A new study published in Biological Psychiatry: Global Open Science provides compelling evidence that trauma exposure plays a critical role in the link between psychiatric family history and mental health struggles in adolescents. Led by Dr. Barbara Chaiyachati and a team of researchers at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, the study emphasizes trauma as a “modifiable risk factor in youth,” drawing attention to the environmental, rather than purely genetic, dimensions of intergenerational mental health.
“[I]n a large cohort of American adolescents,” the authors write, “trauma is more common among youth with [family history] of psychiatric disorders, and that over 20% of the risk association between [family history] and adolescent general psychopathology is mediated through trauma exposure.”
By demonstrating that nearly a quarter of the link between psychiatric family history and adolescent mental health struggles is mediated by trauma exposure, the research disrupts assumptions that genetic inheritance is the primary engine of psychopathology. Instead, it highlights how social and relational injuries, often shaped by caregiving dynamics, structural inequality, and intergenerational stress, embed themselves in psychological development.
You've landed on a MIA journalism article that is funded by MIA supporters. To read the full article, sign up as a MIA Supporter. All active donors get full access to all MIA content, and free passes to all Mad in America events.
Current MIA supporters can log in below.(If you can't afford to support MIA in this way, email us at [email protected] and we will provide you with access to all donor-supported content.)
By what method does your research explore and shape innovation and continuous improvement for the patient(s)?
Report comment
It annoys me that it keeps saying, “Not JUST genetics.” The fact that other family members have “diagnoses” does NOT imply a genetic cause! It could easily be that they were also traumatized by their own family/community growing up and simply did to others what was done to them.
Additionally, the definition of “trauma” in the study was EXTREMELY narrow! They did not include divorce, bullying, exposure to parental domestic abuse, or extreme poverty, just to name a few of many other traumatic events, and of course give zero credence to NEGLECT, which is probably far MORE common and possibly more damaging than overt abuse.
Despite this narrow definition, a quarter still had “trauma exposure” in their histories. Obviously, it is very common. The authors appear strongly biased toward believing a genetic basis is primary, but the study certainly does not show this to be the case.
Report comment