Scoping review of biological and psychosocial pathways that lead from childhood adversity to early-onset substance use

Background and objectives: Substance use in children and adolescents exposed to childhood adversity is a recognized risk factor for adverse outcomes in mental and physical health. However, few studies focus on the specific mechanisms that lead to it, assuming they are similar to those in adults. The purpose of this review is to explore the existing literature regarding etiological pathways between environmental adversities in childhood and early-onset substance use.

Methods: a scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR criteria, as the evidence is complex, heterogeneous, and relatively underexplored. Two independent reviewers searched Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and grey literature individually for review studies on biological and psychosocial pathways that lead from childhood adversity to early onset substance. Only outcomes that applied to children and adolescents under 18 years were recorded.

Results: Pathways that lead from childhood adversity to early-onset substance use appear to be multifactorial and non-linear. Stress induces changes in vulnerable neural circuits, affecting emotion regulation, decision-making, and intrapersonal and interpersonal functioning. These changes and additional drug-induced effects on the developing brain provoke a cascade of events that increase the risk of heavy and uncontrollable use.

Conclusion: Developmental stage-specific factors may influence substance use in adolescents exposed to childhood adversity. Identifying mediators in this high-risk population is crucial to implementing efficacious preventive strategies.

Introduction

The etiology of mental disorders has been usefully conceptualized as an interaction between predisposing and triggering factors (1). Regarding substance use, a potent risk factor is the experience of traumatic and other chronic or severely stressful events in childhood (2, 3). However, a linear progression along this pathway is rarely observed, as individuals show considerable variability in the likelihood of early experimental use and significant fluctuations in usage patterns, escalation, and desistance (4).

Studies exploring the mechanisms behind substance misuse typically concentrate on adults, or they present mixed findings for both minors and adults, seemingly assuming that the causes of early-onset substance misuse are alike in both groups. (5–8). However, early initiators may represent a distinct group, necessitating the study of their specific risk factors and pathways (9). They frequently show riskier usage patterns (10), possess distinct risk factors, such as poor parental monitoring or social and family conflicts (10–12), exhibit distinct neural activation patterns (13), experience greater psychosocial issues, and are at a higher risk of developing a severe substance use disorder (14). Adolescence is a developmental period characterized by enormous, simultaneous, and sometimes contradictory influences from family and peer groups. Not only do personal experiences of abuse or neglect increase the risk of substance misuse, but so do those affecting peers (15). Moreover, household dysfunction, including parental substance use disorders (SUDs), heightens the risk for adolescents, particularly in the presence of childhood trauma (16–19).

The adolescent brain is still developing, particularly in areas related to decision-making, impulse control, and emotional regulation, making it more vulnerable to the effects of substances and more susceptible to addictive behaviors (20). Understanding the unique developmental aspects and environmental influences on adolescents is essential for creating effective prevention and intervention strategies tailored to this age group.

Despite the recognized importance of these factors, few studies focus specifically on the complex mechanisms relating adversity to early-onset substance use. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to map the existing literature on the biological and psychosocial pathways leading from adversity to early-onset substance use.

Methods

The study design is a scoping review, following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and recommendations (21). The pre-specified protocol was uploaded to the Open Science Framework (OSF; 9^th Dec 2023; osf.io/z9naq).

Scoping reviews are especially helpful when existing literature has not been thoroughly reviewed or when the literature is complex and varied, making a detailed systematic review difficult. These reviews can be conducted to assess the potential value and scope of a full systematic review. Additionally, scoping reviews can serve as standalone exercises to summarize and share research findings, identify gaps in the research, and provide recommendations for future studies (22).

Unlike systematic reviews that emphasize implications or recommendations for practice, scoping reviews are not intended to support clinical practice decisions. Therefore, assessing the methodological quality or risk of bias of included studies—crucial for reporting effect size estimates—is not a required step and often does not take place (23).

The literature searches were defined as follows: MEDLINE 1946 to December 2023 (OVID), Embase (OVID) 1988 to December 2023, PsycInfo 1806 to December 2023 (OVID), and Web of Science databases were searched individually in December 2023. The MEDLINE (OVID) search strategy was divided into basic and advanced.

Basic: (child* maltreatment OR child* abuse OR child* neglect OR child* adversity OR ACE) AND (substance OR alcohol OR tobacco) AND (mechanism OR pathway OR mediator) AND early onset {Including related terms: 1170 results.

(*) ACE: Adverse Childhood Experience.

Advanced: limit 3 to (“review articles” and humans and (“all child (0 to 18 years)” or “child (6 to 12 years)” or “adolescent (13 to 18 years)”: 42 results.

Three concepts (maltreatment and/or abuse and/or adversity; early-onset substance use, particularly those that are the most frequent initiators to substance use, like alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis; and mediating pathways or mechanisms were combined with Boolean classifier ‘AND.’ For each concept, a broad set of keywords and MeSH terms, combined with the Boolean classifier ‘OR’, was used to identify all existing records. There were no restrictions on language.

In addition to the previous data, grey literature was considered. Google Scholar was searched for additional records. One search was conducted with the following terms: “child maltreatment abuse adversity substance alcohol tobacco cannabis early onset mechanism pathway mediator.” The first 100 results were saved and screened against the eligibility criteria.

Inclusion criteria

Types of studies: as the explored area is very extensive, only review articles were included. Scoping reviews typically encompass a range of study designs, although this is not prescriptive (22). Every selected review will be analyzed to detect overlapping studies.

Condition or domain being studied: Biological or psychosocial pathways that lead from childhood adversity, abuse, or neglect to early-onset substance use, including tobacco and alcohol.

Participants/population: Substance users aged 17 years or younger with an antecedent of abuse or adversity.

Outcome: any substance use before age 18, including alcohol, tobacco, or illegal substances. Use, abuse, dependence, acute intoxication, or any type of substance use disorder were included.

Exclusion criteria

There was no restriction by country, language, or publication date.

Types of studies: designs different from review studies were excluded.

Condition of domain being studied: Studies about prevention, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, comorbidity, or mere association with risk factors that do not consider the psychosocial or biological etiologic mechanism or pathway. Studies about any health outcome that does not include early-onset substance use. Studies about antecedents that differ from childhood exposure to abuse, neglect, or adversity.

Participants/population: Minors without a known antecedent of abuse of adversity. Non-humans. Adults (18+). Studies with mixed results from adults and minors were excluded unless the results for minors could be analyzed separately.

Outcome: Behavioral addictive behaviors.

Data selection and charting

The studies gathered from each search were uploaded to Rayyan. All duplicates were removed. All titles and abstracts of the remaining studies were independently screened against the eligibility criteria by two reviewers (MR and AU). Disagreements regarding the inclusion of records were resolved through discussion. Reviews that included studies about substance use outcomes in both adults and minors were thoroughly examined, and only results that applied to children and adolescents below age 18 were charted (MR, AU, AG-P) (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram. From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/.

Results

14 studies were included in this scoping review. A summary of each article is provided in Table 1, consisting of relevant data extracted for each included study. The publication dates ranged from 2008 to 2023.

Table 1

Table 1. Overview of evidence by type of exposure, substance used and proposed mechanism.

Acheson (24), This study explores how early-life adversity impacts the development of essential neural circuits involved in cognition and emotion regulation, as well as its effects on delay discounting, response inhibition, sensation seeking, and urgency. These processes are associated with a higher likelihood of substance use issues among youth. Delay discounting refers to the tendency to value immediate rewards more highly than those that are delayed. Although some level of delay discounting is common, research shows a link between problematic substance use and an increased tendency to undervalue delayed rewards. Response inhibition refers to the ability to control impulsive reactions, while sensation seeking is characterized by a propensity for engaging in exhilarating and high-risk activities. Urgency, on the other hand, describes the impulsive behavior that arises from intense emotional experiences.

Andersen and Teicher (25). It is proposed that early exposure to life stress may predispose individuals to drug abuse, influenced by three interconnected factors: 1) a highly reactive hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis; 2) damage to brain development, especially in the hippocampus, dopamine system, and prefrontal cortex; and 3) maturation processes during adolescence. The study indicates that drug abuse is a developmental disorder characterized by vulnerable periods when exposure to drugs is more likely to result in abuse and dependence. A dysregulated HPA axis can lead to compulsive substance use, while stress-related dysfunctions in the dopamine system, coupled with resulting anhedonia, may heighten the risk of use and addiction. In the absence of the typical mechanisms that curb substance use, typically found in the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex, drug-seeking behaviors tend to escalate. The impact of early adversities on brain development is often delayed in showing effects but may suddenly surface as the prefrontal cortex matures during adolescence.

Barker et al. (26) evaluated the influence of DNA methylation (DNAm) as a potential mediator between environmental risks and psychopathological outcomes, including substance use in adolescents. Preliminary evidence indicates that environmental factors can modify DNAm in offspring; however, limited research has focused on how DNAm may impact cannabis, alcohol, and nicotine use in children and adolescents. The function of DNAm as a mediator in this context remains unclear due to the limited number of available studies.

Cicchetti and Handley (27). Research reveals an externalizing pathway to substance use disorder. Childhood behaviors like disinhibition, aggression, and rule-breaking are significant indicators. While general parenting practices can help reduce substance use in teenagers, peer associations with substance users strongly predict adolescent substance use. Maladaptive parenting strategies often interact with a child’s temperament and peer relationships, increasing this risk. Moreover, the family environment may mirror a pattern of parental substance use disorders. Studies indicate that childhood experiences, such as physical abuse, conduct problems, parental drug use, and friendships with substance-using peers, independently forecast the likelihood of drug disorders in late adolescence. Evidence also points to an internalizing pathway, where positive views of substance use as a means of relieving distress correlate with problematic consumption. However, research presents mixed findings. Some studies suggest that changes in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis response to stress may represent another element of these internalizing pathways. It is hypothesized that early life adversity and substance use disorder (SUD) might be influenced by a highly reactive HPA axis, prompting individuals to resort to substances as a coping mechanism for negative emotions.

Edalati et al. (2) proposed a dual-process model that links the risk of growing up in harmful environments to neurobiological vulnerabilities. The early development of subcortical circuitry, alongside the slower maturation of frontal cortical circuitry, may lead to heightened reward-seeking behaviors, particularly in the absence of sufficient behavioral control, thus making adolescents more prone to risk-taking. Moreover, these neural developments render the brain more susceptible to the immediate effects of drugs, placing adolescents who begin using substances early at a greater risk for heavy or uncontrolled use and making them more sensitive to the addictive properties of these substances. Adverse childhood experiences (such as violence, neglect, abuse, and household dysfunction) can foster a negative self-image and perception of others. Experiencing such adverse events during critical developmental periods can lead to lasting changes in crucial brain structures and functions, thereby adversely affecting the brain’s response to stress. Early stress activates the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, leading to increased glucocorticoids (GCs) that aim to lower the activity of these systems. Elevated GC production due to early stress can have permanent effects on the brain areas that regulate the release of these hormones. These mechanisms impact various brain regions based on their developmental stage, receptor density for GCs, and stress sensitivity. The brain areas most affected by early stress and adversity include the amygdala, hippocampus, cerebellum, corpus callosum, and prefrontal cortex (PFC). Neuroimaging studies of children with adverse childhood experiences show that disruptions in normal brain development can lead to a chain reaction resulting in neurocognitive deficits in memory, reward processing, intellectual abilities, and self-control. Specifically, exposure to traumatic experiences and violence alters the PFC’s normal development and its functions, including inhibitory control, abstract reasoning, problem-solving, planning, and related personality traits such as impulsivity and sensation-seeking, which increase the likelihood of substance misuse and developing a substance use disorder (SUD). Additionally, adverse childhood experiences can lead to dysfunctional memory associations that tie the self-concept to maladaptive beliefs, including self-blame, negative thoughts about oneself, and low self-esteem. This maladaptive self-image, coupled with difficulties in behavioral inhibition and reward processing, places individuals who have faced maltreatment at high risk for SUD. The impact of childhood adversity also correlates with a greater sensitivity to stress and predicts further adverse experiences in elementary and middle school students, heightening the likelihood of using substances as a means to cope with stress and negative emotions from harsh environments. Similarly, bullying significantly contributes to a negative self-image and low self-esteem during adolescence. As a traumatic event, bullying increases the risk of adverse outcomes, including substance use among adolescents.

Etami et al. (28) suggest that trauma and substance misuse are linked, as adolescents might turn to drug abuse as a coping mechanism for PTSD. Such drug misuse can result in neuroadaptations affecting learning processes, which in turn aid in the consolidation of traumatic memories. This indicates a shared engagement of neurocircuitry triggered by stress and drug misuse, particularly involving alterations in limbic brain areas.

Grummit et al. (5) conducted a systematic review of the literature, identifying mediators and moderators in the relationship between childhood adversity and substance use outcomes. Individual-level mediators exhibited the most reliable effect sizes, particularly externalizing behavior and substance use coping motives. Additionally, among individual-level moderators, factors such as religiosity and depressive symptoms weakened this relationship. At the interpersonal level, peer and mother-child relationships acted as mediators between adversity and substance use, with relationship quality and family cohesion serving as moderators. Community factors were infrequently analyzed; school mobility and educational achievement mediated 14% and 28% of the overall impact of childhood adversity on substance use.

Hovdestad et al. (29) examined the processes that account for heightened vulnerability to substance use among adolescents following early negative experiences. They propose three explanatory frameworks: the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) framework, which posits that distress triggers substance use; the Self-Dysfunction framework, in which low self-esteem contributes to depression and subsequent substance use; and the Relationship Difficulty framework, which suggests that insecure attachments or challenging relationships with parents result in isolation or conflict with peers.

Hoffmann and Jones (30) highlight the consistent yet subtle link between stressors and adolescent substance use. Research suggests that this relationship is influenced by genetic factors related to cortisol regulation, serotonin transport, and DNA methylation, as well as personal factors such as peer substance use.

Iacono et al. (31) provide evidence that supports the existence of a significantly heritable latent externalizing trait; however, empirical evidence regarding its genetic mechanisms is lacking. Variants in the gene responsible for the Monoamine Oxidase A (MAOA) enzyme may be linked to externalizing traits.

Lijffijt et al. (32) reviewed literature about how stress influences the course of addiction. The initiation of substance use may be linked to stress-induced characteristics, such as heightened stress reactivity and increased impulsivity. There appears to be a connection between the escalation to abuse and stress-related cross-sensitization of reward systems, which enhances the motivational impact of lower substance doses, leading to an earlier transition to regular use and higher dosages. This mechanism likely works in conjunction with the previously mentioned trait-like factors. Sensitization may be influenced by the use of substances, with individuals exhibiting high trait impulsivity being especially vulnerable to sensitization. Ultimately, the shift to dependence and the risk of relapse could be connected to both substance- and stress-induced sensitization of reward pathways, allostatic alterations in stress systems, their links to amygdala-driven negative reinforcement, and heightened sensitivity or reactivity of noradrenergic systems.

Rahim and Patton (33) examined how shame-proneness relates to negative outcomes, including diminished functioning, increased psychopathology, and early substance use. They proposed that adolescents who are shame-prone, stemming from early adversity, tend to view themselves unfavorably in comparison to their peers and may resort to coping mechanisms like criminal activities or risk-taking behavior to seek acceptance from friends.

Sharif-Razi (34) discovered a notable positive correlation between early traumatic experiences and problematic alcohol use among adolescents. This correlation was more pronounced in females, with gender acting as a moderator and both externalizing and internalizing behaviors serving as mediators.

Scheier and Shigeto (35) examined the studies on developmental cascade models, exploring the causal connections between substance use and early family risk. The researchers found limited evidence linking early parental socialization to substance use etiology, along with methodological concerns. Parental substance abuse led to a broader range of negative child-rearing conditions. Nevertheless, even in these situations, the journey toward substance use was still influenced by friendships with peers who use substances. Several additional factors also played a role, including intrapersonal and interpersonal elements such as impulsivity, self-regulation, self-esteem, social competence, and both internalizing and externalizing behaviors.

Discussion

The pathways from early adverse experiences and early-onset substance use are complex and multidimensional. Early experiences have a cascading effect on subsequent stages, influencing both neurobiological development and the types of experiences the child will be exposed to (36).

The exposed data found that it is crucial to analyze the pathways or mechanisms that lead from childhood trauma to early-onset substance use without assuming they are the same as those in adults. It is vital for several reasons, including developmental differences, unique risk factors, long-term outcomes, and biopsychosocial factors.

This scoping review finds that most research emphasizes psychosocial mechanisms, supporting the self-medication hypothesis, particularly at the onset of substance use. Adolescents may use substances as a maladaptive coping strategy when experiencing shame, internalizing or externalizing symptoms, and post-traumatic stress. As substance use becomes chronic, the motivation may shift from positive reinforcement to negative reinforcement due to changes in cognition, stress response, and the reward system.

However, while the self-medication hypothesis remains accepted (37, 38), trauma-exposed youths also develop other nonsubstance addictive behaviors, such as internet or social media addiction (39, 40), implying that other mechanisms are likely involved.

Concerning developmental differences, adolescents and adults are at different stages of cognitive, emotional, and social development. The adolescent brain is still developing, particularly in areas such as decision-making, impulse control, and risk assessment (20). For example, trauma can disrupt the development of the stress response system, leading to increased vulnerability to substance use (41, 42). Once initiated, substance use in young people can disrupt critical developmental processes. Adolescence is a peak time for initiating substance use, with tobacco and alcohol typically preceding the use of illicit drugs (43).

Concerning unique risk factors, adolescents are exposed to risk factors that are different from those of adults. For instance, peer pressure, academic stress, and the desire for social acceptance are particularly salient during adolescence (44). Although solitary use may be more characteristically linked to childhood adversity, both solitary and social use are related to trauma (45, 46).

Additionally, adolescents might use substances as a means of coping with developmental challenges specific to this life stage while also considering long-term outcomes. The gateway theory posits that less harmful substance use in adolescence may lead to illicit drugs later in life. Individuals who start using tobacco, alcohol, or marijuana at a young age are more prone to using other substances as adults (40). Adolescents who begin using substances and subsequently develop SUD typically progress through multiple sequential stages: experimental or social use, escalation, maintenance, abuse, and eventual dependence. However, there are subgroups of users who never escalate, maintain non-dependent use for decades, experience intermittent periods of cessation, or achieve permanent abstinence (4, 47, 48). Anyway, the risk associated with substance use during childhood and adolescence extends beyond the potential for developing sustained use or long-term dependence. It also includes the risk of accidents, violence, psychotic disorders, affective and anxiety disorders, self-harm, suicide, infectious diseases such as HIV, overdose, cognitive impairment, school failure, and delinquency (49).

The fourth aspect considered in this review is related to biopsychosocial factors. Developmental outcomes related to substance use are presumed to result from a combination of genetic and environmental protective and risk factors, which have a nonlinear relationship. Some factors can exacerbate or attenuate the effects of others. Environmental and contextual conditions are potentially malleable, while genetic factors are less amenable to change (4). Adolescents might have different biopsychosocial factors influencing their substance use. For instance, research indicates that early substance use may lead to disconnection from parents and abstaining peers, thereby increasing susceptibility to user peer pressure and the risk of progressing to illegal drugs (50, 51). However, the peer effect may be stronger when adolescents are genetically predisposed to substance use (52). Among environmental risk factors, exposure to stressful events in childhood is a well-known factor that increases susceptibility to substance use, escalation, relapse, and treatment resistance (5).

These explanatory models are crucial as they may point to mediators that could be usefully targeted in interventions with adolescents with a childhood maltreatment background (29). For instance, research indicates that the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) provides inhibitory control that enhances resilience to substance use. Consequently, interventions designed to boost this neural resilience through cognitive-behavioral techniques may mitigate the development-related psychological imbalance between reward and inhibitory systems while improving executive function and self-regulation (53). Additionally, fostering connections with prosocial peers who do not use drugs, improving relationships with parents, and encouraging meaningful involvement in school or community are shown to be protective factors that mitigate the effects of childhood adversity on substance use (5, 54, 55).

In summary, it is crucial to understand the specific mechanisms that operate in this particularly vulnerable developmental stage. This understanding is essential for developing preventive strategies and treatments to mitigate the damage caused by early adversity.

To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review to investigate biological and psychosocial pathways that lead from childhood adversity to early-onset substance use.

Limitations

The present review has some limitations. Firstly, while there is consistent evidence reporting positive associations between childhood adversity and substance misuse, studies about the mechanisms that explain this association are scarce, particularly in minors. The results do not include reviews from Asia or Africa, where substance use disorders in minors may be present differently. A second caution is that of causality. The relationship between adversity and substance use is frequently based on associations, so it should not be implied as causal. Additionally, adversity often occurs in environments where other confounding factors can limit the ability to infer causality without a rigorous study design. Further research is needed to understand better the biological and psychological pathways leading to substance use during childhood and adolescence. Ultimately, the concept of adversity is too heterogeneous to yield consistent and comparable results across studies.

Author contributions

MR: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. AU: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Writing – original draft. LF: Writing – review & editing, Validation. GC-E: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Validation. PS: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Validation. IZ: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Validation. AG: Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Funding acquisition.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This study was supported by Government of the Principality of Asturias (Ref. PCTI 2021–2023 IDI/2021/111), CIBERSAM - Consorcio Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red Salud Mental- (CB/07/09/0020 Group), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación and Unión Europea – European Regional Development Fund. However, the funding sources did not influence the results of this study.

Conflict of interest

PS has been a consultant to and/or has received honoraria or grants from Adamed, Alter Medica, Angelini Pharma, CIBERSAM, Ethypharm Digital Therapy, European Commission, Government of the Principality of Asturias, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Johnson & Johnson, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Pfizer, Plan Nacional Sobre Drogas, Rovi, Servier, and Viatris España outside the submitted work.

The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

1. Kendler KS. A prehistory of the diathesis-stress model: predisposing and exciting causes of insanity in the 19th century. Am J Psychiatry. (2020) 177:576–88. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.19111213

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Edalati H, Doucet C, and Conrod PJ. A developmental social neuroscience model for understanding pathways to substance use disorders during adolescence. Semin Pediatr Neurol. (2018) 27:35–41. doi: 10.1016/j.spen.2018.03.005

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Martínez-Mota L, Jiménez-Rubio G, Hernández OTH, and Páez-Martínez N. Tipos de violencia en la infancia que inciden en el abuso y dependencia de cannabis entre adolescentes: Una revisión sistemática y metaanálisis. Adicciones. (2018) 32:Article 1.

Google Scholar

4. Rose EJ, Picci G, and Fishbein DH. Neurocognitive precursors of substance misuse corresponding to risk, resistance, and resilience pathways: implications for prevention science. Front Psychiatry. (2019) 10:399. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00399

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Grummitt L, Kelly E, Barrett E, Keyes K, and Newton N. Targets for intervention to prevent substance use in young people exposed to childhood adversity: A systematic review. PLoS One. (2021) 16:e0252815. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252815

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Scheidell JD, Quinn K, McGorray SP, Frueh BC, Beharie NN, Cottler LB, et al. Childhood traumatic experiences and the association with marijuana and cocaine use in adolescence through adulthood. Addiction. (2018) 113:44–56. doi: 10.1111/add.13921

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Valério ID, Soares ALG, Menezes AMB, Wehrmeister FC, and Gonçalves H. Child maltreatment and substances use throughout adolescence and adulthood: Data from a Brazilian Birth Cohort. Child Abuse Negl. (2022) 131:105766. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105766

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Zhu J, Racine N, Devereux C, Hodgins DC, and Madigan S. Associations between adverse childhood experiences and substance use: A meta-analysis. Child Abuse Negl. (2023), 106431. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106431

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Cerdá M, Bordelois PM, Keyes KM, Galea S, Koenen KC, and Pardini D. Cumulative and recent psychiatric symptoms as predictors of substance use onset: Does timing matter? Addiction. (2013) 108:2119–28. doi: 10.1111/add.12323

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Kingston S, Rose M, Cohen-Serrins J, and Knight E. A qualitative study of the context of child and adolescent substance use initiation and patterns of use in the first year for early and later initiators. PLoS One. (2017) 12:e0170794. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170794

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Allen JP, Loeb EL, Narr RK, and Costello MA. Different factors predict adolescent substance use versus adult substance abuse: Lessons from a social-developmental approach. Dev Psychopathol. (2021) 33:792–802. doi: 10.1017/S095457942000005X

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Trujillo CA, Obando D, and Trujillo A. An examination of the association between early initiation of substance use and interrelated multilevel risk and protective factors among adolescents. PLoS One. (2019) 14:e0225384. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225384

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

13. McQuaid GA, Darcey VL, Patterson AE, Rose EJ, VanMeter AS, and Fishbein DH. Baseline brain and behavioral factors distinguish adolescent substance initiators and non-initiators at follow-up. Front Psychiatry. (2022) 13:1025259. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1025259

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Poudel A and Gautam S. Age of onset of substance use and psychosocial problems among individuals with substance use disorders. BMC Psychiatry. (2017) 17:10. doi: 10.1186/s12888-016-1191-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Bishop L and Almquist YB. Friends’ childhood adversity and long-term implications for substance misuse: A prospective Swedish cohort study. Addiction. (2021) 116:632–40. doi: 10.1111/add.15174

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, et al. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. Am J Prev Med. (1998) 14:245–58. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Hines LA, Morley KI, Mackie C, and Lynskey M. Genetic and environmental interplay in adolescent substance use disorders. Curr Addict Rep. (2015) 2:122–9. doi: 10.1007/s40429-015-0049-8

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Meadows AL, Strickland JC, Hyder SM, Basconi RC, Stull ME, Wagner FP, et al. Adverse childhood experiences and early initiation of substance use: A survival analysis. Int J Psychiatry Med. (2024) 59:218–31. doi: 10.1177/00912174231195751

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

19. van Draanen J and Aneshensel CS. Parental and own substance use disorder: the intersection of gender and early adversity. Drug Alcohol Depend. (2022) 234:109393. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109393

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Casey BJ, Jones RM, and Hare TA. The adolescent brain. Ann New York Acad Sci. (2008) 1124:111–26. doi: 10.1196/annals.1440.010

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Internal Med. (2018) 169:467–73. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, and Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evidence-Based Healthcare. (2015) 13:141–6. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Implementation. (2021) 19:3. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000277

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Acheson A. Behavioral processes and risk for problem substance use in adolescents. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. (2020) 198:173021. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2020.173021

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Andersen SL and Teicher MH. Desperately driven and no brakes: Developmental stress exposure and subsequent risk for substance abuse. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2009) 33:516–24. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.09.009

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Barker ED, Walton E, and Cecil CAM. Annual Research Review: DNA methylation as a mediator in the association between risk exposure and child and adolescent psychopathology. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. (2018) 59:303–22. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12782

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Cicchetti D and Handley ED. Child maltreatment and the development of substance use and disorder. Neurobiol Stress. (2019) 10:100144. doi: 10.1016/j.ynstr.2018.100144

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Etami Y, Lildharrie C, Manza P, Wang G-J, and Volkow ND. Neuroimaging in adolescents: post-traumatic stress disorder and risk for substance use disorders. Genes. (2023) 14:2113. doi: 10.3390/genes14122113

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Hovdestad WE, Tonmyr L, Wekerle C, and Thornton T. Why is childhood maltreatment associated with adolescent substance abuse? A critical review of explanatory models. Int J Ment Health Addict. (2011) 9:525–42. doi: 10.1007/s11469-011-9322-9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Hoffmann JP and Jones MS. Cumulative stressors and adolescent substance use: A review of 21st-century literature. Trauma Violence Abuse. (2022) 23:891–905. doi: 10.1177/1524838020979674

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Iacono WG, Malone SM, and McGue M. Behavioral disinhibition and the development of early-onset addiction: common and specific influences. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. (2008) 4:325–48. doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.4.022007.141157

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

32. Lijffijt M, Hu K, and Swann AC. Stress modulates illness-course of substance use disorders: A translational review. Front Psychiatry. (2014) 5:83. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00083

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Rahim M and Patton R. The association between shame and substance use in young people: A systematic review. PeerJ. (2015) 3:e737. doi: 10.7717/peerj.737

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Sharif-Razi M. Identifying the role of mediators and moderators on the relationship between early traumatic experiences and problematic alcohol use: a systematic review andlongitudinal study. Calgary, Canada: Doctoral thesis, University of Calgary (2023). Available at: https://prism.ucalgary.ca.https://hdl.handle.net/1880/116559 (Accessed December 9, 2023). Downloaded from PRISM Repository, University of Calgary.

Google Scholar

35. Scheier LM and Shigeto A. Developmental cascades in studies of adolescent and young adult substance use etiology: A systematic review. Addictive Behav Rep. (2022) 15:100420. doi: 10.1016/j.abrep.2022.100420

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Kim S, Kwok S, Mayes LC, Potenza MN, Rutherford HJV, and Strathearn L. Early adverse experience and substance addiction: Dopamine, oxytocin, and glucocorticoid pathways. Ann New York Acad Sci. (2017) 1394:74–91. doi: 10.1111/nyas.13140

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

37. Chadi N, Walker-Harding L, and Committee On Substance Use And Prevention. Nonmedical use of controlled medications by adolescents and young adults: clinical report. Pediatrics. (2024) 154:e2024069298. doi: 10.1542/peds.2024-069298

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Voepel-Lewis T, Stoddard SA, Ploutz-Snyder RJ, Chen B, and Boyd CJ. Effect of comorbid psychologic and somatic symptom trajectories on early onset substance use among U.S. youth in the ABCD study. Addict Behav. (2025) 160:108181. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2024.108181

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Guo YY, Gu JJ, Gaskin J, Yin XQ, Zhang YH, and Wang JL. The association of childhood maltreatment with Internet addiction: the serial mediating effects of cognitive emotion regulation strategies and depression. Child Abuse Negl. (2023) 140:106134. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106134

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Zhang S, Wu S, Wu Q, Durkin DW, and Marsiglia FF. Adolescent drug use initiation and transition into other drugs: A retrospective longitudinal examination across race/ethnicity. Addict Behav. (2021) 113:106679. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106679

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Schär S, Mürner-Lavanchy I, Schmidt SJ, Koenig J, and Kaess M. Child maltreatment and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis functioning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Neuroendocrinol. (2022) 66:100987. doi: 10.1016/j.yfrne.2022.100987

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

42. Marques-Feixa L, Palma-Gudiel H, Romero S, Moya-Higueras J, Rapado-Castro M, Castro-Quintas Á, et al. Childhood maltreatment disrupts HPA-axis activity under basal and stress conditions in a dose-response relationship in children and adolescents. Psychol Med. (2023) 53:1060–73. doi: 10.1017/S003329172100249X

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Degenhardt L, Stockings E, Patton G, Hall WD, and Lynskey M. The increasing global health priority of substance use in young people. Lancet Psychiatry. (2016) 3:251–64. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00508-8

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

44. Steinberg L. A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Dev Review : DR. (2008) 28:78–106. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

45. Carliner H, Keyes KM, McLaughlin KA, Meyers JL, Dunn EC, and Martins SS. Childhood trauma and illicit drug use in adolescence: A population-based national comorbidity survey replication-adolescent supplement study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2016) 55:701–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2016.05.010

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Rakovski C, Lalli M, Gu J, Hobson M, Wollenhaupt-Aguiar B, Minuzzi L, et al. Childhood maltreatment as a predictor of substance use/misuse among youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2024) 166:105873. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105873

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Husky MM, Sadikova E, Lee S, Alonso J, Auerbach RP, Bantjes J, et al. Childhood adversities and mental disorders in first-year college students: Results from the World Mental Health International College Student initiative. psychol Med. (2023) 53:2963–73. doi: 10.1017/S0033291721004980

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Steinfeld MR and Torregrossa MM. Consequences of adolescent drug use. Transl Psychiatry. (2023) 13:313. doi: 10.1038/s41398-023-02590-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

49. Hall WD, Patton G, Stockings E, Weier M, Lynskey M, Morley KI, et al. Why young people’s substance use matters for global health. Lancet Psychiatry. (2016) 3:265–79. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(16)00013-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Otten R, Mun CJ, and Dishion TJ. The social exigencies of the gateway progression to the use of illicit drugs from adolescence into adulthood. Addict Behav. (2017) 73:144–50. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.05.011

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

51. Gallegos MI, Zaring-Hinkle B, Wang N, and Bray JH. Detachment, peer pressure, and age of first substance use as gateways to later substance use. Drug Alcohol Depend. (2021) 218:108352. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108352

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

52. Zheng B, Fletcher J, Zheng F, and Lu Q. Gene-by-peer-environment interaction effects on cigarette, alcohol, and marijuana use among US high school students of European Ancestry. Soc Sci Med. (2022) 309:115249. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115249

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

53. Martz ME, Zucker RA, Schulenberg JE, and Heitzeg MM. Psychosocial and neural indicators of resilience among youth with a family history of substance use disorder. Drug Alcohol Depend. (2018) 185:198–206. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.12.015

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

54. Heradstveit O, Hysing M, Breivik K, Skogen JC, and Askeland KG. Negative life events, protective factors, and substance-related problems: A study of resilience in adolescence. Subst Use Misuse. (2023) 58:471–80. doi: 10.1080/10826084.2022.2161319

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

55. Nawi AM, Ismail R, Ibrahim F, Hassan MR, Manaf MRA, Amit N, et al. Risk and protective factors of drug abuse among adolescents: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. (2021) 21:2088. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11906-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar