Overview
Children who suffer trauma from abuse or violence early in life have long been associated with a plethora of psychological and somatic symptoms, as well as psychiatric and medical diagnoses. And a new study has found that these individuals age faster than their non-abused peers, supporting the hypothesis that childhood trauma can shorten the lifespan. Although there are some limitations to the study, which the authors note in their research, the findings are still deeply troubling.
The science and other stuff to know
An analysis of data from participants aged 32-49 years has helped researchers uncover new correlations in the relationship between childhood abuse and rapid biological aging in midlife. In a new study published in the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology, researchers studied 357 test subjects who had experienced court-documented childhood neglect and physical or sexual abuse. The study also included 200 control subjects who were matched with test subjects based on childhood economic and demographic similarities.
To assess the biological aging of the experimental and control subjects, researchers used two blood tests: The Klemera-Doubal method Biological Age (KDM BA) and PhenoAge. The KDM BA test identifies at what age certain biological markers would be seen as typical. For instance, a KDM BA result of 53 for someone who’s 49 indicates the individual is aging faster than their years. PhenoAge, on the other hand, measures mortality risk, and those with high mortality risk should have high biological age.
The results of the KDM BA test showed that those abused in childhood are likely to have high biological markers. Also, within the abused group, women aged faster than men. The PhenoAge, however, didn’t reveal statistically significant results, and researchers hypothesized this could be because of the subjects’ ages. Regardless of abuse and faster aging, those in both groups weren’t old enough to demonstrate large differences in mortality risk.
As noted, the researchers also acknowledged the limitations of their study. For one, the methods they used aren’t widely accepted standard methodologies for identifying how fast or slow someone is aging. Also, this study only analyzed individuals who experienced childhood abuses reported in the judicial system. To the extent that those in the control group experienced less severe forms of maltreatment or experienced childhood maltreatment that wasn’t reported, this study “could result in an underestimate of the effects of maltreatment on biological aging.”
So what?
The study’s primary finding is that adults with a history of maltreatment show mixed evidence of advanced biological aging relative to adults without a maltreatment history. And despite the limitations of the study, the researcher believes the results of their study are meaningful. “In sum, our results contribute support for the hypothesis that childhood maltreatment disrupts healthy aging processes,” the study concluded.
What next?
The findings are also consistent with previous research, which has found that those who have had negative childhood experiences, such as neglect, witnessing intimate partner violence, or losing a parent, tend to be physiologically older than their peers. For example, a previous study also found that girls who are maltreated and abused may be less likely to survive into middle age than their peers who do not undergo physical or mental torment as children. This raises serious concerns regarding potential approaches and how we can intervene to improve the health and quality of life of child abuse survivors.
