Background Childhood abuse and neglect often occurs within families and can have a large influence on mental well-being across the lifespan. However, the sibling concordance of emotional abuse and... Show moreBackground Childhood abuse and neglect often occurs within families and can have a large influence on mental well-being across the lifespan. However, the sibling concordance of emotional abuse and neglect (i.e. together referred to as emotional maltreatment; EM), physical abuse (PA) and sexual abuse (SA) and the long-term impact on the context of siblings' maltreatment experiences are unclear. To examine the influence of EM, PA and SA on adult depressive symptoms within the family framework we differentiate between (a) the family-wide (mean level of all siblings) effects and (b) the individual deviation from the mean family level of maltreatment. Methods The sample (N = 636) consists of 256 families, including at least one lifetime depressed or anxious individual and their siblings. Multilevel modeling was used to examine the family-wide and relative individual effects of childhood maltreatment (CM). Results (a) Siblings showed most similarity in their reports of EM followed by PA. SA was mostly reported by one person within a family. In line with these observations, the mean family levels of EM and PA, but not SA, were associated with more depressive symptoms. In addition, (b) depression levels were more elevated in individuals reporting more EM than the family mean. Conclusions Particularly in the case of more visible forms of CM, siblings' experiences of EM and PA are associated with the elevated levels of adult depressive symptoms. Findings implicate that in addition to individual maltreatment experiences, the context of siblings' experiences is another crucial risk factor for an individuals' adult depressive symptomatology. Show less
Peeters, M.P.; Van Daele, S.; Van der Beken, T. 2017
Environmental research on residential properties’ vulnerability to burglary usually focuses either on the houses that have been burgled or on the streets in which they are located. This research... Show moreEnvironmental research on residential properties’ vulnerability to burglary usually focuses either on the houses that have been burgled or on the streets in which they are located. This research explores both house and street level in a fixed-effects model and, using tangible CPTED measures, takes a wider perspective to assess vulnerability to burglary. The results indicate that dwelling type, visibility and boundary height have significant effects, and that street type and indicators of antisocial behaviour also have strong effects. Furthermore, these street-level variables appear to strengthen some of the house-level vulnerabilities. We argue that both house and street levels should therefore be included in any assessment of the risk of burglary. Environmental research on residential properties’ vulnerability to burglary usually focuses either on the houses that have been burgled or on the streets in which they are located. This research explores both house and street level in a fixed-effects model and, using tangible CPTED measures, takes a wider perspective to assess vulnerability to burglary. The results indicate that dwelling type, visibility and boundary height have significant effects, and that street type and indicators of antisocial behaviour also have strong effects. Furthermore, these street-level variables appear to strengthen some of the house-level vulnerabilities. We argue that both house and street levels should therefore be included in any assessment of the risk of burglary.Environmental research on residential properties’ vulnerability to burglary usually focuses either on the houses that have been burgled or on the streets in which they are located. This research explores both house and street level in a fixed-effects model and, using tangible CPTED measures, takes a wider perspective to assess vulnerability to burglary. The results indicate that dwelling type, visibility and boundary height have significant effects, and that street type and indicators of antisocial behaviour also have strong effects. Furthermore, these street-level variables appear to strengthen some of the house-level vulnerabilities. We argue that both house and street levels should therefore be included in any assessment of the risk of burglary.glary usually focuses either on the houses that have been burgled or on the streets inwhich they are located. This research explores both house and street level in a fixed-effects model and, using tangible CPTED measures, takes a wider perspective toassess vulnerability to burglary. The results indicate that dwelling type, visibilityand boundary height have sign ificant effects, and that street type and indicators ofantisocial behavi our also have strong effects. Furthermore, these street-level vari-ables appear to strengthen some of the house-level vulnerabilities. We argue thatboth house and street levels should therefore be included in any assessment of therisk of burglar y Show less
