AzTrials
AzTrials

Adverse Childhood ExperiencesFACENCT05122988

Facing Adverse Childhood Experiences

An observational study of Adverse Childhood Experiences, run by University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland at 1 site in Switzerland.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

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… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 21 years
Conditions the study is for
Adverse Childhood Experiences
How many people
2,606 participants
Where
1 siteSwitzerland
Study dates
28 Oct 2021to 1 May 2024
Phase
Observational
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 to 21 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult

Study population: General population of 18 to 21 years old from the German speaking region of Switzerland. Adresses stem from the Swiss household survey and are provided by the Federal Statistical Office.

Who may be able to join

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

Who cannot join

  • Insufficient mastery of German

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Switzerland1 site

  • University of Applied Science Northwestern Switzerland

    Olten, 4600

Other trials in Switzerland

About this study

Official title: Facing Adverse Childhood Experiences Using New Technologies

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.

Read the detailed description

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.

  1. 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
  1. to examine the effect of childhood experiences on emotion regulation and social information processing.
  2. to investigate the effects of emotion regulation and social information processing on the quality of friendships and social support.
  3. 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.
  4. to investigate the associations between ACE, emotion regulation and social information processing and seeking professional support.
  5. 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.
Keywords
Adverse childhood experiences, psychosocial functioning, emotion regulation, social information processing, social support
Medical subject headings
Emotional Regulation

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

Study groups in NCT05122988
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
age 18n=1017
age 19n=676
age 20n=337
age 21n=500

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Latent composite score for psychosocial functioning

    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.

    Measured: a baseline measurement (w1)

  2. Latent composite score for psychosocial functioning

    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.

    Measured: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

  3. Psychological Well-being

    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.

    Measured: a baseline measurement (w1)

  4. Psychological Well-being

    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.

    Measured: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

  5. Internalizing symptoms

    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.

    Measured: a baseline measurement (w1)

  6. Internalizing symptoms

    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.

    Measured: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

  7. Externalizing symptoms

    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.

    Measured: a baseline measurement (w1)

  8. Externalizing symptoms

    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.

    Measured: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

  9. Functioning in social und and work situations

    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.

    Measured: a baseline measurement (w1)

  10. Functioning in social und and work situations

    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.

    Measured: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

Secondary outcomes (8)

  1. Help seeking behaviour

    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).

    Measured: a baseline measurement (w1)

  2. Help seeking behaviour

    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).

    Measured: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

  3. Social Support

    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.

    Measured: a baseline measurement (w1)

  4. Social Support

    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.

    Measured: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

  5. Substance use

    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.

    Measured: a baseline measurement (w1)

  6. Substance use

    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.

    Measured: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

  7. Psychosocial Burden

    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.

    Measured: a baseline measurement (w1)

  8. Psychosocial Burden

    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.

    Measured: change over 3 years (from w1 to w4)

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted17 Nov 2021
  2. Study start28 Oct 2021
  3. Primary completion1 May 2024
  4. Study completion1 May 2024

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrolment
2,606 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT05122988
Sponsor's protocol ID
SNF Nr. 100019_197731
Acronym
FACE
Status last verified
Dec 2025
First submitted
27 Sep 2021
Last updated
24 Dec 2025
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Yes: De-identified individual participant data will be available on request to interested researchers

Publications

  • Bernstein DP, Stein JA, Newcomb MD, Walker E, Pogge D, Ahluvalia T, Stokes J, Handelsman L, Medrano M, Desmond D, Zule W. Development and validation of a brief screening version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Child Abuse Negl. 2003 Feb;27(2):169-90. doi: 10.1016/s0145-2134(02)00541-0.

    PubMed 12615092

  • Norman RE, Byambaa M, De R, Butchart A, Scott J, Vos T. The long-term health consequences of child physical abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2012;9(11):e1001349. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001349. Epub 2012 Nov 27.

    PubMed 23209385

  • Weissman DG, Bitran D, Miller AB, Schaefer JD, Sheridan MA, McLaughlin KA. Difficulties with emotion regulation as a transdiagnostic mechanism linking child maltreatment with the emergence of psychopathology. Dev Psychopathol. 2019 Aug;31(3):899-915. doi: 10.1017/S0954579419000348. Epub 2019 Apr 8.

    PubMed 30957738

  • Pollak SD. Multilevel developmental approaches to understanding the effects of child maltreatment: Recent advances and future challenges. Dev Psychopathol. 2015 Nov;27(4 Pt 2):1387-97. doi: 10.1017/S0954579415000826.

    PubMed 26535932

  • Abbott RA, Ploubidis GB, Huppert FA, Kuh D, Croudace TJ. An Evaluation of the Precision of Measurement of Ryff's Psychological Well-Being Scales in a Population Sample. Soc Indic Res. 2010 Jul;97(3):357-373. doi: 10.1007/s11205-009-9506-x. Epub 2009 Sep 1.

    PubMed 20543875

  • Berenson KR, Gyurak A, Ayduk O, Downey G, Garner MJ, Mogg K, Bradley BP, Pine DS. Rejection sensitivity and disruption of attention by social threat cues. J Res Pers. 2009 Dec 1;43(6):1064-1072. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.07.007.

    PubMed 20160869

  • Brodbeck J, Matter M, Page J, Moggi F. Motives for cannabis use as a moderator variable of distress among young adults. Addict Behav. 2007 Aug;32(8):1537-45. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.11.012. Epub 2006 Dec 18.

    PubMed 17178197

  • Dillon KH, Allan NP, Cougle JR, Fincham FD. Measuring Hostile Interpretation Bias: The WSAP-Hostility Scale. Assessment. 2016 Dec;23(6):707-719. doi: 10.1177/1073191115599052. Epub 2015 Aug 6.

    PubMed 26251297

  • Ehring T, Zetsche U, Weidacker K, Wahl K, Schonfeld S, Ehlers A. The Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire (PTQ): validation of a content-independent measure of repetitive negative thinking. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2011 Jun;42(2):225-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2010.12.003. Epub 2010 Dec 21.

    PubMed 21315886

  • Ryff CD, Keyes CL. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995 Oct;69(4):719-27. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.69.4.719.

    PubMed 7473027

  • Nock MK, Wedig MM, Holmberg EB, Hooley JM. The emotion reactivity scale: development, evaluation, and relation to self-injurious thoughts and behaviors. Behav Ther. 2008 Jun;39(2):107-16. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2007.05.005. Epub 2007 Oct 29.

    PubMed 18502244

  • Mundt JC, Marks IM, Shear MK, Greist JH. The Work and Social Adjustment Scale: a simple measure of impairment in functioning. Br J Psychiatry. 2002 May;180:461-4. doi: 10.1192/bjp.180.5.461.

    PubMed 11983645

  • Silvera DH, Martinussen M, Dahl TI. The Tromso Social Intelligence Scale, a self-report measure of social intelligence. Scand J Psychol. 2001 Sep;42(4):313-9. doi: 10.1111/1467-9450.00242.

    PubMed 11547906

  • Schluter MG, Hodgins DC, Wolfe J, Wild TC. Can one simple questionnaire assess substance-related and behavioural addiction problems? Results of a proposed new screener for community epidemiology. Addiction. 2018 Aug;113(8):1528-1537. doi: 10.1111/add.14166. Epub 2018 Feb 26.

    PubMed 29357188

  • Spitzer C, Hammer S, Lowe B, Grabe HJ, Barnow S, Rose M, Wingenfeld K, Freyberger HJ, Franke GH. [The short version of the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI -18): preliminary psychometric properties of the German translation]. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 2011 Sep;79(9):517-23. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1281602. Epub 2011 Aug 25. German.

    PubMed 21870312

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Adverse Childhood Experiences, run by University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland at 1 site in Switzerland.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 24 Dec 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Switzerland. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Latent composite score for psychosocial functioning (time frame: a baseline measurement (w1)). The study lists 10 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05122988, which also lists 17 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 24 Dec 2025.

AzTrials uses cookies for analytics and advertising. You can accept or reject them; the site works either way. Privacy Policy.

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in