Evidence Hub

What Do Four Decades of Research Tell Us About the Association Between Childhood Adversity and Psychosis: An Updated and Extended Multi-Level Meta-Analysis

Lan Zhou, Iris Sommer, Pengyuan Yang, Lev Sikirin, J. van Os, R. Bentall, Filippo Varese, M. Begemann

American Journal of Psychiatry, 2025

349,265 participants · 39 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Estimating the current association between childhood adversity and the risk of psychosis is crucial for prevention and intervention. We provided an updated synthesis of evidence from the past four decades, expanded the available data by investigating a broad array of adversity subtypes, and explored sex differences and the age of psychosis onset as relevant factors.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, WANFANG, and CNKI, for case-control, cross-sectional and cohort studies on the association between adversity and psychotic symptoms/illness. Multi-level meta-analysis, prediction intervals calculation, and sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The main analysis included 183 study samples (N=349,265), with 119 case-control studies (15,186 cases; 14,879 controls), 51 cross-sectional studies (N=299,659), and 13 cohort studies (N=19,541). Significant associations between adversity and psychosis were observed across all study designs, yielding an overall odds ratio of 2.80 (95% CI=2.18, 3.60). Secondary analyses revealed that exposure to each adversity subtype increased the odds of psychosis, with the highest odds ratio (3.54 [95% CI=3.04, 4.13]) for emotional abuse, and the lowest odds ratio of (1.58 [95% CI=1.48, 1.68]) for parental antipathy. No statistically significant sex differences were observed, although the odds ratio for sexual abuse was higher for women. Onset of psychosis was earlier in adversity-exposed individuals (mean…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 349,265 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free