Open Access

Recurrent headache and interpersonal violence in adolescence: the roles of psychological distress, loneliness and family cohesion: the HUNT study

  • Synne Øien Stensland1Email author,
  • Siri Thoresen1,
  • Tore Wentzel-Larsen1, 2,
  • John-Anker Zwart3, 4 and
  • Grete Dyb1, 3
The Journal of Headache and Pain201415:35

https://doi.org/10.1186/1129-2377-15-35

Received: 7 March 2014

Accepted: 24 May 2014

Published: 10 June 2014

Abstract

Background

Recurrent headache is the most common and disabling pain condition in adolescence. Co-occurrence of psychosocial adversity is associated with increased risk of chronification and functional impairment. Exposure to interpersonal violence seems to constitute an important etiological factor. Thus, knowledge of the multiple pathways linking interpersonal violence to recurrent headache could help guide preventive and clinical interventions. In the present study we explored a hypothetical causal model where the link between exposure to interpersonal violence and recurrent headache is mediated in parallel through loneliness and psychological distress. Higher level of family cohesion and male sex is hypothesized to buffer the adverse effect of exposure to interpersonal violence on headache.

Methods

The model was assessed using data from the cross-sectional, population-based Young-HUNT 3 study of Norwegian adolescents, conducted from 2006–2008. A cohort of 10 464 adolescents were invited. The response rate was 73% (7620), age ranged from 12 and 20 years, and 50% (3832) were girls. The study comprised self-report measures of exposure to interpersonal violence, loneliness, psychological distress and family cohesion, in addition to a validated interview on headache, meeting the International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria. Recurrent headache was defined as headache recurring at least monthly during the past year, and sub-classified into monthly and weekly headache, which served as separate outcomes.

Results

In Conditional Process Analysis, loneliness and psychological distress consistently posed as parallel mediating mechanisms, indirectly linking exposure to interpersonal violence to recurrent headache. We found no substantial moderating effect of family cohesion or sex.

Conclusions

Loneliness and psychological distress seem to play crucial roles in the relationship between exposure to interpersonal violence and recurrent headache. To facilitate coping and recovery, it may be helpful to account for these factors in preventive and clinical interventions. Trauma-informed, social relationship-based interventions may represent a major opportunity to alter trajectories of recurrent headache.

Keywords

Interpersonal violenceSexual abuseBullyingLonelinessSocial isolationPsychological distressFamily cohesionSocial supportRecurrent headache

Background

Recurrent headache disorders, such as migraine and tension-type headache, are the most common and disabling pain conditions in childhood and adolescence [1]. The prevalence rates are higher in females, especially after transition to puberty [2]. Lack of parental support and poor family function is associated with chronification of headache [3] and higher pain-related disability [4]. Further, co-occurrence with psychological problems is common, and increase risk of functional impairment and persistence of headache complaints into adulthood [510]. Recent epidemiological and clinical research indicate that exposure to interpersonal violence, such as violence, sexual abuse, and bullying, may contribute to onset, persistence or exacerbation of headache complaints, in interplay with genetic predispositions [1118]. Knowledge of pathways linking interpersonal violence exposure to recurrent headache could help guide prevention and tailor intervention. However, the multiple pathways linking adverse social interaction such as exposure to interpersonal violence to somatic disorders in large remain to be identified [19, 20].

Dysfunctional parenting and childhood exposure to interpersonal violence are among the most consistently documented risk factors for psychopathology worldwide [21, 22]. Such exposure threatens or violates physical integrity, self-worth, confidence in personal capabilities, and trust in others. Common reactions include psychological distress, such as anxiety and depression, as well as social detachment and withdrawal [23]. We suspect that the social detachment which may follow exposure to interpersonal violence may be experienced as loneliness. An individual’s sense of loneliness is known to develop in the interplay between genetic predispositions and environmental influences, such as lack of parental attachment, peer rejection or bullying [24, 25]. To our knowledge, the relationship between the range of interpersonal violence experienced by children and adolescents and loneliness remain to be explored. Loneliness, or perceived social isolation, has repeatedly been associated with an increased risk of adverse somatic health outcomes, independent of depression and anxiety, in adults [2630]. In children and adolescents loneliness has been associated with headache [31], and identified as a common trigger of pain [1].

Social support, on the other hand, is a widely recognised protective factor against adverse mental and somatic health outcomes [19]. Early experiences of oneself as an individual who belongs, is loved, protected, and meaningfully supported in the face of need seem to lay ground for our perception of cohesion [32]. Whereas high levels of family cohesion foster resilience in children and adolescents, low levels have been linked to loneliness [33], posttraumatic distress [34], and headache [4]. Thus, family cohesion may constitute a general protective factor, potentially buffering the effects of exposure to interpersonal violence on health outcomes.

Another potential buffering factor is male sex. Adolescent girls have previously reported higher levels of loneliness and psychological distress and more headache complaints than their male peers [35, 36]. The observed sex-biased discrepancy in prevalence rates could reflect differences in physiology, sociocultural role expectations or differential pathogenicity related to types of interpersonal violence, such as girls’ greater exposure to sexual abuse [3740].

Taken together, we hypothesized that loneliness and psychological distress may pose as parallel mediators linking exposure to interpersonal violence to recurrent headache, whereas family cohesion and sex may serve as moderators buffering pathways. The current study was guided by this hypothetical model (Figure 1) [16]. The model was assessed in a large population-based cohort of adolescents.
Figure 1

Direct and indirect pathways linking exposure to interpersonal violence to recurrent headache, by sex and level of family cohesion abc . Abbreviations: a i  × b i (i = 1,2) = “indirect effect” of exposure to interpersonal violence on recurrent headache through loneliness (a 1 x b 1 ) and psychological distress (a 2 x b 2 ); c’, “direct effect” of interpersonal violence on risk of recurrent headache, adjusted for loneliness and psychological distress; CI, bootstrap 95% percentile confidence intervals presented, 10000 replications. Sex and family cohesion were modelled as moderators.

Methods

From 2006 until 2008, 10464 adolescents were invited to participate in Young-HUNT 3 (http://www.ntnu.edu/hunt), a population-based, cross-sectional cohort study of Norwegian youth in Nord-Trøndelag County. The study comprises a general health questionnaire, a clinical assessment, and a headache interview. The Norwegian Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics approved the study. Inclusion was based on informed written consent from participants aged 16 years and older, and from parents for those less than 16 years, in accordance with Norwegian law.

Participants

In 2006, there were 128694 inhabitants in Nord-Trøndelag. Over 95% of these inhabitants were ethnic Norwegians, the work force was generally well-educated and unemployment was less than 3%. All 10464 adolescents who inhabited the county were invited to participate in the school-based study, including 5614 students in junior high, 4357 in senior high and 493 adolescents who did not attend school. Non-participation was mainly due to lack of enrolment, absenteeism, or participation in class activities outside of school [41]. Overall, 73% of the adolescents (7620/10464) responded to the headache interview and the questionnaire, 68% (7154) reported on family cohesion and 63% (6553) had no missing values for any of the variables included in the analysis. Most of the adolescents were from 13 to 18 years old, although age ranged from 12 through 20 years. Mean age of respondents in our sample was 16 years, two thirds lived with both parents, and the majority (>90%) of adolescents reported an average or above average family affordance [12].

During a school-hour, students completed a self-administered questionnaire that contained over 100 health- and lifestyle-related questions, including items on exposure to potentially traumatic events, loneliness, psychological distress, and family cohesion, in addition to background information on family structure and family economy (http://www.ntnu.edu/hunt/data/que). To assess adolescents’ recurring headache complaints according to type and frequency, a validated semi-structured clinical interview was conducted in association with a clinical examination within 1 month following completion of the questionnaire [42].

Recurrent headache

All adolescents were asked if they had experienced recurring headache not caused by a cold (infection) or illness within the past 12 months. ‘Yes’ responders were read two descriptive texts of prototypic complaints for tension-type headache (TTH) and migraine, in accordance with the International Classification of Headache Disorders [43]. These participants were asked if they recognised either, both or neither descriptions as resembling their own complaints and further asked to specify the frequency of their head pain. Adolescents who reported ‘no recurrent headache’ or ‘complaints less than monthly’ were defined as having ‘no recurrent headache’, whereas all other headache frequencies were referred to as ‘recurrent headache’. The frequency of recurrent headache was categorised as monthly (1–3 days/month) or weekly (≥1 day/week) [12].

Sociodemography

Information on gender and age was obtained from the Norwegian National Population Registry. The sociodemographic variable ‘family structure’ differentiated between ‘living with both parents’ versus ‘other’ [44]. Socioeconomic situation was labelled as ‘family economy’ and measured as the self-reported estimation of family affordance in comparison with most others, categorised as ‘above average’, ‘average’, and ‘below average’ [45].

Interpersonal violence

In the present paper interpersonal violence was defined as social actions subjecting an individual to intentional threats, use of physical force or power, that may cause immediate or long-term adverse developmental or health outcomes, in line with the World Health Organization’s definition of the phenomenon [46]. Interpersonal violence encompasses both direct and indirect (witnessing) exposure [39]. Lifetime exposure to interpersonal violence was measured as i) Been subjected to violence (beaten or injured), ii) Seen others being subjected to violence, iii) Been subjected to unpleasant/disagreeable sexual acts by someone approximately your own age, iv) Been subjected to unpleasant/disagreeable sexual acts by an adult, and v) Been threatened or physically harassed by fellow students at school over a period of time, and labelled as exposure to violence, witness to violence, sexual abuse by peer, sexual abuse by adult and bullying, respectively. These measures were derived from the brief Young-HUNT3 lifetime trauma screen which is based on The University of California at Los Angeles Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Reaction Index (UCLA PTSD Reaction Index) [47], and accustomed to the Norwegian context. The UCLA PTSD Reaction Index was developed from the Survey of Children’s Exposure to Community Violence [48] and the Community Violence Exposure Survey (CVES) [49]. A sum-score of exposure to number of types of interpersonal violence was calculated to account for potential cumulative effects of exposure [5052].

Psychosocial factors

Loneliness was measured using a one-item variable termed ‘Does it happen that you feel lonely?’, in coherence with one-item measures used in prior studies of the phenomenon [31, 36, 53, 54]. Answers were distributed across a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1–5, where ‘never or very rarely’ was coded as 1 and ‘very often’ was coded as 5. In line with current recommendations [25], this measure focused solely on the emotional experience of loneliness, without assessment of hypothesised causes. Psychological distress was measured using a validated five-item, short-version instrument, the SCL-5. This measure was modified from the 25-item Hopkins’s Symptom Checklist (HSCL) subscale on anxiety and depression, which utilises a four-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = ‘not bothered’ to 4 = ‘very bothered’) [55, 56]. The items measured whether adolescents had been bothered with feelings of i) fear or anxiety, ii) tension, distress or restlessness, iii) hopelessness about the future, iv) dejection or sadness, and/or v) excessive worry during the past 14 days. Cronbach’s α was 0.83 (girls) and 0.79 (boys). Family cohesion was measured using four items that were derived from the validated six-item family cohesion subscale from the Resilience Scale for Adolescents (READ) [5759]. The four items included in the HUNT questionnaire were selected on recommendation from the developers of the original scale. Adolescents were asked to rate, on a five-point Likert scale, their agreement with four statements regarding i) shared family values, ii) personal well-being within the family, iii) shared positive expectations and hope in spite of adversity, and iv) support of each other over the past month. The mean score ranged from 1–5, where the highest measurable level of family cohesion was coded as 5. Cronbach’s α was 0.87 (girls) and 0.84 (boys).

Statistics

The descriptive data and univariate analysis are presented by sex, according to frequency of recurrent headache (Table 1). Differences in prevalence-rates and mean values between the sexes were investigated in Pearson Chi square analyses. The interrelations between exposure to interpersonal violence, age, and psychosocial factors were explored through Pearson correlations (Additional file 1).
Table 1

Recurrent headache by frequency in relation to exposure to interpersonal violence, loneliness, psychological distress and family cohesion, by sex, in 7154 adolescents abcde

  

Recurrent headache

 
  

All

No

Monthly

Weekly

 

Variables

N

n (%)/ mean (SD)

n (%)/ mean (SD)

n (%)/ mean (SD)

n (%)/ mean (SD)

p

Girls

3639

1063 (29)

2576 (71)

614 (17)

449 (12)

 

Interpersonal violence

      

 Sum-score

3543

0.4 (0.8)

0.3 (0.7)

0.5 (0.9)

0.7 (1.1)

<0.001e

 Type

      

  Witness to violence

3578

627 (18)

383 (15)

125 (21)

119 (27)

<0.001d

  Violence

3577

257 (7)

139 (6)

53 (9)

65 (15)

<0.001d

  Bullying

3567

263 (7)

129 (5)

58 (10)

76 (17)

<0.001d

  Sexual abuse by, peer

3578

200 (6)

109 (4)

52 (9)

39 (9)

<0.001d

  Sexual abuse by, adult

3576

127 (4)

66 (3)

28 (5)

33 (7)

<0.001d

Psychosocial factors

      

 Loneliness

3523

2.3 (1.1)

2.2 (1.0)

2.5 (1.0)

2.9 (1.2)

<0.001e

 Psychological distress

3606

1.6 (0.6)

1.6 (0.5)

1.8 (0.6)

2.0 (0.7)

<0.001e

  Family cohesion

3639

4.2 (0.9)

4.2 (0.8)

4.1 (0.9)

3.9 (1.0)

<0.001e

Boys

3515

540 (15)

2975 (85)

386 (11)

154 (4)

 

Interpersonal violence

      

 Sum-score

3396

0.5 (0.9)

0.5 (0.9)

0.6 (1.0)

0.8 (1.0)

<0.001e

 Type

      

  Witness to violence

3422

949 (28)

781 (27)

115 (31)

53 (36)

0.022d

  Violence

3424

427 (12)

339 (12)

57 (15)

31 (21)

0.001d

  Bullying

3422

287 (8)

216 (7)

44 (12)

27 (18)

<0.001d

  Sexual abuse by, peer

3429

79 (2)

62 (2)

13 (3)

4 (4)

0.255d

  Sexual abuse by, adult

3428

54 (2)

43 (1)

9 (2)

2 (1)

0.395d

Psychosocial factors

      

 Loneliness

3328

1.9 (1.0)

1.9 (1.0)

2.2 (1.1)

2.4 (1.2)

<0.001e

 Psychological distress

3456

1.3 (0.4)

1.3 (0.4)

1.5 (0.5)

1.6 (0.6)

<0.001e

 Family cohesion

3515

4.3 (0.8)

4.3 (0.7)

4.2 (0.8)

3.8 (1.0)

<0.001e

aRecurrent headache is defined as headache monthly or more frequently; recurrence 1–3 times per month is defined as monthly headache, and weekly or more frequent recurrence is termed weekly.

bVariable range: Age, 12–20 y; Interpersonal violence sum-score 0–5; Loneliness, 1–5; Psychological distress, 1–4; Family cohesion, 1–5.

cBecause of rounding, percentages may not total 100.

dPearson Chi square test.

eANOVA, analysis of variance.

The hypothetical moderated-mediation model of two parallel mediating (indirect) pathways that link exposure to interpersonal violence to recurrent headache through loneliness and psychological distress, moderated by sex and family cohesion, was presented in Figure 1. The model was explored using Conditional Process analysis, http://www.afhayes.com/, [60, 61], which allows for assessment of multiple mediators working in parallel using recommended bootstrap methodology [62]. The estimated effect of exposure to interpersonal violence on recurrent headache through each of the two indirect pathways was calculated based on a1 x b1 and a2 x b2. The regression coefficients a1 and a2 were estimated by separate linear regressions for each mediator (loneliness and psychological distress respectively) by exposure to interpersonal violence, adjusted for background variables and conditionally dependent on sex and family cohesion. b 1 and b 2 were estimated as log odds ratios for recurrent headache by each of the mediators in a common logistic regression analysis, adjusted for background variables. Exp(a1 x b1) and exp(a2 x b2)) are interpreted and presented as odds ratios (ORs). The remaining direct effect (ORs) of PTIE exposure on recurrent headache (exp(c’)) was obtained from the logistic regression described above.

Conditional Process analysis, as described above, was performed in a complete case sample of 6533 (62%) of the 10464 adolescents who were invited to participate in the study. Weekly (Figure 2) and monthly (Additional file 2) headache served as separate outcomes. Adjusted ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented separately for girls and boys and for three levels of family cohesion corresponding to point-approximations of the 90th, 50th, and 10th percentile, given by the values 5.00, 4.50, and 3.00, and labelled high, medium and low family cohesion, respectively. Thus, three effect-estimates for each of the sexes were calculated and presented for any given association. CIs were computed as bootstrap 95% percentile intervals based on 10000 replicated samples. Bootstrapping is a general procedure for computing CIs without making distributional assumptions [62]. CIs that do not include 1 indicate a significant indirect (mediating) or direct relationship. Consistent discrepancies of ORs with CIs between sexes, for a given indirect or direct association, indicate moderation by sex. Similarly, discrepancies of effect-estimates (ORs and CIs) between high, medium or low family cohesion indicate moderation.
Figure 2

Estimated direct and indirect pathways linking exposure to interpersonal violence to weekly headache, by sex and level of family cohesion abc . aStudy definitions and measures were defined in footnotes to Figure 1 and Table 1. bAnalyses were restricted to adolescents without missing values, 2820 (50) girls and 2823 (50) boys. The 910 cases that reported monthly recurrent headache were excluded. c Analysis were adjusted for family structure, family economy and age, with sex and family cohesion as moderators.

Analyses were conducted using SPSS version 20, in combination with PROCESS [60].

Results

In this population-based sample of adolescents exposure to interpersonal violence was common. Witnessing violence was the most frequently reported type victimization for both sexes (Table 1). Boys reported a higher exposure to violence (p <0.001), and girls reported more sexual abuse (p <0.001). Sexual abuse occurred rarely in boys. We found no significant difference in prevalence rates of bullying between the sexes (p = 0.116). Girls experienced significantly higher levels of loneliness and psychological distress and lower levels of family cohesion, compared to boys (all three p-values <0.001). As reported elsewhere, twice as many girls (29%) as boys (15%) reported recurrent headache and three times as many girls (12%) as boys (4%) reported weekly complaints [12]. Exposure to interpersonal violence was significantly associated with recurrent headache, with the highest degree of exposure reported by girls and boys who experienced weekly headache. This pattern was evident for prevalence of witnessing violence, violence exposure, and bullying in both sexes. In girls suffering from recurrent headache the observed prevalence of reported sexual abuse was doubled compared to peers without recurrent headache. Youth with recurrent headache reported more loneliness, more psychological distress, and lower levels of family cohesion in comparison to their headache-free peers. Loneliness, psychological distress and low family cohesion were most frequent in adolescents experiencing weekly headache.

All psychosocial variables were moderately correlated (Additional file 1).

To estimate the two hypothesized parallel indirect pathways between exposure to interpersonal violence and weekly headache through loneliness and psychological distress, conditionally dependent on sex and family cohesion (Figure 1), we conducted Conditional Process Analyses [60]. Figure 2 shows that the indirect pathways between interpersonal violence and weekly headache through loneliness (a 1  × b 1 ) were consistently and significantly above 1 for both sexes and across all levels of family cohesion. This finding indicated significant mediation through loneliness. The magnitude of the ORs for this indirect pathway through loneliness, corresponding to high, medium and low level of family cohesion for girls and boys respectively, differed only marginally. This observed overlap in ORs and corresponding CIs implied that there was no substantial moderation by sex or level of family cohesion of the indirect pathway between exposure to interpersonal violence and weekly headache through loneliness. Further, the pathway via psychological distress was explored. The analysis indicated mediation via psychological distress (a 2  × b 2 ). We observed an overlap of ORs and CIs estimating strength of associations according to level of family cohesion or sex, indicating no substantial moderation. Moreover, these analyses showed that despite the adjustment for the two explored, indirect pathways, the direct pathway (c’) between interpersonal violence and weekly headache remained consistently significant for girls at all levels of family cohesion, and for boys at high and medium levels of family cohesion.

The Conditional Process Analysis of pathways between interpersonal violence and monthly headache revealed a similar pattern to that described for weekly headache, although the associations were weaker (Additional file 2).

Discussion

To our knowledge, the current study is the first to assess loneliness and psychological distress as parallel mediators that link exposure to interpersonal violence to an adverse somatic outcome.

The study findings are in support of the hypothesis that loneliness and psychological distress may pose as parallel mediating mechanisms that indirectly link exposure to interpersonal violence to recurrent headache in a general population of adolescents. We found no substantial moderating effect of family cohesion or sex.

The strengths of the current study are the large sample size, the overall high participation rate, the use of validated headache outcomes and the assessment of the impact of a range of commonly experienced types of interpersonal violence, loneliness, psychological distress, and family cohesion within a population-based cohort of adolescents.

The main limitation to this study is the retrospective, cross-sectional design, which hinders the assessment of temporality. The one-item measure of loneliness is a limitation. Measures of interpersonal violence exposure lacked event-specific information on severity and frequency of exposure. Generally, lack of intelligibility of questions increases confusion and variability in interpretation in respondents, typically leading to errors of omission (underreporting) [6365]. However, although accuracy of memory processes and contemplations of disclosure may vary in relation to exposure to interpersonal violence, or somatic health status, adolescents exposed to interpersonal violence seem to be as accurate in their responses and testimonies as their non-exposed peers [63, 6674]. Errors of commission (over reporting) on the other hand seem to be infrequent in adolescents [63, 65, 66]. More comprehensive measures of exposure to interpersonal violence, loneliness, psychological distress, and family cohesion could have helped disentangle particularly potent risk or protective aspects of these broad features [75]. Although the prevalence rates of exposure to interpersonal violence and headache found in the present study were in the lower range of those observed elsewhere [35, 76, 77], and despite the accounted for restrictions related to design and measurements, it is likely that the main findings can be generalised to other adolescent populations.

Importantly, the current findings indicate that loneliness may represent an alternative (to psychological distress) mediating mechanism between exposure to interpersonal violence and recurrent headache, substantiating recent evidence from two cross-sectional studies of children and adolescents and adults. In the population-based child and adolescent study, the association between bullying and somatic complaints depended on concurrent experiences of loneliness [31]. Similarly, in the adult study, adverse experiences, parental maladjustment, and physical abuse in childhood were related to higher adult pulse pressure (a risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes) only in participants who experienced a current high degree of loneliness [78].

Concerning the question of temporality, related longitudinal studies of adults have supported the directionality of associations presented in the hypothesised model (Figure 1). In healthy soldiers, exposure to interpersonal violence during war predicted loneliness [79]. Further, high baseline loneliness has been associated with a higher concurrent prevalence of pain and an increase in pain over time [80]. A recent study suggested that psychological reactions in individuals exposed to trauma initially predict somatic symptoms, including headache, but that a bidirectionality of associations evolve over time such that somatic symptoms predict persistence of adverse psychological reactions [81].

Current advances in neurophysiology support the notion that severe childhood adversity may overload the physiological stress response system and dysregulate cognitive and emotional processes in a cycle that fuels the chronification of headache [13, 82]. Specifically, threats of our social selves may embed psychologically as experiences of shame or loneliness, related to neuro-endo-immunological dysregulation, and physical pain [29, 30]. Thus, loneliness, defined as a painful experience of a lack of social belonging [27], may represent a key phenomenon bridging experiences of interpersonal violence to pain and headache. Further, loneliness and psychological distress could function as parallel internal reminders associated with onset, maintenance or exacerbation of pain, and vice versa. Additionally, the presented model may enhance our understanding of the psychosocial factors in play in relation to onset and maintenance of disorders modified through similar physiological mechanisms, such as other chronic pain conditions and fatigue [29, 82].

Conclusions

Psychological distress and loneliness play crucial roles in the relationship between exposure to interpersonal violence and recurrent headache. A biopsychosocial approach accommodating adolescents’ somatic, psychological and social needs could be beneficial in preventive public health efforts targeting recurrent headache. In clinical practice, it may be helpful to assess exposure to violence, sexual abuse, bullying, and psychosocial well-being in adolescents struggling with recurrent headache to tailor intervention and facilitate coping and recovery. Trauma-informed, social relationship-based interventions may represent a major opportunity to alter trajectories of recurrent headache.

Abbreviations

CI: 

Confidence interval

ICHD-II: 

International classification of headache disorders, 2nd edition

OR: 

Odds ratio

TTH: 

Tension-type headache.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would specifically like to thank the adolescents who participated in the HUNT Study, the HUNT Research Centre, and our funders, the Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies and the Norwegian Council for Mental Health, The Norwegian ExtraFoundation for Health and Rehabilitation, for their support and collaboration. Furthermore, we would like to thank Professor Andrew Hayes for his valuable comments on the statistical modelling, and Professor Miranda Olff and Professor Paula Schnurr for their comments on the presented conceptual model.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies, University of Oslo
(2)
Centre for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway, University of Oslo
(3)
Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo
(4)
Department of Neurology/FORMI, Oslo University Hospital

References

  1. Roth-Isigkeit A, Thyen U, Stöven H, Schwarzenberger J, Schmucker P: Pain among children and adolescents: restrictions in daily living and triggering factors. Pediatrics 2005, 115(2):e152-e161.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Jensen R, Stovner LJ: Epidemiology and comorbidity of headache. Lancet Neurol 2008, 7(4):354–361.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Eccleston C, Palermo TM, Williams AC, Lewandowski A, Morley S: Psychological therapies for the management of chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009., 2: CD003968, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003968.pub2Google Scholar
  4. Lewandowski AS, Palermo TM, Stinson J, Handley S, Chambers CT: Systematic review of family functioning in families of children and adolescents with chronic pain. J Pain 2010, 11(11):1027–1038.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brna P, Dooley J, Gordon K, Dewan T: The prognosis of childhood headache: a 20-year follow-up. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005, 159(12):1157–1160.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunn KM, Jordan KP, Mancl L, Drangsholt MT, Le Resche L: Trajectories of pain in adolescents: a prospective cohort study. Pain 2011, 152(1):66–73.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Strine TW, Okoro CA, McGuire LC, Balluz LS: The associations among childhood headaches, emotional and behavioral difficulties, and health care use. Pediatrics 2006, 117(5):1728–1735.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bugdayci R, Ozge A, Sasmaz T, Kurt AO, Kaleagasi H, Karakelle A, Tezcan H, Siva A: Prevalence and factors affecting headache in Turkish schoolchildren. Pediatr Int 2005, 47(3):316–322.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kroner-Herwig B: Pediatric headache: associated psychosocial factors and psychological treatment. Curr Pain Headache Rep 2013, 17(6):338. doi:10.1007/s11916–013–0338–7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kroner-Herwig B, Gassmann J: Headache disorders in children and adolescents: their association with psychological, behavioral, and socio-environmental factors. Headache 2012, 52(9):1387–1401. doi:10.1111/j.1526–4610.2012.02210.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fuh JL, Wang SJ, Juang KD, Lu SR, Liao YC, Chen SP: Relationship between childhood physical maltreatment and migraine in adolescents. Headache 2010, 50(5):761–768.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Stensland SO, Dyb G, Thoresen S, Wentzel-Larsen T, Zwart JA: Potentially traumatic interpersonal events, psychological distress and recurrent headache in a population-based cohort of adolescents: the HUNT study. BMJ Open 2013., 3(7): doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013–002997Google Scholar
  13. Borsook D, Maleki N, Becerra L, McEwen B: Understanding migraine through the lens of maladaptive stress responses: a model disease of allostatic load. Neuron 2012, 73(2):219–234.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Anda R, Tietjen G, Schulman E, Felitti V, Croft J: Adverse childhood experiences and frequent headaches in adults. Headache 2010, 50(9):1473–1481.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kelman L: The biological basis of headache. [Review]. Expert Rev Neurother 2011, 11(3):363–378.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Zafar M, Kashikar-Zuck SM, Slater SK, Allen JR, Barnett KA, Lecates SL, Kabbouche MA, Hershey AD, Powers SW: Childhood abuse in pediatric patients with chronic daily headache. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2012, 51(6):590–593.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Seshia SS, Wang SJ, Abu-Arafeh I, Hershey AD, Guidetti V, Winner P, Wober-Bingol C: Chronic daily headache in children and adolescents: a multi-faceted syndrome. Can J Neurol Sci 2010, 37(6):769–778.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Tietjen GE, Peterlin BL: Childhood abuse and migraine: epidemiology, sex differences, and potential mechanisms. Headache 2011, 51(6):869–879.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Uchino BN, Bowen K, Carlisle M, Birmingham W: Psychological pathways linking social support to health outcomes: a visit with the “ghosts” of research past, present, and future. Soc Sci Med 2012, 74(7):949–957.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Norman RE, Byambaa M, De R, Butchart A, Scott J, Vos T: The long-term health consequences of child physical abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2012, 9(11):e1001349.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kessler RC, McLaughlin KA, Green JG, Gruber MJ, Sampson NA, Zaslavsky AM, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Alhamzawi AO, Alonso J, Angermeyer M, Benjet C, Bromet E, Chatterji S, de Girolamo G, Demyttenaere K, Fayyad J, Florescu S, Gal G, Gureje O, Haro JM, Hu CY, Karam EG, Kawakami N, Lee S, Lepine JP, Ormel J, Posada-Villa J, Sagar R, Tsang A, Ustun TB, Vassilev S, Viana MC, Williams DR: Childhood adversities and adult psychopathology in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. Br J Psychiatry 2010, 197(5):378–385.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. McLaughlin K, Greif Green J, Gruber MJ, Sampson NA, Zaslavsky AM, Kessler RC: Childhood adversities and first onset of psychiatric disorders in a national sample of us adolescents. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2012, 69(11):1151–1160.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Scheeringa MS, Zeanah CH, Cohen JA: PTSD in children and adolescents: toward an empirically based algorithma. Depress Anxiety 2011, 28(9):770–782.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. McGuire S, Clifford J: Genetic and environmental contributions to loneliness in children. Psychol Sci 2000, 11(6):487–491.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Weeks MS, Asher SR: Loneliness in childhood: toward the next generation of assessment and research. Adv Child Dev Behav 2012, 42: 1–39. doi:10.1016/B978–0-12–394388–0.00001–0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB: Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Med 2010, 7(7):e1000316. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Cacioppo JT, Hawkley LC, Norman GJ, Berntson GG: Social isolation. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2011, 1231: 17–22.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. House JS, Landis KR, Umberson D: Social relationships and health. Science 1988, 241(4865):540–545.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Macdonald G, Leary MR: Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychol Bull 2005, 131(2):202–223.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Dickerson SS, Gruenewald TL, Kemeny ME: When the social self is threatened: shame, physiology, and health. J Pers 2004, 72(6):1191–1216.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lohre A: The impact of loneliness on self-rated health symptoms among victimized school children. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Ment Health 2012, 6(1):1–7. doi:10.1186/1753–2000–6-20View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Repetti RL, Taylor SE, Seeman TE: Risky families: family social environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychol Bull 2002, 128(2):330–366.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. van Roekel E, Goossens L, Scholte RH, Engels RC, Verhagen M: The dopamine D2 receptor gene, perceived parental support, and adolescent loneliness: longitudinal evidence for gene-environment interactions. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2011, 52(10):1044–1051.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Trickey D, Siddaway AP, Meiser-Stedman R, Serpell L, Field AP: A meta-analysis of risk factors for post-traumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents. Clin Psychol Rev 2012, 32(2):122–138.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. King S, Chambers CT, Huguet A, MacNevin RC, McGrath PJ, Parker L, MacDonald AJ: The epidemiology of chronic pain in children and adolescents revisited: a systematic review. Pain 2011, 152(12):2729–2738.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Victor CR, Yang K: The prevalence of loneliness among adults: a case study of the United Kingdom. J Psychol 2012, 146(1–2):85–104.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Tolin DF, Foa EB: Sex differences in trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder: a quantitative review of 25 years of research. Psychol Bull 2006, 132(6):959–992.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Rutter M, Caspi A, Moffitt TE: Using sex differences in psychopathology to study causal mechanisms: unifying issues and research strategies. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2003, 44(8):1092–1115.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Zinzow HM, Ruggiero KJ, Resnick H, Hanson R, Smith D, Saunders B, Kilpatrick D: Prevalence and mental health correlates of witnessed parental and community violence in a national sample of adolescents. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2009, 50(4):441–450.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Costello EJ, Erkanli A, Fairbank JA, Angold A: The prevalence of potentially traumatic events in childhood and adolescence. J Trauma Stress 2002, 15(2):99–112.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Holmen TL, Bratberg G, Krokstad S, Langhammer A, Hveem K, Midthjell K, Heggland J, Holmen J: Cohort profile of the Young-HUNT study, Norway: a population-based study of adolescents. Int J Epidemiol 2014, 43(2):536–44. doi:10.1093/ije/dys232View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Zwart JA, Dyb G, Stovner LJ, Sand T, Holmen TL: The validity of ‘recognition-based’ headache diagnoses in adolescents. Data from the Nord-Trondelag Health Study 1995–97, Head-HUNT-Youth. Cephalalgia 2003, 23(3):223–229.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Olesen J: The international classification of headache disorders, 2nd edition (ICHD-II). Rev Neurol (Paris) 2005, 161(6–7):689–691.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Turner HA, Finkelhor D, Hamby SL, Shattuck A: Family structure, victimization, and child mental health in a nationally representative sample. Soc Sci Med 2013, 87: 39–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Holstein BE, Currie C, Boyce W, Damsgaard MT, Gobina I, Kokonyei G, Hetland J, de Looze M, Richter M, Due P: Socio-economic inequality in multiple health complaints among adolescents: international comparative study in 37 countries. Int J Public Health 2009, 54: 260–270.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Krug E, Dahlberg L, Mercy J, Zwi A, Lozano R: WHO report on violence and health 1.Violence 2.Domestic violence 3.Suicide 4.Sex offenses 5.War 6.Public health 7.Risk factors. Public Health Reports, vol 117, 2003/01/21 edn. Geneva: WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data; 2002.Google Scholar
  47. Steinberg A, Brymer M, Decker K, Pynoos R: The University of California at Los Angeles post-traumatic stress disorder reaction index. Curr Psychiatry Rep 2004, 6(2):96–100. doi:10.1007/s11920–004–0048–2View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Richters JE, Saltzman WR: Survey of children’s exposure to community violence. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Mental Health; 1989.Google Scholar
  49. Saltzman WR, Layne CM, Steinberg AM: Community Violence Exposure Survey (CVES), unpublished psychological test. Los Angeles: University of California; 1998.Google Scholar
  50. Finkelhor D, Ormrod RK, Turner HA: Poly-victimization: a neglected component in child victimization. Child Abuse Negl 2007, 31(1):7–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Neuner F, Schauer M, Karunakara U, Klaschik C, Robert C, Elbert T: Psychological trauma and evidence for enhanced vulnerability for posttraumatic stress disorder through previous trauma among West Nile refugees. BMC Psychiatry 2004, 4: 34.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Jonson-Reid M, Kohl PL, Drake B: Child and adult outcomes of chronic child maltreatment. Pediatrics 2012, 129(5):839–845.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Adam EK, Chyu L, Hoyt L, Doane LD, Boisjoly J, Duncan G, Chase-Lansdale L, McDade TW: Adverse adolescent relationship histories and young adult health: Cumulative effects of loneliness, low parental support, relationship instability, intimate partner violence and loss. J Adolesc Health 2011, 49(3):278–286. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.12.012PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Brun Sundblad GM, Saartok T, Engstrom LM: Prevalence and co-occurrence of self-rated pain and perceived health in school-children: Age and gender differences. Eur J Pain 2007, 11(2):171–180. doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2006.02.006View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Tambs K, Moum T: How well can a few questionnaire items indicate anxiety and depression? Acta Psychiatr Scand 1993, 87(5):364–367.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Derogatis LR, Lipman RS, Rickels K, Uhlenhuth EH, Covi L: The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): a self-report symptom inventory. Behav Sci 1974, 19(1):1–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Hjemdal O, Aune T, Reinfjell T, Stiles TC, Friborg O: Resilience as a predictor of depressive symptoms: a correlational study with young adolescents. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry 2007, 12(1):91–104.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Hjemdal O, Friborg O, Stiles TC, Martinussen M, Rosenvinge JH: A new scale for adolescent resilience: grasping the central protective resources behind healthy development. Meas Eval Couns Dev 2006, 39(2):84–96.Google Scholar
  59. Soest T, Mossige S, Stefansen K, Hjemdal O: A validation study of the resilience scale for adolescents (READ). J Psychopathol Behav Assess 2010, 32: 215–225. doi:10.1007/s10862–009–9149-xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Hayes AF: Introduction to mediation, moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  61. Preacher KJ, Rucker DD, Hayes AF: Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivar Behav Res 2007, 42(1):185–227. doi:10.1080/00273170701341316View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ: An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall/CRC: Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability; 1994. 57Google Scholar
  63. Hardt J, Rutter M: Validity of adult retrospective reports of adverse childhood experiences: review of the evidence. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2004, 45(2):260–273.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Thoresen S, Overlien C: Trauma victim: yes or no? Why it may be difficult to answer questions regarding violence, sexual abuse, and other traumatic events. Violence Against Women 2009, 15(6):699–719. doi:10.1177/1077801209332182View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Price HL, Connolly DA: Children’s recall of emotionally arousing, repeated events: a review and call for further investigation. Int J Law Psychiatry 2008, 31(4):337–346. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2008.06.002View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Chae Y, Goodman GS, Eisen ML, Qin J: Event memory and suggestibility in abused and neglected children: trauma-related psychopathology and cognitive functioning. J Exp Child Psychol 2011, 110(4):520–538. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.05.006View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Howe ML, Cicchetti D, Toth SL: Children’s basic memory processes, stress, and maltreatment. Dev Psychopathol 2006, 18(3):759–769.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Kim TK, Choi S, Shin YJ: Psychosocial factors influencing competency of children’s statements on sexual trauma. Child Abuse Negl 2011, 35(3):173–179. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.09.005View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Goodman-Brown TB, Edelstein RS, Goodman GS, Jones DP, Gordon DS: Why children tell: a model of children’s disclosure of sexual abuse. Child Abuse Negl 2003, 27(5):525–540.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Paine ML, Hansen DJ: Factors influencing children to self-disclose sexual abuse. Clin Psychol Rev 2002, 22(2):271–295.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. van Giezen AE, Arensman E, Spinhoven P, Wolters G: Consistency of memory for emotionally arousing events: a review of prospective and experimental studies. Clin Psychol Rev 2005, 25(7):935–953. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2005.04.011View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Valentino K, Cicchetti D, Rogosch FA, Toth SL: Memory, maternal representations, and internalizing symptomatology among abused, neglected, and nonmaltreated children. Child Dev 2008, 79(3):705–719. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8624.2008.01152.xPubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Ogle CM, Block SD, Harris LS, Goodman GS, Pineda A, Timmer S, Urquiza A, Saywitz KJ: Autobiographical memory specificity in child sexual abuse victims. Dev Psychopathol 2013, 25(2):321–332. doi:10.1017/s0954579412001083PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Eisen ML, Goodman GS, Qin J, Davis S, Crayton J: Maltreated children’s memory: accuracy, suggestibility, and psychopathology. Dev Psychol 2007, 43(6):1275–1294. doi:10.1037/0012–1649.43.6.1275View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Rutter M: Annual research review: resilience - clinical implications. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2013, 54(4):474–487.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Gilbert R, Widom CS, Browne K, Fergusson D, Webb E, Janson S: Burden and consequences of child maltreatment in high-income countries. Lancet 2009, 373(9657):68–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Kessler RC, Avenevoli S, McLaughlin KA, Green JG, Lakoma MD, Petukhova M, Pine DS, Sampson NA, Zaslavsky AM, Merikangas KR: Lifetime co-morbidity of DSM-IV disorders in the US national comorbidity survey replication adolescent supplement (NCS-A). Psychol Med 2012, 42(9):1997–2010.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Norman GJ, Hawkley L, Ball A, Berntson GG, Cacioppo JT: Perceived social isolation moderates the relationship between early childhood trauma and pulse pressure in older adults. Int J Psychophysiol 2013, 88(3):334–338.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Solomon Z, Mikulincer M, Hobfoll SE: Effects of social support and battle intensity on loneliness and breakdown during combat. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986, 51(6):1269–1276.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Jaremka LM, Andridge RR, Fagundes CP, Alfano CM, Povoski SP, Lipari AM, Agnese DM, Arnold MW, Farrar WB, Yee LD, Carson WE, Bekaii-Saab T, Martin EW, Schmidt CR, Kiecolt-Glaser JK: Pain, depression, and fatigue: loneliness as a longitudinal risk factor. Health Psychol 2013. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  81. Ginzburg K, Solomon Z: Trajectories of stress reactions and somatization symptoms among war veterans: a 20-year longitudinal study. Psychol Med 2011, 41(2):353–362.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Danese A, McEwen BS: Adverse childhood experiences, allostasis, allostatic load, and age-related disease. Physiol Behav 2012, 106(1):29–39.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Stensland et al.; licensee Springer. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.