Our health, wellbeing and behavior are shaped by our childhood experiences.
Exposure to trauma or intense stress, referred to as “adverse childhood experiences” (Aces) by experts, is linked to a multitude of negative outcomes later in life. These include an increased risk of developing physical and mental health problems, engaging in risky behavior, experiencing violence and lower educational attainment.
My colleagues and I wanted to understand the effect that childhood trauma may have on our relationships with healthcare professionals. We also wanted to gauge the level of comfort people had when visiting health settings. Our new research shows that Aces can be linked to distrust in health services and lower levels of comfort in hospitals and clinics.
The types of Aces that academic studies measure can vary. They typically include experiencing physical, emotional or sexual abuse, parental separation or divorce, growing up in a home where there is domestic violence or abuse, mental illness, drug or alcohol misuse, or where a household member has been in prison.
Unfortunately, Aces are relatively common. Research conducted in the UK has found that around half of people report they have experienced at least one Ace, while around one in ten report four or more Aces. And studies in more vulnerable populations find a much higher level of Aces, with more than half of male prisoners in one UK study reporting four or more Aces.
Aces are thought to influence neurological and emotional development, affecting emotion regulation and stress tolerance. Research also suggests a correlation between Aces and difficulties with delayed gratification, which is the ability to wait for a larger reward rather than taking a smaller one immediately. Additionally, Aces may be linked to lower levels of actions that benefit others, such as cooperation or helping people in need.
A growing body of international research reveals a concerning link between exposure to multiple Aces and a multitude of negative life outcomes. These include a greater likelihood of developing chronic illnesses like cancer and cardiovascular disease, as well as mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, self-harm and suicide.
Aces have also been linked to an increased use of healthcare services such as visiting accident and emergency departments, having an overnight stay in hospital or frequent GP use.
Research is starting to show that the experience of Aces can be linked to a low uptake of preventative healthcare, such as vaccination. For example, Ace exposure is associated with hesitancy to have the COVID-19 vaccine. It is also associated with perceiving public services as less supportive and having less trust in medical professionals and public services.
But until now, very little research had explored whether Aces may be linked to how people engage with health services or how comfortable they feel in health settings.
What we found
We conducted an online survey with 1,696 adults in England and Wales. We found that, in comparison to people who had not experienced any childhood trauma, people who had experienced four or more Aces were more likely to think that health professionals do not care about their health or understand their problems. Compared to people who reported no Aces, people with four or more Aces were also more than twice as likely to report low levels of comfort when using hospitals, GP clinics and dental surgeries.
Consistent with studies elsewhere, we found that exposure to Aces were associated with increased medication use, including being prescribed antibiotics. But we also found that Aces were associated with not taking medication as instructed.
In Wales and England alone, Aces are estimated to cost £42 billion. This cost is associated with various health problems, including illnesses like cancer, and risk factors like smoking.
So, unravelling the factors that could enhance healthcare engagement is crucial. This knowledge may allow us to better understand people’s needs and tailor health services accordingly.
By fostering stronger relationships between patients and healthcare workers, and enhancing patient comfort, we could potentially see a significant increase in service uptake and ultimately, improved healthcare delivery.
Dr Kat Ford is the research lead in the Public Health Collaborating Unit, Bangor University, Wales.
The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.
© The Conversation
12 Comments
Bad Haircut
Which experts? The bought-and-paid for ones like Hotez, or honest ones like Vandenbosch and MacCullough?
Bad Haircut
It was a perfectly accurate and concise summary. No more to say.
Only for those wilfully blind or deliberately obfuscating what was really going on with respect to these jabs' safety and effectiveness.
As millions more are figuring out that we were lied to about this sordid affair - from the virus' origin to the jabs' safety and effectiveness, we get desperate acts from the faithful like this article, really reaching in an attempt to paint skeptics as victims of child abuse that rendered them incapable of making rational decisions. It's pathetic, but I suppose not unexpected since they're running out of ways to avoid assigning responsibility where it actually belongs: Fauci and Co for funding the gain of function research and then lying bout the origin; governments for enforcing jab and mask mandates based on fraudulent and misleading science, the jab makers for rushing through their product with minimal testing and running PR smear campaigns against existing treatments; and the mainstream media for acting as paid and willing mouthpieces for all of the above.
Face it, the game is up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5arKeyJx9J8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSkSVvtErEw
I know you won't be moved by evidence that contradicts your position because you're not open to changing your mind.
Bad Haircut
LOL again. You can ignore facts, but that doesn't mean they're going away.
Bad Haircut
Mother Jones? Give me 20 mins or so while I laugh. I guess you have no idea who Chris Martenson is or what he does. But keep the laughs coming.
This just keeps getting funnier. Keep up the good work. The faux angry tone adds a sense of authenticity to the act.
I thought the article on this page was satire, but you, my friend, leave it in the dust.
Moonraker
It often seems to me that most of the world is traumatised by their upbringing. Of course it leads to distrust, as mentioned here, but that manifests in a total distrust of anyone in favour of one's own petty prejudices and motivated research. The difficulties with delayed gratification and cooperation are even declared as natural traits in humans and reinforced by the capitalism, which destroys human, family and social capital in the interest of a bogus "efficiency" and has absolutely no interest in creating mature, rounded humans with aims far beyond immediate gratification, ostentation and greed. It's a positive feedback cycle of social engineering.
GreenPeas
Bad Haircut
That's the cover story. If want to get nearer the truth then start looking outside the dialectic. One place to start would be Dr Sam Bailey's odysee channel.
Bad Haircut
Yup. Absolutely nothing to do with certain professionals lying through their teeth or plenty of others keeping their mouths shut of fear of retribution. Just blame it on adverse childhood experiences instead to deflect the responsibility. Anything to deflect the responsibility.
Raw Beer
Oh, so this is why many people distrust healthcare professionals, not because the latter did anything wrong...
Riiiight....
virusrex
No more to say because you could not formulate any actual argument against it, that is understandable since the article makes a very strong point and just not being able to accept it is not something that can be used to refute it.
When "those" include the whole medical and scientific communities of the world, and you bring exactly zero evidence or arguments to demonstrate they are wrong, then they are not the ones blind or obfuscating anything, that would apply to people that baselessly claim the contrary and are unable to support that claim, just making personal attacks when this is made clear.
By the antivaxxer and other antiscientific propaganda groups, the evidence is objective and clear and prove beyond any reasonable doubt the interventions are justified, beneficial, safe and effective. Even if nameless people on the internet try to convince those millions that the experts must be wrong, source: "trust me, bro"
For example you have been completely unable to disprove the conclusions of the report this article is talking about, yet insist it must be false and people have to believe you when you claim they are false without offering any kind of evidence, any kind of scientific argument against the conclusions, that is more than enough to make it clear your only argument was "LOL"
What evidence? people talking in a youtube video without offering any kind of reference are not evidence, they are at much an excuse when there is no evidence to support the point. Primary sources are the minimum level of evidence that have any kind of weight, going below that means you have no evidence and clearly understand this so use youtube videos to pretend this is not the case.
virusrex
So no comment at all about the article or the quoted text, but you still thought this was somehow relevant?
When the people distrust the professionals without anything wrong being the cause that is exactly what the research would be showing, what part of the report can you disprove if you think is wrong? if you can't that would mean the only rational option is to accept they are correct even if you personally have a systematic distrust to healthcare professionals in general.
Nothing to do, specially when you could not prove anybody was lying nor keeping quiet about something you would like to imagine is happening.
Again, do you have any evidence the relationship found is spurious? no? that is because the professionals follow a method to validate their conclusions beyond any reasonable doubt.
virusrex
A very informative article that help explaining why some people fall so easily into impossible conspiracy beliefs instead of accepting the scientific and medical consensus, it also helps contextualizing other related findings, like the correlation between believing covid conspiracies and psychosis.
The worst part is that by rejecting opportune medical help the patients end up with higher risk of further negative experiences that might solidify their mistrust by blaming the medical professionals, a patient not trusting vaccines ends up with a complicated infection that causes permanent damage which he will blame on inadequate attention when he sees how other (vaccinated) people don't have such problems.
virusrex
This is the point, people making false claims in youtube are not evidence, that is a fact that is not going away.
The experts on the other hand reference primary sources as evidence, studies with objective data, standardized methods and discussed conclusions that are peer reviewed before and after publication.