Table 1

Summary of included papers for childhood SEP and ACEs search (A) and for childhood SEP and ACEs/maltreatment search (B)

(A) Childhood SEP and ACEs
Author and yearCountryQuality assessment criteria* and overall study qualityIndividual/ecological studyData sourceSample size
Ahmed et al 201557 Malaysia1,2,3,5** (medium)IndividualCross-sectional survey3509
Anderson et al 201732 England2,3,4,5**,6 (high)IndividualLongitudinal cohort2221
Baglivio et al 201558 USA1,2,3,4,5**,6 (high)IndividualAdministrative records59 342
Doidge et al 201729 Australia2,3,4,5**,6 (high)IndividualLongitudinal birth cohort2443
Mersky et al 201759 USA2,3,4,5**,6 (high)IndividualCross-sectional survey1241
Soares et al 201628 Brazil1,2,3,5**,6 (high)IndividualLongitudinal birth cohort3951
(B) Childhood SEP and ACEs/maltreatment
Author and yearCountryQuality assessment criteria and overall study quality*Individual/ecological studyData sourceSample size/no. of units of analysis†
Beimers and Coulton 201136 USA2,3,5**,6 (medium)IndividualLinked administrative records18 023
Cherry and Wang 201660 USA1,3,6 (low)EcologicalChild maltreatment reporting system50 US states
Curenton et al 200961 USA2,3,4,6 (low)IndividualQuestionnaire-based interview92
Doidge et al 201762 Australia2,3,4,5**,6 (high)IndividualLongitudinal birth cohort2443
Eckenrode et al 201463 USA1,3,4,6 (low)EcologicalChild maltreatment reporting system50 US states
Euser et al 201064 The Netherlands2,3,4,5*,6 (medium)IndividualCross-sectional survey of 'sentinels'858
Euser et al 201165 The Netherlands2,3,4,5**,6 (high)IndividualCross-sectional survey of 'sentinels'1121
Euser et al 201366 The Netherlands2,3,4,5**,6 (high)
(both data sources)		IndividualTwo relevant sources:

  1. Cross-sectional survey of 'sentinels’.

  2. Cross-sectional survey of schoolchildren.

  1. 1127

  2. 1920

Freisthler 200467 USA1,3,5*,6 (low)EcologicalSocial services administrative records940 US ‘census tracts’
Freisthler et al 200768 USA1,3,5*,6 (low)EcologicalSocial services administrative records940 US ‘census tracts’
Frioux et al 201469 USA1,3,4,6 (low)EcologicalSocial services administrative records67 US counties
Herrenkhol and Herrenkhol 200770 USA2,3,4,5*,6 (medium)IndividualLongitudinal cohort457
Hosseinkhani et al 201671 Iran2,3,4,5**,6 (high)IndividualCross-sectional survey1036
Johnson-Motoyama et al 201472 USA1,2,3,5**,6 (high)IndividualLinkage of birth records to child protection services data1 909 155
Lee and Goerge 199973 USA1,3,4,5**,6 (high)IndividualLinked database of social services administrative records and birth registration data1 257 149
Lo et al 201737 China (Hong Kong)1,2,3,4,5* (medium)IndividualCross-sectional survey392
Mersky et al 200974 USA1,2,3,5**,6 (high)IndividualLongitudinal cohort1411
Nguyen 201375 USA1,4,6 (low)EcologicalSocial services administrative records58 US counties
O'Donnell et al 201030 Australia1,3,4,5**,6 (high)IndividualLinked administrative data397 345
O'Donnell et al 201076 Australia1,3,6
(Low)		IndividualLinked administrative dataNot stated
Palusci and Vandervort 201477 USA1,3,5*,6 (low)EcologicalChild maltreatment reporting system213 US counties
Putnam-Hornstein et al 201378 USA1,2,3,4,5**,6 (high)IndividualLinkage of birth records to child protection services data531 035
Raissian and Bullinger 201779 USA1,3,6 (low)EcologicalChild maltreatment reporting system44 US states
Schick et al 201680 Switzerland1,2,3,4,5**,6 (high)IndividualCross-sectional survey6787
Schuck 200581 USA1,3,6 (low)EcologicalSocial services administrative records67 US counties
Sidebotham et al 200133 England1,2,3,5**,6 (high)IndividualLongitudinal cohort14 138
Sidebotham et al 200234 England1,2,3,4,5**,6 (high)IndividualLongitudinal cohort14 256
Sidebotham et al 200635 England1,2,3,4,5**,6 (high)IndividualLongitudinal cohort14 256
Sulimani-Aidan and Benbenishty 201382 Israel1,4,5*,6 (low)EcologicalChild maltreatment reporting system231 local authority areas

  • *Quality assessment criteria: 1: representative; 2: individual/household level exposure; 3: individual-level exposure; 4: not overadjusted; 5*: sample size 200–1000; 5**: sample size >1000; and 6: maltreatment not reported by perpetrator. Numbers shown denote satisfied criteria (and therefore points allocated).

  • †Sample sizes are reported for all individual-based studies. Number of units of analysis (eg, 50 US states) are reported for area-based (ie, ecological) studies.

  • ACEs, adverse childhood experiences; SEP, socioeconomic position.