90 696585.31 697552.69 697675.69 p < .001 15%
5 .90 668823.63 670034.82 670188.82 p < .001 8%
6 .91 646016.63 647471.63 647656.63 p < .001 8%
7 .91 638899.42 640598.22 640814.22 p < .001 6%
8 .89 626156.41 628099.02 628346.02 p < .001 6%
9 .89 608546.02 610732.45 611010.45 p < .001 5%
10 .88 601502.34 603932.58 604241.58 p < .001 4%
11 .90 584793.45 587467.50 587807.50 p < .001 4%
12 .90 583330.92 586248.78 586619.78 p = .84 3%
Open in a new tab

Note: 8-profile model was selected

Selected Model -- Eight Latent Subgroups of Adversity

Latent profiles were named based on their unique patterns of adversity and protective factors and included: Low Risk (26% of the sample; Table 2), Parental Psychopathology (25%), Parental Psychopathology and Neighborhood Deprivation (12%), Drinkers with Child Protective Factors (10%), Affluent Drinkers (7%), Frequent Drinkers (7%), Multidimensional Adversity without Deprivation (8%), and Multidimensional Adversity (6%). The Low Risk profile demonstrated a lack of adversity, had close and non-conflictual parent-child relationships, and children had high levels of self-regulation at three and five-years-old. The Parental Psychopathology and Parental Psychopathology and Neighborhood Deprivation profiles were similar in their elevated levels of parental anxiety and depressive symptoms but differed dramatically in mean the score of decile deprivation. Three profiles were characterized by more frequent drinking both in pregnancy and when the child was three and five-years-old, but average or low mean scores on other indicators of adversity. The first of these profiles, Drinkers with Child Protective Factors had higher levels of drinking but close, non-conflictual parent-child relationships and high child self-regulation. The Affluent Drinkers profile also had high levels of drinking across time points but had higher scores on the decile deprivation score than all other profiles. Parents from the Frequent Drinkers profile had significantly higher scores than all other profiles in how frequently they drank when their children were three and five-years-old. Finally, two profiles demonstrated an accumulation of adversity across dimensions, but differed from one another in neighborhood deprivation. Families from the Multidimensional Adversity without Deprivation profile were likely to fall into a higher decile (ranged from 6.12 – 6.50 across time points), whereas families from the Multidimensional Adversity profile had the second lowest score on neighborhood deprivation decile (ranged from 2.09 – 2.13).

Table 2.

Eight Latent Profiles of Multidimensional Childhood Adversity

Low Risk (26%) Parental Psychopath-ology (25%) Parental Psychopath-ology, Neighborhood Deprivation (12%) Drinkers w/ Child Protective Factors (10%) Affluent Drinkers (8%) Frequent Drinkers (7%) Multi-dimensional w/o Deprivation (8%) Multi-dimensional Adversity (6%)
9 Months
 Anxiety/ Depression 1.07b 2.03d 2.16d 0.80a 1.26c 0.98b 2.57e 2.48de
 Drinking During Pregnancy 0.00a 0.00a 0.00a 1.87d 0.87b 1.66c 1.91d 1.82cd
 Deprivation 5.58d 5.38c 1.44a 5.09cd 10.00f 8.56e 6.12d 2.09b
3 Years
 Anxiety/ Depression 1.78b 4.26d 4.70de 1.52a 2.31c 1.78b 5.37e 5.15de
 Alcohol Use 2.02c 1.74b 1.20a 3.08f 2.84e 3.33g 2.96ef 2.36d
 Child Independence 2.55d 2.40b 2.39b 2.53d 2.46bc 2.47bc 2.36a 2.41ab
 Child Dysregulation 1.74b 1.98c 2.06d 1.69a 1.75b 1.74ab 2.04d 2.11d
 Parent-child Closeness 35.00e 32.65ab 32.79ab 34.32d 34.06c 33.92c 32.03a 31.89ab
 Parent-child Conflict 14.68a 18.87c 19.17c 14.94a 16.48b 16.43b 20.77d 20.22cd
 Deprivation 5.74c 5.62c 1.40a 5.27c 10.00f 8.66e 6.37cd 2.10b
5 Years
 Anxiety/ Depression 1.67b 4.22d 4.67e 1.29a 2.30c 1.71b 5.19e 4.91de
 Alcohol Use 2.11c 1.82b 1.20a 3.14f 2.96f 3.35g 3.01f 2.41e
 Child Independence 2.62e 2.46b 2.45b 2.61de 2.54c 2.57cd 2.40a 2.45ab
 Child Dysregulation 1.57b 1.84c 1.93d 1.49a 1.57b 1.57b 1.90cd 1.97cd
 Deprivation 5.89cd 5.70c 1.45a 5.42c 10.00g 8.68f 6.50ce 2.13b
Open in a new tab

Note: profile means with differing subscript letters differ significantly (e.g., if both profiles have an “a” in their subscript they do not differ; p < .05).

Adolescent Outcomes

Participants were weighted to the eight latent profiles and weighted regressions were conducted using the BCH approach with profile membership predicting adolescent outcomes with the Low Risk profile as the reference group and child’s sex and race and ethnicity included as covariates. In all analyses, latent profile was a significant predictor of our adolescent outcomes (all p < .001) indicating that profiles differed significantly from one another on adolescent psychosocial and behavioral challenges (14-year-old Emotional Symptoms: Wald = 442.75, Peer Problems: Wald = 462.34, Hyperactivity/Inattention: Wald = 623.22, Smoking: Wald = 71.46, Heay Episodic Drinking: Wald = 20.19, Antisocial Behaviors: Wald = 39.35; 17-year-old: Emotional Symptoms: Wald = 60.10, Peer Problems: Wald = 246.09, Hyperactivity/Inattention: Wald = 44.83, Smoking: Wald = 38.07, Heay Episodic Drinking: Wald = 108.18, Antisocial Behaviors: Wald = 10.10).

Psychosocial Outcomes.

At age 14, the highest mean scores on emotional symptoms, peer problems, and hyperactivity/inattention fell within the Multidimensional Adversity profile, followed by Parental Psychopathology and Neighborhood Deprivation, and Multidimensional Adversity without Deprivation profiles (Table 3; differing subscript letters indicate profiles differed significantly from one another). All three of these profiles had significantly higher scores on emotional symptoms, peer problems, and hyperactivity/inattention than all other profiles. In addition, the Multidimensional Adversity profile had significantly higher rates of emotional symptoms than adolescents from the Parental Psychopathology and Neighborhood Deprivation, and Multidimensional Adversity without Deprivation (which were statistically comparable to one another) and the Multidimensional Adversity and Parental Psychopathology and Neighborhood Deprivation profiles had significantly higher levels of peer problems than the Multidimensional Adversity without Deprivation profile. After these three profiles the highest rates of emotional symptoms, peer problems, and hyperactivity/inattention at age 14 fell within the Parental Psychopathology profile, which was statistically comparable to scores in the Multidimensional Adversity without Deprivation profile.

Table 3.

Latent Profile Means on Adolescent Psychosocial and Behavioral Outcomes

1. Low Risk (26%) 2. Parental Psychopath-ology (25%) 3. Parental Psychopath-ology, Neighborhood Deprivation (12%) 4. Drinkers w/ Child Protective Factors (10%) 5. Affluent Drinkers (8%) 6. Frequent Drinkers (7%) 7. Multi-dimensional w/o Deprivation (8%) 8. Multi-dimensional Adversity (6%) Sample Mean
14-Years-Old
 Emotional Symptoms 1.57b 2.37c 2.57d 1.33a 1.47ab 1.24a 2.53cd 2.89e 2.05
 Peer Problems 1.34b 2.00c 2.35d 1.16a 1.10a 1.06a 2.08c 2.59d 1.82
 Hyperactivity/ Inattention 2.29b 3.41c 3.88d 1.97a 2.23b 2.19ab 3.65cd 4.15d 2.99
 Smoking 0.16b 0.17b 0.20c 0.16b 0.11a 0.12ab 0.20bc 0.28d 0.17
 Heavy Episodic Drinking 0.09a 0.08a 0.07a 0.09a 0.07a 0.09abc 0.13b 0.13bc 0.92
 Antisocial Behaviors 0.39ab 0.41b 0.46bc 0.34ab 0.32a 0.38ab 0.53c 0.52c 0.41
 17-Years-Old
 Emotional Symptoms 1.72b 2.35c 2.53c 1.35a 1.45a 1.35a 2.51c 3.03d 2.04
 Peer Problems 1.46b 2.05c 2.40d 1.23a 1.26a 1.17a 2.11c 2.61d 1.77
 Hyperactivity/ Inattention 1.91a 2.80b 3.30c 1.79a 1.96a 1.83a 3.06bc 3.48c 2.49
 Smoking 0.32a 0.33a 0.31a 0.35a 0.30a 0.32a 0.42b 0.45b 0.33
 Heavy Episodic Drinking 0.55c 0.46b 0.24a 0.66e 0.60d 0.67e 0.55cd 0.50bc 0.52
 Antisocial Behaviors 0.29ab 0.30ab 0.28ab 0.27a 0.26a 0.34b 0.33ab 0.37b 0.30
Open in a new tab

Note: profile means with differing subscript letters differ significantly (e.g., if both profiles have an “a” in their subscript they do not differ; p < .05); higher mean scores indicate higher levels of the outcome (e.g., higher mean antisocial behavior score indicates participant engages in more antisocial behaviors.

As was the case at age 14, the Multidimensional Adversity profile had the highest mean scores on emotional symptoms, peer problems, and hyperactivity/inattention at age 17 followed by the Parental Psychopathology and Neighborhood Deprivation, Multidimensional Adversity without Deprivation, and Parental Pathology profiles (Table 3). Adolescents from the Multidimensional Adversity profile had significantly higher scores on emotional symptoms at age 17 than adolescents from all other profiles. Seventeen-year-olds from the Parental Psychopathology and Neighborhood Deprivation, Multidimensional Adversity without Deprivation, and Parental Pathology profiles did not differ significantly from one another and had significantly higher emotional symptoms scores than all other profiles. Adolescents from the Multidimensional Adversity and Parental Psychopathology and Neighborhood Deprivation profiles had significantly more peer problems at age 17 compared to all other profiles (these profiles had statistically comparable means) and the Multidimensional Adversity without Deprivation and Parental Pathology did not differ from one another but had significantly higher peer problem means than all other profiles. At age 17, adolescents from the Parental Psychopathology and Neighborhood Deprivation, Multidimensional Adversity without Deprivation, and Multidimensional Adversity profiles had comparable scores on hyperactivity/inattention and were significantly higher than nearly all other profiles (the only exception was a non-significant difference between the Parental Psychopathology and Multidimensional Adversity without Deprivation profiles).

Behavioral Outcomes.

At age 14, approximately 28% of the Multidimensional Adversity profile reported smoking, which was significantly higher than all other profiles (Table 3). This was followed by the Parental Psychopathology and Parental Psychopathology and Neighborhood Deprivation profiles (both 20%). The lowest rates of smoking fell in the Affluent Drinkers (11%) and Frequent Drinkers (8%) profiles. The highest rates of heavy episodic drinking fell in both multidimensional risk profiles (both 13% and significantly higher than all other profiles) with the lowest rates falling in the Parental Psychopathology and Parental Psychopathology and Neighborhood Deprivation and Affluent Drinkers profiles (both 7%). Finally, the mean score of antisocial behaviors was greatest in the Multidimensional Adversity without Deprivation and Multidimensional Adversity profiles (significantly higher than nearly every other profile), followed by the Parental Psychopathology and Neighborhood Deprivation and Parental Psychopathology profiles.

At age 17, the highest rates of smoking once again fell in the Multidimensional Adversity profile (45%; Table 3) but this profile no longer differed significantly from the Multidimensional Adversity without Deprivation profile (42%; multidimensional profiles were significantly higher than all other profiles). All other profiles demonstrated a fairly comparable level of smoking (i.e., profiles ranged in smoking rates from 30% - 35% with few significant differences). The three “drinking” profiles had the greatest likelihood of adolescent heavy episodic drinking at age 17, with 67% reporting heavy episodic drinking in the Frequent Drinkers profile, 66% in the Drinkers with Child Protective Factors profile, and 60% in the Affluent Drinkers profile. By far the lowest rates of heavy episodic drinking fell within the Parental Psychopathology and Neighborhood Deprivation profile (24%). Finally, the highest mean scores of antisocial behaviors fell within the Multidimensional Adversity, Frequent Drinkers, Multidimensional Adversity without Deprivation, and Parental Psychopathology profiles which did not differ significantly from one another.

Discussion

Utilizing data from a UK birth cohort study, our research investigates the complex interplay of early childhood adversity and protective factors, specifically focusing on parent-child relationships and child self-regulation. Adopting a bioecological approach to examining early childhood adversity through the incorporation of neighborhood deprivation as a distal form of adversity, along with protective factors, served a dual purpose. First, it enabled the presentation of a more comprehensive representation of how early childhood adversity and protective factors cluster together. Second, it facilitated the differentiation of groups with similar adversity profiles. For example, the inclusion of a neighborhood deprivation indicator proved invaluable in distinguishing different subgroups of children experiencing adversity. It was particularly effective in differentiating those within parental psychopathology profiles, parental drinking profiles, and multidimensional adversity profiles. These distinctions provide critical insights into tailoring interventions and policies aimed at children with specific early life experiences. Beyond characterizing these profiles in early childhood, we extended our analysis to investigate their associations with psychosocial and behavioral outcomes in middle and late adolescence. Our goal with these analyses was as to inform the development of early prevention programs and policy changes that support children with distinct profiles, ultimately improving their long-term well-being.

Unpacking Unique Models of Adversity

The cumulative risk model posits that the accumulation of multiple risk factors has a more detrimental effect on child development than any single risk factor alone (Smith & Pollak, 2021). This model is supported by our findings that increased exposure to various forms of early adversity correlates with higher risks of negative outcomes in adolescence, including psychosocial and behavioral problems. Evidently, children characterized by the Low Risk profile exhibited significantly lower risks for psychosocial and behavioral problems during both middle and late adolescence. In contrast, children with multidimensional risk profiles demonstrated the highest risk for psychosocial and behavioral problems in these developmental stages. Our identification of unique combinations of adversity profiles supports the cumulative risk model by highlighting the compounded impact of multiple adversities. This underscores the importance of considering the quantity and variety of adverse experiences when assessing long-term developmental outcomes. However, it is important to note that the cumulative risk model did not tell the complete story. Our results revealed that specific early childhood adversity combinations had unique impacts on outcomes during adolescence. For instance, children exposed to parental psychopathology were particularly vulnerable to developing psychosocial issues in middle adolescence, and these effects persisted into late adolescence. This aligns with prior studies highlighting that parental psychopathology significantly increases the risk of internalizing and externalizing problems in children (Connell & Goodman, 2002; Xerxa et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2020). Various mechanisms can explain this intergenerational transmission of psychopathology, including genetic contributions, modeling of maladaptive affect, cognition, and behavior by parents, and an increased likelihood of exposure to environmental stressors (Goodman et al., 2008; Goodman & Gotlib, 1999).

Children with profiles characterized by elevated risk of parental alcohol use (e.g., Drinkers with Child Protective Factors, Frequent Drinkers, Affluent Drinkers Multidimensional Adversity without Deprivation, Multidimensional Adversity) showed increased risk for heavy episodic drinking in both middle and late adolescence. Heavy episodic drinking represents a pressing public health concern and has been linked to a bevy of long-term negative outcomes including alcohol dependence (Silins et al., 2018), substance use disorder (Fortier et al., 2021), depression and anxiety (Berg et al., 2019), cancer, and cardiovascular disease (WHO, 2018). Several potential pathways have been proposed to explain the association between parental alcohol use and adolescent drinking behaviors. In addition to genetic factors, parents with alcohol misuse may exhibit more inconsistent parenting behavior, lower levels of parental monitoring, and provide less support to their children (King et al., 2009; Saraceno et al., 2009). These factors can lead adolescents to seek support from their peers. Affiliation with deviant peer groups can result in early initiation of alcohol consumption and alcohol misuse (Yoon, Snyder, & Yoon, 2020). Moreover, the alcohol expectancy theory suggests that parental alcohol misuse can serve as a model for shaping children’s alcohol expectancies (i.e., beliefs about the effects of alcohol consumption) and behaviors when they are exposed to alcohol. These expectancies can be reinforced once alcohol is consumed, promoting continued drinking behavior (Campbell & Oei, 2010; Montes et al., 2017; Stephenson et al., 2023).

Neighborhood Deprivation as an Indicator of Risk

The bioecological model of development emphasizes the interaction between biological and ecological systems in human development (Shonkoff et al., 2012). This model underscores the necessity of considering multiple levels of influence, from the immediate family environment to broader societal factors. In our study, the incorporation of neighborhood deprivation as a distal form of adversity aligns with the bioecological model, demonstrating the multi-level influences on child development. This approach provides a comprehensive understanding of how early childhood adversities, occurring at different ecological levels, interact and contribute to developmental outcomes. Neighborhood deprivation did not appear to play a significant role in heavy episodic drinking as rates of drinking were comparable between the Parental Psychopathology and Neighborhood Deprivation and Parental Psychopathology profiles (Parental Psychopathology was statistically higher at age 17) and the same was true of the Multidimensional without Deprivation and Multidimensional Adversity profiles. In addition, children with three profiles characterized by an elevated risk of parental alcohol use (Drinkers with Child Protective Factors, Frequent Drinkers, Affluent Drinkers) all lived in less deprived or even the most affluent neighborhoods and they endorsed significantly higher level of heavy episodic drinking at the age of 17. This is consistent with existing research (Auld, 2005; Costa-Font, Hernández-Quevedo & Jiménez-Rubio, 2014; Lewer et al., 2016), which suggests that higher socioeconomic status groups are more likely to report exceeding the lowest thresholds of regular heavy or high-intensity drinking.

Contrary to the association between drinking behaviors and neighborhood deprivation, children with profiles characterized by neighborhood deprivation (i.e., Parental Psychopathology with Neighborhood Deprivation and Multidimensional Adversity) were more likely to endorse smoking behaviors than children with other profiles at the age of 14. This is consistent with existing findings that smoking appears to be disproportionately concentrated among the relatively poor (Auld, 2005; Costa-Font, Hernández-Quevedo & Jiménez-Rubio, 2014). However, the effect of neighborhood deprivation on smoking somewhat attenuated at the age of 17, with children from other profiles increasing the likelihood of smoking and leveling or surpassing smoking probabilities of adolescents from the Parental Psychopathology with Neighborhood Deprivation profile. At both age 14 and 17 adolescents from both multidimensional adversity profiles (i.e., those who did and did not experience neighborhood deprivation) reported elevated risk for adolescent smoking compared to their peers from other profiles increasing their risk for addiction and the development of numerous health challenges including cardiovascular disease (Ding et al., 2019) and lung cancer (de Groot et al., 2018). When taken in concert these results indicate that neighborhood deprivation may be more relevant for smoking in mid-adolescence (i.e., around age 14), but sustained risk for smoking falls within subgroups of adolescents experiencing an accumulation of adversity independent of neighborhood deprivation.

Protective Factors

The inclusion of children’s self-regulation and parent-child relationships in our analyses not only allowed us to generate a better understanding of how adversity and protective factors can cluster together but allowed us to also examine if protective factors can potentially offset the risk of specific adversity profiles. Consistent with previous findings (Branje et al., 2010; Brody & Ge, 2001; Zeman et al., 2006), our results suggest that children’s self-regulation skills and parent-child relationship quality during early childhood are important factors that may reduce risk of the development of psychosocial issues during adolescence; adolescents with better self-regulation and closer, less conflictual parent-child relationships in early childhood (i.e., those from the Low Risk, Drinkers with Child Protective Factors, Affluent Drinkers, Frequent Drinkers) had better psychosocial outcomes in adolescence than adolescents from profiles with poorer self-regulation skills and less close, more conflictual parent-child relationships. This is meaningful as it indicates that while parental drinking has been shown to increase the risk for adolescent depression (e.g., Ohannessian, 2011) it can be offset through individual (i.e., self-regulation skills) and family-level (parent-child relationship quality) protective factors. This would also be consistent with previous studies that have suggested that it is not parental drinking per se that leads to adolescent internalizing challenges, but instead what often accompanies parental drinking (e.g., increased family conflict, poor adolescent-parent communication, adolescent drinking; Finan et al., 2015; Ohannessian, 2011).Adolescents from the Drinkers with Child Protective Factors had surprisingly comparable psychosocial outcomes to adolescents from both the Affluent Drinkers and Frequent Drinkers profiles. These findings also appear to be in contrast with established research linking better early childhood self-regulation and higher-quality parent-child relationships with fewer psychosocial challenges later in life (e.g., Ranson & Urichuk, 2008; Robson, Allen & Howard, 2020). While future study is warranted to unpack these results to a greater extent, it may be the case that once a certain threshold of self-regulation and parent-child relationship quality is met there is not additional protective benefit beyond that threshold. All three parental drinking profiles had better child self-regulation and higher-quality parent-child relationships when compared to the multidimensional adversity profiles (which also had elevated rates of parental drinking in early childhood and pregnancy) as well as better psychosocial outcomes in adolescence. One possible explanation would be that while parental alcohol use in early childhood does incur greater risk for adolescent psychosocial challenges, this can be offset with above average children’s self-regulation and/or close, non-conflictual relationships but there is no additional benefit of high self-regulation, high closeness, and low conflict for psychosocial problems prevention. This may also explain why associations between parental drinking and adolescent psychosocial outcomes are inconsistent with some studies finding positive associations and others not (see Wickersham et al., 2020). It may be that only when parental drinking is combined with poor child self-regulation and low rates of parent-child closeness and high rates of parent-child conflict adolescents develop psychosocial problems.

Clinical and Policy Implications

Our study benefits from a nationally representative birth cohort, which enhances the generalizability of our findings, especially within the context of the UK and carries several important clinical implications. Firstly, results support the cumulative risk model, highlighting the need for a comprehensive approach to preventing childhood adversities. While individual and family-level interventions are crucial, it’s equally important to recognize that childhood adversities operate at multiple levels and interact with each other. Neighborhood deprivation plays a significant role in child development. Therefore, policies aimed at addressing neighborhood deprivation, such as interventions related to education, housing, living conditions, and crime, should be developed and implemented (Lloyd et al., 2023). The IMD can be utilized to identify areas in need and allocate resources effectively. Specific recommendations include investing in schools located in deprived neighborhoods to improve educational outcomes and provide support services for children and families. Additionally, developing affordable housing projects and improving living conditions can reduce the impact of poor housing on child development. Implementing community policing and crime prevention programs can create safer environments, while enhancing access to healthcare services, including mental health support, can address health disparities in deprived neighborhoods. Understanding how neighborhood deprivation interacts with other adversities is also important to ensure effective prevention efforts and ensure all children receive the support they need.

Secondly, our findings reveal the unique impact of specific early childhood adverse events on adolescent outcomes. Parental psychopathology, for instance, has a distinct influence on adolescent psychosocial well-being. This underscores the importance of targeting prevention programs not only at children with parental psychopathology to address their mental health and social functioning but also at parents with mental health issues. The developers of intervention programs should consider both parents’ and children’s psychopathology as well as parenting behaviors. A transdiagnostic approach, such as focusing on emotion regulation, can be especially beneficial for those dealing with psychosocial difficulties. For example, interventions like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Parent Management Training have been shown to be effective in reducing symptoms of parental depression and anxiety while simultaneously improving parenting practices and child outcomes (Everett, Martin, & Zalewski, 2021; Maliken & Katz, 2013). Similarly, parental alcohol drinking behavior has a unique impact on adolescent heavy episodic drinking. Given that parents can model alcohol use behaviors and shape their children’s alcohol expectancies, early family-focused prevention of adolescent drinking is highly recommended (Bauman et al., 2002; Schor, 1996). These prevention programs can be expanded to include not only education on the risks of alcohol use but also strategies for improving family dynamics and communication. Parents with heavy alcohol use can benefit from these prevention programs by receiving social support, resources, and education. Moreover, interventions should include components that help parents develop additional sources of social support and socialization for their children and adolescents. In addition, our results indicate that children living in deprived neighborhoods are more likely to initiate smoking early. As family-focused prevention has proven effective in addressing adolescent smoking behavior (Bauman et al., 2002), prevention programs in deprived neighborhoods, including psychoeducation and early screening for smoking behavior, can be effective. These programs should be complemented by broader policies aimed at improving neighborhood conditions, such as enhancing access to quality education, healthcare, and recreational facilities. These unique impacts also emphasize the importance of clinicians incorporating behavioral and emotional problem screenings as part of developmental check-ups during annual visits (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2022).

Finally, it is essential to recognize that child self-regulation and the quality of the parent-child relationship during early childhood serve as important protective factors. Therefore, prevention programs should emphasize building strength and fostering resilience by enhancing child self-regulation skills and parent-child relationships. A wide range of interventions, including curriculum-based, mindfulness and yoga, family-based, exercise-based, and social and personal skills interventions, have been identified as effective in improving self-regulation in children and adolescents (see Pandey et al., 2018; Wyatt Kaminski et al., 2008). For example, family-based interventions that include components such as parent training and parent-child interaction therapy can significantly improve self-regulation skills and parent-child relationships. Programs like Parent-Child Interaction Therapy have shown success in fostering these skills and relationships. Furthermore, school-based interventions that incorporate self-regulation training into the curriculum, such as the PATHS (Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies) curriculum, can also be highly effective. These programs often include activities that help children practice self-regulation skills, such as mindfulness exercises, emotional regulation strategies, and problem-solving tasks. Additionally, integrating physical activities and exercise programs, such as martial arts or high-intensity interval training, can enhance self-regulation by promoting physical health and mental well-being. Policy recommendations should also focus on supporting these interventions through funding and resources. This includes providing training for educators and parents, creating community centers that offer family-based programs, and incorporating self-regulation training into early childhood education standards. By implementing these comprehensive strategies, we can build resilience in children and improve their long-term outcomes.

Limitations and Future Directions

The current study has a number of limitations that if addressed by future research can further aid our understanding of how unique combinations of childhood adversity lead to adolescent psychosocial and behavioral problems. First, while we attempted to select indicators of adversity and protection across multiple levels (e.g., individual, family, neighborhood), the chosen indicators are not an all-encompassing list of relevant adversities and protective factors occurring in early childhood. Future studies are still needed to continue to build our understanding of how different types of childhood adversity cluster together and predict adolescent psychosocial and behavioral problems. LPA models with different adversity measures (e.g., child maltreatment, parental incarceration) and protective factors (e.g., access to high-quality childcare, family cohesion) would produce different subgroups and may carry different implications for adolescent development. Similarly, while we included a variety of adolescent internalizing and externalizing outcomes, this was in no way was an exhaustive list.

While it may not be possible to include all measures of childhood adversity and relevant protective factors in a single LPA model (as well as adolescent outcomes), continuing to implement person-centered approaches with multiple adversities and protective factors predicting longitudinal outcomes will help build a more comprehensive understanding of how adversities accumulate within and across levels and what protective factors have the potential to offset risks. Second, while our LPA model and variability in outcomes provide support both for a cumulative model of adversity (e.g., between the Low Risk and Multidimensional Adversity profiles) and domain specific adversities (e.g., adolescents with parents who drink being more at risk for heavy episodic drinking), we do not know the underlying causes of these adversities. For example, there may be unmeasured adversities (e.g., parental stress, parents’ own experiences with adversity) that are driving the latent profiles that would help explain why our LPA indicators clustered together in the current study. Third, while the longitudinal nature of the study is a strength, it is important to note that nine years passed between our final set of LPA indicators and the first time point of adolescent outcomes. Naturally, a great deal has likely happened to families in the study. Families move, parents get divorced, children change schools and child participants likely experienced different adversities and protective factors over time that may have impacted our results in undiscovered ways. For example, parents who struggled with alcohol use or depression when their children where in early childhood may have received support and are not facing the same struggles while their children are adolescents. Conducting LPA in adolescence and examining concurrent adolescent psychosocial and behavioral outcomes could generate stronger associations between subgroup membership and outcomes and help articulate differences in experiencing unique combinations of adversity early in life compared to in adolescence. Similarly, including life transitions and support services into statistical models may help clarify associations between early adversity and adolescent outcomes. Finally, while we can speculate on the mechanisms that led from latent profile membership in early childhood to a given outcome in adolescence (e.g., association with deviant peers leading to adolescent heavy episodic drinking) we did not examine these mechanisms through mediational models. Future work can build on the current study by testing relevant mediating variables (e.g., parental monitoring) at key time points to identify meaningful indirect effects from profile membership to adolescent outcomes. These models would be meaningful and helping understand paths from early adversity to adolescent internalizing and externalizing behaviors.

Conclusion

This study uncovers distinct patterns of early childhood adversities and protective factors, shedding light on their influence on adolescent psychosocial and behavioral outcomes. The cumulative risk model is substantiated, emphasizing the necessity for tailored interventions and policies. Specific adversities, such as parental psychopathology and alcohol use, demonstrate unique impacts, and neighborhood deprivation also play a significant role. These results highlight the importance of comprehensive prevention strategies that span multiple levels, from individual to community, to effectively support young children experiencing both cumulative and domain-specific adversity. By reinforcing the main takeaways, this study advances our understanding of early adversity and provides crucial insights for designing preventive interventions and policies. The implications are clear: targeted, multi-faceted approaches are essential to mitigate the long-term psychosocial and behavioral problems that can arise from early adverse experiences. This research offers a roadmap for clinicians, policymakers, and intervention developers to create robust support systems that promote resilience and well-being in children and adolescents affected by adversity.

Acknowledgement:

We would like to thank all individuals who participated in the UK Millennium Cohort Study for their valuable contribution to the study as well as all the study team members for their tremendous efforts in collecting and managing the data. The data presented here were provided by the UK Data Service.

Funding Sources:

ZZZ was funded through a T32 Fellowship from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [T32HD101390]. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the above funding sources.

Footnotes

Conflict of interests: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Data Availability:

Millennium Cohort Study is available via the UK Data Archive. Further information about the study is found at https://cls.ucl.ac.uk/cls-studies/millennium-cohort-study/.

References

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics (2022). 2022 recommendations for preventive pediatric health care. Pediatrics. 10.1542/peds.2022-058044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aspinwall LG (2004). Dealing with Adversity: Self-regulation, Coping, Adaptation, and Health. In Brewer MB & Hewstone M (Eds.), Applied social psychology (pp. 3–27). Blackwell Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  3. Auld MC (2005). Smoking, drinking, and income. Journal of Human Resources, 40(2), 505–518. 10.3368/jhr.XL.2.505 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bakk Z, & Vermunt JK (2016). Robustness of stepwise latent class modeling with continuous distal outcomes. Structural1 Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(1), 20–31. 10.1080/10705511.2014.955104 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakker MP, Ormel J, Verhulst FC, & Oldehinkel AJ (2011). Adolescent family adversity and mental health problems: the role of adaptive self-regulation capacities. The TRAILS study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 341–350. 10.1007/s10802-010-9470-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Ballard ED, Van Eck K, Musci RJ, Hart SR, Storr CL, Breslau N, & Wilcox HC (2015). Latent classes of childhood trauma exposure predict the development of behavioral health outcomes in adolescence and young adulthood. Psychological medicine, 45(15), 3305–3316. doi: 10.1017/S0033291715001300 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bauman KE, Ennett ST, Foshee VA, Pemberton M, King TS, & Koch GG (2002). Influence of a family program on adolescent smoking and drinking prevalence. Prevention Science, 3, 35–42. 10.1023/A:1014619325968 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bayly BL, Hung YW, & Cooper DK (2022). Age-varying associations between child maltreatment, depressive symptoms, and frequent heavy episodic drinking. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51(5), 927–939. 10.1007/s10964-021-01522-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Benjet C, Borges G, & Medina-Mora ME (2010). Chronic childhood adversity and onset of psychopathology during three life stages: childhood, adolescence and adulthood. Journal of psychiatric research, 44(11), 732–740. 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.01.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Berg NJ, Kiviruusu OH, Lintonen TP, & Huurre TM (2019). Longitudinal prospective associations between psychological symptoms and heavy episodic drinking from adolescence to midlife. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 47(4), 420–427. 10.1177/1403494818769174 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bolck A, Croon M, & Hagenaars J (2004). Estimating latent structure models with categorical variables: One-step versus three-step estimators. Political Analysis, 12(1), 3–27. 10.1093/pan/mph001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Branje SJ, Hale WW, Frijns T, & Meeus WH (2010). Longitudinal associations between perceived parent-child relationship quality and depressive symptoms in adolescence. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 38, 751–763. 10.1007/s10802-010-9401-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Brody GH, & Ge X (2001). Linking parenting processes and self-regulation to psychological functioning and alcohol use during early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(1), 82. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0893-3200.15.1.82 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Brown SM, & Shillington AM (2017). Childhood adversity and the risk of substance use and delinquency: The role of protective adult relationships. Child Abuse & Neglect, 63, 211–221. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.11.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Campbell JM, & Oei TP (2010). A cognitive model for the intergenerational transference of alcohol use behavior. Addictive behaviors, 35(2), 73–83. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.09.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Costa-Font J, Hernández-Quevedo C, & Jiménez-Rubio D (2014). Income inequalities in unhealthy life styles in England and Spain. Economics & Human Biology, 13, 66–75. https://doi-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1016/j.ehb.2013.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Connell AM, & Goodman SH (2002). The association between psychopathology in fathers versus mothers and children’s internalizing and externalizing behavior problems: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 746–773. 10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.746 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Daniel SK, Abdel-Baki R, & Hall GB (2020). The protective effect of emotion regulation on child and adolescent wellbeing. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29, 2010–2027. 10.1007/s10826-020-01731-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. de Groot PM, Wu CC, Carter BW, & Munden RF (2018). The epidemiology of lung cancer. Translational Lung Cancer Research, 7(3), 220. 10.21037/tlcr.2018.05.06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Ding N, Sang Y, Chen J, Ballew SH, Kalbaugh CA, Salameh MJ, … & Matsushita K (2019). Cigarette smoking, smoking cessation, and long-term risk of 3 major atherosclerotic diseases. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 74(4), 498–507. 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.05.049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Evans GW, Li D, & Whipple SS (2013). Cumulative risk and child development. Psychological bulletin, 139(6), 1342. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0031808 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Everett Y, Martin CG, & Zalewski M (2021). A systematic review focusing on psychotherapeutic interventions that impact parental psychopathology, child psychopathology and parenting behavior. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 24, 579–598. 10.1007/s10567-021-00355-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Finan LJ, Schulz J, Gordon MS, & Ohannessian CM (2015). Parental problem drinking and adolescent externalizing behaviors: The mediating role of family functioning. Journal of Adolescence, 43, 100–110. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.05.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fortier CB, Whitworth JW, Fonda JR, Currao A, Beck BM, Levin L, Esterman M, Milberg WP, & McGlinchey RE (2020). Early adolescent binge drinking increases risk of psychopathology in post-9/11 veterans and mild traumatic brain injury exacerbates symptom severity. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 56(1), 116–124. 10.1093/alcalc/agaa075 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gee DG (2021). Early adversity and development: parsing heterogeneity and identifying pathways of risk and resilience. American Journal of Psychiatry, 178(11), 998–1013. 10.1176/appi.ajp.2021.21090944 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Goodman R (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 38(5), 581–586. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Goodman SH, Brand SR, Hersen M, & Gross AM (2008). Parental psychopathology and its relation to child psychopathology. Handbook of clinical psychology, 2, 937–965. [Google Scholar]
  28. Goodman SH, & Gotlib IH (1999). Risk for psychopathology in the children of depressed mothers: a developmental model for understanding mechanisms of transmission. Psychological review, 106(3), 458. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.106.3.458 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Grasso DJ, Ford JD, & Briggs-Gowan MJ (2013). Early life trauma exposure and stress sensitivity in young children. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 38(1), 94–103. 10.1093/jpepsy/jss101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Grummitt LR, Kreski NT, Kim SG, Platt J, Keyes KM, & McLaughlin KA (2021). Association of childhood adversity with morbidity and mortality in US adults: a systematic review. JAMA pediatrics, 175(12), 1269–1278. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.2320 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Herbers JE, Cutuli JJ, Monn AR, Narayan AJ, & Masten AS (2014). Trauma, adversity, and parent–child relationships among young children experiencing homelessness. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 42, 1167–1174. 10.1007/s10802-014-9868-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Humphreys KL, King LS, Sacchet MD, Camacho MC, Colich NL, Ordaz SJ, … & Gotlib IH (2019). Evidence for a sensitive period in the effects of early life stress on hippocampal volume. Developmental Science, 22(3), e12775. 10.1111/desc.12775 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kalmakis KA, & Chandler GE (2015). Health consequences of adverse childhood experiences: A systematic review. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 27(8), 457–465. doi: 10.1002/2327-6924.12215 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Karatekin C, Mason SM, Riegelman A, Bakker C, Hunt S, Gresham B, Corcoran F and Barnes A (2022). Adverse childhood experiences: A scoping review of measures and methods. Children and youth services review, 106425. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106425 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. King SM, Keyes M, Malone SM, Elkins I, Legrand LN, Iacono WG, & McGue M (2009). Parental alcohol dependence and the transmission of adolescent behavioral disinhibition: a study of adoptive and non-adoptive families. Addiction, 104(4), 578–586. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02469.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lanza ST, Flaherty BP, & Collins LM (2003). Latent class and latent transition analysis. In Schinka JA & Velicer WF (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Research methods in psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 663–685). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. 10.1002/0471264385.wei0226 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Lewer D, Meier P, Beard E, Boniface S, & Kaner E (2016). Unravelling the alcohol harm paradox: a population-based study of social gradients across very heavy drinking thresholds. BMC public health, 16, 1–11. 10.1186/s12889-016-3265-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Lloyd CD, Norman PD, & McLennan D (2023). Deprivation in England, 1971–2020. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 16(1), 461–484. 10.1007/s12061-022-09486-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Maliken AC, & Katz LF (2013). Exploring the impact of parental psychopathology and emotion regulation on evidence-based parenting interventions: A transdiagnostic approach to improving treatment effectiveness. Clinical child and family psychology review, 16, 173–186. 10.1007/s10567-013-0132-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. McLaughlin KA (2016). Future directions in childhood adversity and youth psychopathology. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 45(3), 361–382. 10.1080/15374416.2015.1110823 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. McLaughlin KA, & Lambert HK (2017). Child trauma exposure and psychopathology: mechanisms of risk and resilience. Current Opinion in Psychology, 14, 29–34. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.10.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, & Glanz K (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health education quarterly, 15(4), 351–377. 10.1177/109019818801500401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Minh A, Muhajarine N, Janus M, Brownell M, & Guhn M (2017). A review of neighborhood effects and early child development: How, where, and for whom, do neighborhoods matter?. Health & place, 46, 155–174. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.04.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Montes KS, Witkiewitz K, Andersson C, Fossos-Wong N, Pace T, Berglund M, & Larimer ME (2017). Trajectories of positive alcohol expectancies and drinking: An examination of young adults in the US and Sweden. Addictive Behaviors, 73, 74–80. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.04.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Murphy A, Steele M, Dube SR, Bate J, Bonuck K, Meissner P, … & Steele H (2014). Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) questionnaire and adult attachment interview (AAI): Implications for parent child relationships. Child abuse & neglect, 38(2), 224–233. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.09.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Oh DL, Jerman P, Silvério Marques S, Koita K, Purewal Boparai SK, Burke Harris N, & Bucci M (2018). Systematic review of pediatric health outcomes associated with childhood adversity. BMC pediatrics, 18, 1–19. 10.1186/s12887-018-1037-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Ohannessian CM (2011). Parental problem drinking and adolescent psychological problems. Youth & Society, 45(1), 3–26. 10.1177/0044118x11408931 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Pandey A, Hale D, Das S, Goddings AL, Blakemore SJ, & Viner RM (2018). Effectiveness of universal self-regulation–based interventions in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA pediatrics, 172(6), 566–575. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.0232 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Plewis I, Calderwood L, Hawkes D, Hughes G, & Joshi H (2007). The millennium cohort study: technical report on sampling. London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ranson KE, & Urichuk LJ (2008). The effect of parent–child attachment relationships on child biopsychosocial outcomes: A review. Early child development and care, 178(2), 129–152. 10.1080/03004430600685282 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Robson DA, Allen MS, & Howard SJ (2020). Self-regulation in childhood as a predictor of future outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 146(4), 324. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/bul0000227 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Roos LE, Afifi TO, Martin CG, Pietrzak RH, Tsai J, & Sareen J (2016). Linking typologies of childhood adversity to adult incarceration: Findings from a nationally representative sample. American journal of orthopsychiatry, 86(5), 584. 10.1037/ort0000144 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Saraceno L, Munafó M, Heron J, Craddock N, & Van Den Bree MB (2009). Genetic and non-genetic influences on the development of co-occurring alcohol problem use and internalizing symptomatology in adolescence: A review. Addiction, 104(7), 1100–1121. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02571.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Schor EL (1996). Adolescent alcohol use: social determinants and the case for early family-centered prevention. Family-focused prevention of adolescent drinking. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 73(2), 335. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Schroeder K, Dumenci L, Sarwer DB, Noll JG, Henry KA, Suglia SF, Forke CM and Wheeler DC (2022). The intersection of neighborhood environment and adverse childhood experiences: methods for creation of a neighborhood ACEs index. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(13), 7819. 10.3390/ijerph19137819 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Shonkoff JP, Garner AS, Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care, and Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, Siegel BS, Dobbins MI, Earls MF, … & Wood DL (2012). The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics, 129(1), e232–e246. 10.1542/peds.2011-2663 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Silins E, Horwood LJ, Najman JM, Patton GC, Toumbourou JW, Olsson CA, Hutchinson DM, Degenhardt L, Fergusson D, Becker D, Boden JM, Borschmann R, Plotnikova M, Youssef GJ, Tait RJ, Clare P, Hall WD, & Mattick RP (2018). Adverse adult consequences of different alcohol use patterns in adolescence: an integrative analysis of data to age 30 years from four Australasian cohorts. Addiction, 113(10), 1811–1825. 10.1111/add.14263 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Skiendzielewski K, Forke CM, Sarwer DB, Noll JG, Wheeler DC, Henry KA, & Schroeder K (2022). The intersection of adverse childhood experiences and neighborhood determinants of health: An exploratory spatial analysis. Psychological trauma: theory, research, practice, and policy. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/tra0001320 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Smith KE, & Pollak SD (2021). Rethinking concepts and categories for understanding the neurodevelopmental effects of childhood adversity. Perspectives on psychological science, 16(1), 67–93. 10.1177/1745691620920725 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Stephenson M, Heron J, Bountress K, Hickman M, Kendler KS, & Edwards AC (2023). The effect of parental alcohol use on alcohol use disorder in young adulthood: Exploring the mediating roles of adolescent alcohol expectancies and consumption. Journal of Adolescence. 10.1002/jad.12148 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Suglia SF, Saelee R, Guzmán IA, Elsenburg LK, Clark CJ, Link BG, & Koenen KC (2022). Child socioeconomic status, childhood adversity and adult socioeconomic status in a nationally representative sample of young adults. SSM-Population Health, 18, 101094. 10.1016/j.ssmph.2022.101094 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Thompson MP, Kingree JB, & Lamis D (2019). Associations of adverse childhood experiences and suicidal behaviors in adulthood in a US nationally representative sample. Child: care, health and development, 45(1), 121–128. 10.1111/cch.12617 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. University College London, UCL Institute of Education, Centre for Longitudinal Studies. (2023). Millennium Cohort Study. [data series]. 15th Release. UK Data Service. SN: 2000031, DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-Series-2000031 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. van Vuuren CL, Reijneveld SA, van der Wal MF, & Verhoeff AP (2014). Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation characteristics in child (0–18 years) health studies: A review. Health & place, 29, 34–42. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.05.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Vermunt JK, & Magidson J (2016). Upgrade manual for Latent GOLD 5.1. Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations. [Google Scholar]
  66. Visser K, Bolt G, Finkenauer C, Jonker M, Weinberg D, & Stevens GW (2021). Neighbourhood deprivation effects on young people’s mental health and well-being: A systematic review of the literature. Social Science & Medicine, 270, 113542. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113542 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Wickersham A, Leightley D, Archer M, & Fear NT (2020). The association between paternal psychopathology and adolescent depression and anxiety: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescence, 79, 232–246. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.01.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. World Health Organization. (2018). Global status report on alcohol and health 2018. World Health Organization. Geneva, Switzerland. [Google Scholar]
  69. Wyatt Kaminski J, Valle LA, Filene JH, & Boyle CL (2008). A meta-analytic review of components associated with parent training program effectiveness. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 36, 567–589. 10.1007/s10802-007-9201-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Xerxa Y, Rescorla LA, van der Ende J, Hillegers MH, Verhulst FC, & Tiemeier H (2021). From parent to child to parent: Associations between parent and offspring psychopathology. Child development, 92(1), 291–307. 10.1111/cdev.13402 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Yoon D, Snyder SM, & Yoon S (2020). Child maltreatment types and adolescent substance use: The role of deviant peer affiliation. Child & Family Social Work, 25(2), 355–363. 10.1111/cfs.12691 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Zeman J, Cassano M, Perry-Parrish C, & Stegall S (2006). Emotion regulation in children and adolescents. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 27(2), 155–168. doi: 0196-206X/06/2702-0155 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Zhang H, Lee ZX, White T, & Qiu A (2020). Parental and social factors in relation to child psychopathology, behavior, and cognitive function. Translational Psychiatry, 10(1), 80. 10.1038/s41398-020-0761-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Millennium Cohort Study is available via the UK Data Archive. Further information about the study is found at https://cls.ucl.ac.uk/cls-studies/millennium-cohort-study/.

RESOURCES