Randomized trial reveals key risk factors for child abuse potential in high-risk families, highlighting the importance of support interventions.
Background Child maltreatment has profound adverse effects on various aspects of an individual's development and can even influence the next generation. Objective This study investigated risk factors for child abuse potential within a population of highly burdened families and explored how these factors interact in the intergenerational transmission of maltreatment. Methods Families receiving support from the German early prevention program “Frühe Hilfen” completed clinical interviews and standardized questionnaires at one time point. All subjects included met at least one risk factor for child abuse (inclusion criteria: low socioeconomic status, parental mental illness or teenage parenthood). Participants came from diverse cultural backgrounds. Child abuse potential was assessed using the CAPI, a screening instrument that measures parental stress and associated risk factors rather than actual abuse outcomes. Results A multiple regression analysis identified parental psychopathology (b = .52, p = .024), attachment quality (b = 1.07, p = .001) and low socioeconomic state (b = −.83, p = .018) as key risk factors for child abuse potential. A mediation analysis indicated an indirect pathway whereby parental child maltreatment experiences were associated with poorer mental health ( b = .32, p = .002), which in turn was linked to lower attachment quality ( b = 1.71, p = .006) and higher child abuse potential ( b = .12, p = .002). Affective disorders emerged as particularly significant risk factors among all mental disorders (b = 6.39, p = .015). Conclusion These findings underscore the need for accessible psychiatric and psychotherapeutic support for parents with histories of childhood maltreatment to support healthy parent–child relationships. Clinical Trial registration https://www.drks.de/drks_web/ , German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00022075.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Keppler et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: