Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-r6c6k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-12T18:25:13.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Adverse childhood experiences and craving: Results from an Italian population in outpatient addiction treatment

Subject: Psychology and Psychiatry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2023

Claudio Russo*
Affiliation:
Department of Addictions, Azienda Sanitaria Locale Salerno, Salerno, Italy Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, Salerno Medical School, University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy
Natale Salvatore Bonfiglio
Affiliation:
IRCCS Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy
Eva Orlando*
Affiliation:
Department of Addictions, Azienda Sanitaria Locale Salerno, Salerno, Italy
Giuseppe Falcone
Affiliation:
Department of Addictions, Azienda Sanitaria Locale Salerno, Salerno, Italy
Lucia Iuliano
Affiliation:
Department of Addictions, Azienda Sanitaria Locale Salerno, Salerno, Italy
Antonietta Grandinetti
Affiliation:
Department of Addictions, Azienda Sanitaria Locale Salerno, Salerno, Italy
Carmine Acconcia
Affiliation:
Department of Addictions, Azienda Sanitaria Locale Salerno, Salerno, Italy
Adriana Napoletano
Affiliation:
Department of Addictions, Azienda Sanitaria Locale Salerno, Salerno, Italy
Giada Conte
Affiliation:
Department of Addictions, Azienda Sanitaria Locale Salerno, Salerno, Italy
Barbara Landi
Affiliation:
Department of Addictions, Azienda Sanitaria Locale Salerno, Salerno, Italy
Giovanni Truono
Affiliation:
Department of Addictions, Azienda Sanitaria Locale Salerno, Salerno, Italy
Marco D’Alto
Affiliation:
Department of Addictions, Azienda Sanitaria Locale Salerno, Salerno, Italy
Maria Pietronilla Penna
Affiliation:
Department of Pedagogy, Psychological Sciences and Philosophy, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
Antonio De Luna
Affiliation:
Department of Addictions, Azienda Sanitaria Locale Salerno, Salerno, Italy
*
Corresponding authors: Claudio Russo and Eva Orlando; Emails: clrusso@unisa.it; spec.orlandoe@aslsalerno.it
Corresponding authors: Claudio Russo and Eva Orlando; Emails: clrusso@unisa.it; spec.orlandoe@aslsalerno.it

Abstract

Background

Despite the growing interest in addiction research, which demonstrates the potential predictive role of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), little is known about their impact on the psychological symptoms of craving.

Methods

After reviewing the relevant diagnostic criteria for addiction and comorbid mental disorders along with routinely collected clinical and service-use data, 208 outpatients were assessed on the study protocol. Following the recruitment phase, nominal and ordinal data were analyzed using nonparametric methods.

Results

Most of the outpatients reported ACEs (89.1%) and experienced cravings (73.4–95.7%). A positive association between ACEs and either intention and preplanning (r = .14, p < .05) or lack of control (r = .15; p < .05) of the craving behavior was found.

Conclusion

Craving behavior in addiction remains a subject of debate. Although correlation analyses showed significant associations between reported ACEs and measures of craving, they were relatively small.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Result type: Novel result
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Patient Characteristics

Figure 1

Table 2. Observed range, mean and standard deviation (SD) for ACE-IQ and SCQ-NOW

Figure 2

Figure 1. Adverse childhood experience and craving

Review 1: Adverse childhood experiences and craving: results from an Italian population in outpatient addiction treatment

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to the Author: Thank you for addressing the requested changes. I am satisfied this has been completed.

Presentation

Overall score 4 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
4 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
4 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
4 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
4 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
4 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
4 out of 5

Review 2: Adverse childhood experiences and craving: results from an Italian population in outpatient addiction treatment

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to the Author: EXP-23-0016

22.4.23

Abstract “Most of the outpatients reported ACEs and experienced cravings.” Recommend include percentage in brackets.

ACE-IQ – this is used in the abstract but the acronym should be written in full when first used. Perhaps include what survey you used in the methods part of abstract.

“A positive association between the ACE-IQ total score and either intention and pre-planning (INT) or lack of control (LCO) of the craving behaviour was found.” - was this finding statistically significant? If so mention this e.g. p<0.05.

“Craving behaviour in addiction remains a subject of debate. “ – I don’t believe this can be written in your conclusion as nothing in your results suggests this.

“Although correlation analyses showed significant associations between reported ACEs and craving, they were relatively small. “ – to say this, you need to quantify how small in your results.

--

The introduction still does not explain why you want to investigate the link between ACE and cravings. Lines 34-37 you mention different models have been used to explain cravings – but you do not say what they found or if there is controversy e.g. in the abstract you mention it is a subject of debate, but your introduction does not highlight the aspects of this debate which is important for the reader to be aware of to justify your objective.

In summary your intro is conveying to me: ACE is related to mental health problems. ACE is associated with substance use. Craving is associated to substance use and severity of addiction. Craving has various domains. Craving can persist even after substance use stops. – why does this justify your objective?

Is it important to be aware that more severe ACE could potentially be a predictor for greater cravings when attempting to stop SUD and the need for more support to be put in place? Is there controversy in the literature about this? Has this not been investigated before? This is important to discuss in your intro in my opinion.

Line 102 – I would not give a range % for the craving, give one % instead of 73.4-95.7 since you already mentioned you dichotomised the data.

Table 2 – are there missing values in the ACE-IQ section of Kolmogorov-smirnov? I see a large empty part of the table. If values are not relevant to ACE-IQ, may be worth putting a dash or n/a?

Line 105 to 110: The SCQNOW mean for each variable is found and shown in table 2. This is to help you say whether the person scored positive or negative in that particular variable. Yet, you only talk about INR? What about results from DES ANP LCO and INT? If nothing is relevant, state this.

e.g. Are you trying to say: Of the patients with no familiarity with mental disorders, SCQ-NOW threshold was met for ANR (56%), DES (%), ANP (%), LCO (%), and INT (%). Of patients with no familiarity with addiction, threshold was met for …. Etc.

Line 107, you say “among those reporting ACEs”. – in the methods you do not mention what the cut off for this is. Does scoring for 1 variable in ACE mean it is positive for ACE? Please make this clear in methods.

It would be useful if you could show results that a greater number of positive variables in ACE may increase scores in ANR DES ANP LCO or INT (Please check with your statistician about this).

Are you focusing only on ANR because you are looking at craving? If so you may want to mention in your methods that this is what you are looking at and specify why only ANR? However, consider that all factors of SQCNOW are a measure of cravin so you need to justify clearly why only ANR is discussed.

For my knowledge: Does “familiarity with addiction” mean, the patient is aware and has insight that they have an addiction?

In methods, line 52. What is the inclusion criteria for participant inclusion from the addiction service centres? Anyone receiving any form of treatment at the service centre? Are all participants assumed to an addiction as per DSM? I would make this clear in the methods since in the results you have said some are “not familiar with addiction” suggesting the participant did not think they had an addiction, yet to the service we are identifying they have an addiction based on ?DSM criteria.

Line 116: does this mean the more sessions of therapy and longer duration in therapy, the lower the ACE-IQ score? Does this mean, people with less ACE engaged better in services? If so, consider revision of the sentence structure e.g. there was a positive correlation between ACE and therapy duration etc. Currently it reads backwards i.e. the more therapy a person has the lower their ACE (yet ACE occurred historically).

Line 119: consider sentence revision. Are you trying to convey greater frequency of therapy and greater duration were associated with lower ANR?

Line 134: quote the ACEIQ scores from the other studies to show the comparison.

Line 139: avoid using the word “small”. What does this mean? That the p value is <0.05?

Line 139: do you mean “maternal” age of first child’s birth ? i.e. older the mother when first child is born, the less ACE? Consider sentence structure.

Line 124 and 140: in the methods you did not say how “severity of addiction” was found.

Line 144: unclear what this sentence means

Line 147-8: p<0.05 is considered statistically significant, remove this as a limitation.

Line 149-152: unclear what this sentence means or why it is relevant to your results. Are you trying to say a limitation is that your study did not consider physical health comorbidities or cultural contexts? Table 1 has 30.8% comorbid mental health issues so you did record this.

Line 154: In your conclusion, why are you referencing Flaudias 2019 paper? It is meant to be your conclusion based on your own findings, not Flaudias.

Line 156-158 put in your discussion, not conclusion. This referenced paper talked about urge and desire but you made limited note of DES variable in your findings.

Your whole “conclusion” section should be revised. Some of what you mention could go in your “discussion” but your conclusion section should have your overall summary and conclusion of your results and key take home message.

There are 14 authors mentioned on this paper. I would suggest you collaborate to improve this manuscript. The results are important but significant revision of manuscript is required in my opinion.

Note to editor: does a statistician need to check if the appropriate tests have been used? E.g. In the methods the Kolmogorov-smirnov test was used to assess normality for each variable. Is this appropriately used in table 2 for the ACE-IQ?

Presentation

Overall score 2 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
2 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
2 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
2 out of 5

Context

Overall score 2.5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
2 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
1 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
2 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 1 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
1 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
1 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
1 out of 5