Child Neurodevelopment at 36 Months of Age: The Role Early Life Adversities Analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

Early life adversities (ELAs) represent a major public health concern due to their long-term consequences for clinical and developmental outcomes (1). Understanding how ELAs shape child development is essential for informing effective prevention and intervention strategies aimed at improving both individual and population-level development outcomes. The Dimensional Model of Adversity and Psychopathology (DMAP) offers a neurobiologically grounded framework to conceptualize how distinct environmental experiences influence neurodevelopment via partially unique mechanisms (2). Moreover, DMAP also contemplates the examination of multiple, co-occurring adversities that children are exposed to (3), especially in underdeveloped countries, where certain forms of adversity remain insufficiently studied (4). Here, we report our contribution to this discussion by examining how the dimensions of threat and deprivation relate to neurodevelopment at 36 months within a context of multiple overlapping adversities. We analyzed data from 36-month-old participants of the São Paulo Western Region Birth Cohort (ROC) (5). Composite measures of threat and deprivation were derived from validated caregiver-reported questionnaires. The threat dimension captured exposure to domestic and community violence, whereas deprivation reflected indicators of household quality, food security, and caregiver education. Multivariable regression models adjusted for contextual confounders were used to assess associations between ELA dimensions and neurodevelopmental outcomes, including effortful control, global development, and internalizing and externalizing problems. Of the 3,619 children enrolled, 1,567 met eligibility criteria based on data availability and absence of comorbidities. Bootstrapped estimates revealed that threat exposure was significantly associated only with internalizing problems (β = 0.43, 95% CI [0.11–0.74], p = 0.008). In contrast, deprivation showed consistent associations across all assessed outcomes, including internalizing problems (β = 0.17, 95% CI [0.03–0.29], p = 0.022), externalizing problems (β = 0.29, 95% CI [0.11–0.47], p = 0.002), reduced effortful control (β = –1.46, 95% CI [–2.08 to –0.88], p < 0.001), and poorer global development (β = –2.44, 95% CI [–3.11 to –1.80], p < 0.001).

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.