Search

Although research with adults has found strong associations between childhood adversities and increased risk of psychopathology (Green et al., 2010; Kessler et al., 2010) such research often relies on retrospective reports of childhood trauma exposure and the presence and/or timing of onset of mental health problems. Moreover, research with youth samples is limited and findings are mixed with some studies evidencing stronger associations for some classes of disorders (Copeland et al., 2007; McLaughlin et al., 2012) while other studies report no difference in the strength of associations between disorder classes (Benjet et al., 2011; Lewis et al., 2019). Additionally, most studies have been conducted in high income countries (HIC) despite children living in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) being disproportionally more likely to experience trauma than children in HIC (Das-Munshi et al., 2016; Seedat et al., 2004). The present study aims to address several gaps and limitations of the extant literature through the use of a population-based, prospective birth cohort, namely the 2004 Pelotas Birth Cohort which is based in Brazil. In a recent study based on the same cohort, Bauer et al. (2022) reported significant cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between childhood trauma exposure and psychiatric disorders during childhood (up to age 11). This study will capitalise on data that were collected at ages 15 and 18 years to expand on these findings to explore associations between childhood trauma exposure and psychiatric disorders both cross-sectionally and longitudinally up to the age of 18 years. Additionally, this study will investigate both a composite ‘any trauma’ category and two specific trauma types, interpersonal trauma and non-interpersonal trauma, as research has evidenced the differential effect of trauma type on mental health outcomes for children and young people (Ford et al., 2011; Kisiel et al., 2009).

Do official records and self-reports of offending identify the same individuals? And does this depend on the context and/or individual characteristics? These are critical questions at the heart of crime and violence research (Piquero et al., 2003). Official records and self-reports represent the two primary methods for measuring offending (Thornberry & Krohn, 2003). However, official records only capture the “tip of the iceberg” as not all crimes are reported to the police (Black & Reiss Jr, 1970; McCord et al., 2001). Additionally, there is bias in which individuals and which offences are decided to be recorded as criminal incidents by the police (Loftin & McDowall, 2010), and there are examples of misidentification errors (Geerken, 1994). On the other hand, self-reports of offending via confidential questionnaires or interviews can introduce different biases, including social desirability (e.g., response falsification), recall error, and selection bias – as individuals who have engaged in criminal activity are less likely to respond to research surveys and interviews (Junger-Tas & Marshall, 1999; Klein, 2012). Few studies have compared the two measures of offending (Huizinga, 1991), with most of these coming from the US (Brame et al., 2005; Hindelang et al., 1979; Huizinga & Elliott, 1986; Maxfield et al., 2000; Thornberry & Krohn, 2003). While this evidence suggests that both measures are generally concordant, self-reports identify higher rates of criminal offending and a significant proportion of individuals with criminal records fail to self-report (Farrington et al., 2003; Hindelang et al., 1979; Maxfield et al., 2000). The strength of agreement between official records and self-report has been found to vary by crime types and sociodemographic groups (Kirk, 2006; Piquero et al., 2014). For example, female offenders have been found to be less likely to self-report and there is less agreement for blacks than for whites (Maxfield et al., 2000). Cultural context may also represent an important factor influencing the agreement between official records and self-reports given known discrepancies in the prevalence of crime and violence in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) compared to high-income countries (HIC) (Murray et al., 2015), and different rates of official recording of crime, and potentially different levels of official bias. However, due to a lack of studies with both official records and self-reports of crime from countries outside of the US, the role of national context is poorly understood. In this proposed study, we aim to advance the evidence on the concordance between official records and self-reports of crime using two well-matched birth cohort studies from a low- and middle-income (Brazil) and high income (Britain) county. We will examine whether the agreement between the two sources differs cross-nationally, and the role of other previously examined factors (e.g., crime type, sociodemographics) in influencing the strength of agreement between self-report and official records.

Do official records and self-reports of offending identify the same individuals? And does this depend on the context and/or individual characteristics? These are critical questions at the heart of crime and violence research (Piquero et al., 2003). Official records and self-reports represent the two primary methods for measuring offending (Thornberry & Krohn, 2003). However, official records only capture the “tip of the iceberg” as not all crimes are reported to the police (Black & Reiss Jr, 1970; McCord et al., 2001). Additionally, there is bias in which individuals and which offences are decided to be recorded as criminal incidents by the police (Loftin & McDowall, 2010), and there are examples of misidentification errors (Geerken, 1994). On the other hand, self-reports of offending via confidential questionnaires or interviews can introduce different biases, including social desirability (e.g., response falsification), recall error, and selection bias – as individuals who have engaged in criminal activity are less likely to respond to research surveys and interviews (Junger-Tas & Marshall, 1999; Klein, 2012). Few studies have compared the two measures of offending (Huizinga, 1991), with most of these coming from the US (Brame et al., 2005; Hindelang et al., 1979; Huizinga & Elliott, 1986; Maxfield et al., 2000; Thornberry & Krohn, 2003). While this evidence suggests that both measures are generally concordant, self-reports identify higher rates of criminal offending and a significant proportion of individuals with criminal records fail to self-report (Farrington et al., 2003; Hindelang et al., 1979; Maxfield et al., 2000). The strength of agreement between official records and self-report has been found to vary by crime types and sociodemographic groups (Kirk, 2006; Piquero et al., 2014). For example, female offenders have been found to be less likely to self-report and there is less agreement for blacks than for whites (Maxfield et al., 2000). Cultural context may also represent an important factor influencing the agreement between official records and self-reports given known discrepancies in the prevalence of crime and violence in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) compared to high-income countries (HIC) (Murray et al., 2015), and different rates of official recording of crime, and potentially different levels of official bias. However, due to a lack of studies with both official records and self-reports of crime from countries outside of the US, the role of national context is poorly understood. In this proposed study, we aim to advance the evidence on the concordance between official records and self-reports of crime using two well-matched birth cohort studies from a low- and middle-income (Brazil) and high income (Britain) county. We will examine whether the agreement between the two sources differs cross-nationally, and the role of other previously examined factors (e.g., crime type, sociodemographics) in influencing the strength of agreement between self-report and official records.

BackgroundChildhood trauma is a proposed transdiagnostic risk factor for psychopathology, but epidemiological evidence from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) is scarce. We investigated associations between trauma and child psychiatric disorders in a birth cohort in Brazil.MethodsThe 2004 Pelotas Birth Cohort is an ongoing, population-based, prospective birth cohort, including all hospital births occurring between Jan 1 and Dec 31, 2004, in the city of Pelotas, Brazil. When the children were aged 6 and 11 years, trained psychologists administered the Development and Well-Being Assessment clinical interview to caregivers to assess current child psychiatric disorders (anxiety disorders, mood disorders, ADHD and hyperactivity disorders, and conduct and oppositional disorders), and lifetime trauma exposure (ie, experiencing or witnessing life-threatening events) including interpersonal and non-interpersonal events. Analyses used multiple imputation and logistic regression models.OutcomesOf 4263 live births, 4231 children were included in the study sample, and 4229 (2195 [51·9%] boys and 2034 [48·1%] girls; 2581 [61·7%] with White mothers and 1600 [38·3%] with Black or mixed race mothers) were included in the imputed analyses. 1154 (34·3%) of 3367 children with complete data at age 11 years had been exposed to trauma by that age. After adjusting for confounders, at age 6 years, trauma was associated with increased odds of anxiety disorders (adjusted odds ratio 1·79 [95% CI 1·33–2·42]) and any psychiatric disorder (1·59 [1·22–2·06]), and at age 11 years, with any psychiatric disorder (1·45 [1·17–1·79]) and all four specific diagnostic classes of anxiety disorders (1·47 [1·04–2·09]), mood disorders (1·66 [1·08–2·55]), ADHD and hyperactivity disorders (1·47 [1·01–2·13]), and conduct and oppositional disorders (1·76 [1·19–2·61]). Interpersonal trauma and non-interpersonal trauma were each associated with increased odds of multiple psychiatric disorders, even when adjusting for their co-occurrence.InterpretationA considerable mental health burden associated with childhood trauma is already evident by middle childhood in this sample from Brazil. Evidence-based efforts to reduce the incidence of childhood trauma in Brazil and address its consequences are urgently needed.FundingChildren's Pastorate, WHO, National Support Program for Centres of Excellence, Brazilian National Research Council, Brazilian Ministry of Health, São Paulo Research Foundation, University of Bath, Wellcome Trust.TranslationFor the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

This Stata dataset is used for teaching purposes by the MSc in Epidemiology at the University of Bristol. It is made available for other projects for training purposes only. Under no circumstances should this data be used for publication. Please see https://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/access/ if you wish to access ALSPAC data for research purposes.

Additional file 1. PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) checklist: recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol