Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT05122988

Facing Adverse Childhood Experiences

Childhood experiences affect psychosocial well-being and mental health across the life course for better or worse. The aim of the present study is to investigate how adverse childhood experiences before the age of 18 impact psychological functioning in young adulthood, and whether social information processing and emotion regulation may mediate these associations.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Adverse Childhood Experiences Behavior Emotional Regulation Self-Control Social Behavior

Age range

18 year–21 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Observational

Primary location

University of Applied Science Northwestern Switzerland

Olten, 4600, Switzerland

About this study

The study plans to recruit 5000 young adults aged 18 to 21 representative of the German speaking Swiss population. Participant will be invited to the study by mail. Addresses stem from a Swiss sampling registry ("Stichprobenregister SRPH") and are provided by the Swiss Statistical Office. Access to this address lists is reserved to studies of national interest that are funded by the Swiss National Science foundation. Data collection will be conducted online with a REDCap survey following an accelerated cohort design. After the baseline measurement (w1), three follow ups are planned after 1 year (w2), 2 years (w3) and 3 years (w4), resulting in ages 18 to 24 being covered. The primary outcome will be psychosocial functioning across the study period.

  • Primary objective:

The primary objective of the study is to analyse the longitudinal associations between childhood experiences, emotion regulation, social information processing, social support and psychosocial functioning in young adults.

  • Hypothese 1 is that adverse childhood experiences (ACE) are associated with a higher risk for lower psychosocial functioning in young adulthood and 2) that this association is mediated by deficits in emotion regulation, social information processing and lower social support.
  • Hypothese 2 is that positive childhood experiences are associated with higher social support, adaptive emotion regulation and high well-being in young adulthood and that good relationships with parents and high social support are a protective factor in the presence of adversities.
  • Hypothese 3 is that among young adults with ACE, higher social support, seeking professional help and more adaptive coping strategies are associated with a more adaptive psychosocial functioning.

Secondary objectives are

  • to examine the effect of childhood experiences on emotion regulation and social information processing.
  • to investigate the effects of emotion regulation and social information processing on the quality of friendships and social support.
  • to analyse the longitudinal associations of childhood experiences, emotion regulation, social information processing, social support and the single variables that constitute the composite score of psychosocial functioning, e.g. well-being, psychosocial distress, risk behaviours.
  • to investigate the associations between ACE, emotion regulation and social information processing and seeking professional support.
  • Further exploratory hypotheses investigate whether there are patterns of ACE which show differential associations with emotion regulation, social information processing, support and psychosocial functioning or single variables of psychosocial functioning.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Age 18 to 21, Living in German-speaking Switzerland, Internet Access

Exclusion criteria

  • Insufficient mastery of German

Treatment and study plan

Primary outcomes

  1. Latent composite score for psychosocial functioning

    Time frame: a baseline measurement (w1)

    A single latent score for overall psychosocial functioning will be created out of the following individual variables using the MPlus software: Well-being (Ryff & Keyes 1995), Internalizing (Spitzer et al., 2011) and externalizing (Renshaw & Cook 2019) psychopathological symptoms, psychosocial burden (Brodbeck et al., 2007) and functioning in social und and work situations (Mundt et al., 2002). A higher score indicates better overall psychological functioning.

  2. Latent composite score for psychosocial functioning

    Time frame: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

    A single latent score for overall psychosocial functioning will be created out of the following individual variables using the MPlus software: Well-being (Ryff & Keyes 1995), Internalizing (Spitzer et al., 2011) and externalizing (Renshaw & Cook 2019) psychopathological symptoms, psychosocial burden (Brodbeck et al., 2007) and functioning in social und and work situations (Mundt et al., 2002). A higher score indicates better overall psychological functioning.

  3. Psychological Well-being

    Time frame: a baseline measurement (w1)

    Six dimensions (autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance) measured with Ryffs Well-being scale (Ryff & Keyes 1995), 42 item Version (Abbott et al., 2010). Scores for the subscales range from 7 to 42, and scores for the total scale from 42 to 294. A higher score indicates better well-being.

  4. Psychological Well-being

    Time frame: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

    Six dimensions (autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance) measured with Ryffs Well-being scale (Ryff & Keyes 1995), 42 item Version (Abbott et al., 2010). Scores for the subscales range from 7 to 42, and scores for the total scale from 42 to 294. A higher score indicates better well-being.

  5. Internalizing symptoms

    Time frame: a baseline measurement (w1)

    Measured with the 18-item Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-18) (Spitzer et al., 2011), containing questions about depressivity, anxiety and somatic symptoms. The total score ranges from 18 to 90, and a higher score indicates more internalizing symptoms.

  6. Internalizing symptoms

    Time frame: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

    Measured with the 18-item Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-18) (Spitzer et al., 2011), containing questions about depressivity, anxiety and somatic symptoms. The total score ranges from 18 to 90, and a higher score indicates more internalizing symptoms.

  7. Externalizing symptoms

    Time frame: a baseline measurement (w1)

    Measured with the 10-item Externalizing Problems Screener (Renshaw & Cook 2019). Total score ranges from 0 to 40, with a higher score indicating more externalizing symptoms.

  8. Externalizing symptoms

    Time frame: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

    Measured with the 10-item Externalizing Problems Screener (Renshaw & Cook 2019). Total score ranges from 0 to 40, with a higher score indicating more externalizing symptoms.

  9. Functioning in social und and work situations

    Time frame: a baseline measurement (w1)

    Measured with the 5-item Work and Social Adjustment Scale (Mundt et al., 2002), measuring impairment in different social and work situations. The total score ranges from 0 to 40, with a higher score indicating worse functioning in social and work situations.

  10. Functioning in social und and work situations

    Time frame: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

    Measured with the 5-item Work and Social Adjustment Scale (Mundt et al., 2002), measuring impairment in different social and work situations. The total score ranges from 0 to 40, with a higher score indicating worse functioning in social and work situations.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Help seeking behaviour

    Time frame: a baseline measurement (w1)

    We asked whether participants ever sought professional help due to psychological and social problems. If yes, we asked about whether they sought help in eight different types of support setting (e.g. psychotherapy, general practitioner, psychological service at school).

  2. Help seeking behaviour

    Time frame: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

    We asked whether participants ever sought professional help due to psychological and social problems. If yes, we asked about whether they sought help in eight different types of support setting (e.g. psychotherapy, general practitioner, psychological service at school).

  3. Social Support

    Time frame: a baseline measurement (w1)

    Measured with the 14-Item social support scale (Fydrich et al., 2009). The total score ranges from 14 to 70, with a higher score indicating better social support.

  4. Social Support

    Time frame: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

    Measured with the 14-Item social support scale (Fydrich et al., 2009). The total score ranges from 14 to 70, with a higher score indicating better social support.

  5. Substance use

    Time frame: a baseline measurement (w1)

    Participants were asked how frequently they used tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, party drugs, cocaine/heroin, other drugs and pharmaceutical drugs for non-medical use. For substances they used, they were additionally asked the age of first use and the 4-item Addiction Screener (Schluter et al., 2018). The total score for the addiction screener ranges from 0 to 16, with a higher score indicating worse outcomes.

  6. Substance use

    Time frame: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

    Participants were asked how frequently they used tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, party drugs, cocaine/heroin, other drugs and pharmaceutical drugs for non-medical use. For substances they used, they were additionally asked the age of first use and the 4-item Addiction Screener (Schluter et al., 2018). The total score for the addiction screener ranges from 0 to 16, with a higher score indicating worse outcomes.

  7. Psychosocial Burden

    Time frame: a baseline measurement (w1)

    Participants were asked to which degree they felt burdened in 13 different areas of life, for example school/work, sleep, romantic relationship, physical health, financial situation (Brodbeck et al., 2007). The total score ranges from 0 to 130, with a higher score indicating more burden.

  8. Psychosocial Burden

    Time frame: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

    Participants were asked to which degree they felt burdened in 13 different areas of life, for example school/work, sleep, romantic relationship, physical health, financial situation (Brodbeck et al., 2007). The total score ranges from 0 to 130, with a higher score indicating more burden.

Other outcomes

  1. Social information processing: Social Intelligence

    Time frame: a baseline measurement (w1)

    Measured with the 14-item Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale (Silvera et al., 2001). The total score ranges from 14 to 98, with a higher score indicating a higher social intelligence.

  2. Social information processing: Social Intelligence

    Time frame: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

    Measured with the 14-item Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale (Silvera et al., 2001). The total score ranges from 14 to 98, with a higher score indicating a higher social intelligence.

  3. Social information processing: Hostile interpretation bias

    Time frame: a baseline measurement (w1)

    Measured with the 32-item Hostile interpretation bias scale (Dillon et al., 2016). The total score for the hostile scale (16 items) ranges from 0 to 96, with a higher score indicating a more hostile interpretation.

  4. Social information processing: Hostile interpretation bias

    Time frame: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

    Measured with the 32-item Hostile interpretation bias scale (Dillon et al., 2016). The total score for the hostile scale (16 items) ranges from 0 to 96, with a higher score indicating a more hostile interpretation.

  5. Social information processing: Rejection sensitivity

    Time frame: a baseline measurement (w1)

    Measured with the 18-item Rejection sensitivity questionnaire (Berenson et al., 2009). The total score ranges from 9 to 54, with a higher score indicating a higher rejection sensitivity.

  6. Social information processing: Rejection sensitivity

    Time frame: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

    Measured with the 18-item Rejection sensitivity questionnaire (Berenson et al., 2009). The total score ranges from 9 to 54, with a higher score indicating a higher rejection sensitivity.

  7. Emotion regulation: Perseverative Thinking

    Time frame: a baseline measurement (w1)

    Measured with the 15-item Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire (Ehring et al., 2011).The total score ranges from 0 to 60, with a higher score indicating more preservative thinking.

  8. Emotion regulation: Perseverative Thinking

    Time frame: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

    Measured with the 15-item Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire (Ehring et al., 2011).The total score ranges from 0 to 60, with a higher score indicating more preservative thinking.

  9. Emotion regulation: Emotion Reactivity

    Time frame: a baseline measurement (w1)

    Measured with the 21-item Emotion Reactivity Scale (Nock et al., 2008). The total score ranges from 0 to 84, with a higher score indicating a higher emotional reactivity.

  10. Emotion regulation: Emotion Reactivity

    Time frame: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

    Measured with the 21-item Emotion Reactivity Scale (Nock et al., 2008). The total score ranges from 0 to 84, with a higher score indicating a higher emotional reactivity.

  11. Emotion regulation: Self-Efficacy for Managing Emotions

    Time frame: a baseline measurement (w1)

    Measured with the 7-item Self-Efficacy for Managing Emotions scale (PROMIS; https://www.healthmeasures.net/explore-measurement-systems/promis). The total score ranges from 7 to 49, with a higher score indicating a better self-efficacy for managing emotions.

  12. Emotion regulation: Self-Efficacy for Managing Emotions

    Time frame: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

    Measured with the 7-item Self-Efficacy for Managing Emotions scale (PROMIS; https://www.healthmeasures.net/explore-measurement-systems/promis). The total score ranges from 7 to 49, with a higher score indicating a better self-efficacy for managing emotions.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Facing Adverse Childhood Experiences Using New Technologies

Acronym: FACE

Important dates

Study start
2021
Primary completion
2024
Study completion
2024
First posted
Nov 17, 2021
Registry last updated
Dec 24, 2025

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.