Rural birth/upbringing and childhood adversities are associated with psychotic experiences in university students in China

Chengyu Wang,Qiang Wang,Xiaojing Li,Yamin Zhang,Wei Wei,Wei Deng,Wanjun Guo,Lingshuang He,Wanjie Tang,Ting Chen,Tao Li
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2019.05.009
Abstract:Background: Urbanicity has been reported to associate with an increased risk of psychotic experiences (PEs) in developed countries but less is known about the situation in developing countries. The present study aimed to investigate the effects of birth/upbringing place and other environmental factors on PEs in Chinese university students. Methods: A computer-assisted cross-sectional survey was conducted on 4620 second-year undergraduates, using a stratified cluster sampling. Birth places and residential mobility before 16 years old were recorded. PEs were measured using the subscales of psychoticism and paranoid ideation in the Symptom Checklist-90-R (SCL-90-R). Six questions extracted from the childhood section of the World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview (WMH-CIDI) were used to assess childhood trauma. Results: Generalized ordered logit model of multiple regression analysis revealed that participants with rural birth/upbringing (e.g. rural upbringing, on graded factor score of psychoticism and paranoid ideation [GFSPPI], 0 versus 1 & 2, odds ratio [OR] 1.409, 95% CI 1.219-1.628, p < 0.00001; 0 & 1 versus 2, OR 1.584, 95% CI 1.179-2.128, p < 0.00001) and those who reported childhood trauma (e.g. on GFSPPI, 0 versus 1 & 2, OR 1.737, 95% CI 1.498-2.014, p < 0.00001; 0 & 1 versus 2, OR 1.618, 95% CI 1.224-2.140, p < 0.00001) were apt to present more severe PEs. While upbringing places and childhood trauma affected both the presence and the severity of PEs, gender affected the presence or absence of PEs only (e.g. females, on GFSPPI, 0 versus 1 & 2, OR 1.887, 95% CI 1.631-2.183, p < 0.00001; 0 & 1 versus 2, OR 0.927, 95% CI 0.702-1.223, p = 0.593). Besides, the number of risk factors was associated with the severity of PEs in the cumulative odds logistic regression analysis (e.g. 3 risk factors versus 0 risk factor, on GFSPPI, OR 4.126, 95% CI 3.075-5.537, p < 0.00001). Conclusions: Female, rural birth/upbringing and childhood trauma are risk factors of PEs in university students in China. The discrepancy in the findings between developed countries and China has important implications for urbanicity as a risk factor for PEs.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?