In an era where global conflicts continue to reshape societies, the psychological well-being of children caught in the crossfire remains an urgent and complex issue. A groundbreaking multi-country study published in BMC Psychiatry delves into this critical dimension, examining how the experience of war can alter the relationship between established predictors of mental health and the actual mental well-being of children aged 5 to 17. This research offers fresh insights into the nuanced ways conflict impacts young minds, urging policymakers and practitioners to rethink traditional approaches to child mental health in war-torn regions.
At its core, this study sought to understand whether war acts as a moderating factor in the links between children’s mental well-being and variables such as age, sex, physical disability, educational enrollment, family structure, residence type, and economic status. By harnessing an extensive data set from Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS6), collected between 2016 and 2021 across 24 countries, including four experiencing active conflict, the researchers employed sophisticated logistic regression models. Their analytical strategy centered on how exposure to war interacts with these predictors, thereby providing a more dimensional picture of children’s mental health realities in conflict versus non-conflict settings.
The implications of war extend beyond direct physical harm; they permeate the social and emotional fabric of children’s lives in profound ways. This study reveals that the presence of war significantly modifies how traditional indicators relate to mental well-being. Notably, older children subject to conflict exhibited greater vulnerability, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.48 indicating increased risk of poor mental health compared to their younger counterparts. This finding underscores developmental considerations, where older children may have a heightened awareness of trauma and instability, exacerbating anxiety and depression symptoms.
Education, often highlighted as a protective factor in psychological resilience, showed a complicated but hopeful pattern in this research. Within war-affected areas, enrollment in education was associated with a measurable reduction in anxiety among children (OR = 0.75). This points to the stabilizing and normalizing influence of schooling as a crucial psychosocial buffer. The opportunity to learn, socialize, and maintain routine mitigates the psychological chaos imposed by conflict, reinforcing the vital role educational systems play not only in knowledge transmission but in mental health preservation amidst adversity.
Conversely, children with physical disabilities experienced heightened susceptibility to mental health challenges when exposed to war, with an odds ratio of 2.05. This stark figure reflects the compounded marginalization and barriers these children face in conflict environments. Social exclusion, limited access to support services, and increased vulnerability to violence likely contribute to this amplified psychological toll. The intersectionality of disability and war exposure demands urgent policy attention and specialized interventions to safeguard these children’s well-being.
Family and living arrangements also reveal a complex interplay under the shadow of war. The study indicated that residing with at least one parent remained a critical factor in mental health outcomes. However, the moderating effect of war altered even these foundational supports, suggesting that the protective capacity of family may be weakened or strained in conflict zones. This dynamic calls for a broader, context-sensitive understanding of caregiving and community support structures in war-affected settings.
Socioeconomic status presented similarly intricate relationships with mental well-being that were reshaped by conflict. While family wealth traditionally correlates with better mental health outcomes in children, the stresses of war appeared to disrupt these associations. Economic stability may erode in conflict zones, blurring distinctions that otherwise would buffer children against psychological distress. This highlights the importance of integrating economic recovery and social assistance into mental health intervention frameworks for conflict-impacted populations.
The place of residence—urban versus rural—also factored into the mental well-being equations, with war influencing these spatial disparities in unique ways. Urban areas, often the epicenters of military confrontations or displacement, might impose different psychological burdens than rural environments, where social cohesion and access to informal support might vary significantly. Understanding these geographical nuances is essential for tailoring mental health services and ensuring equitable care delivery.
A noteworthy limitation acknowledged by the researchers centers on the measurement of mental well-being, which was based on caregiver reports rather than direct assessments from the children themselves. While caregiver perspectives offer valuable information, they may underestimate or misinterpret a child’s internal emotional experiences. This methodological caveat invites future studies to incorporate more child-centric assessment tools that capture the authentic voice of children within conflict settings.
This investigation stands as a pivotal contribution to a field urgently needing empirical clarity. By quantifying how war alters the association between predictors and mental health outcomes, it pushes public health dialogue beyond simplistic cause-effect frameworks. The demonstrated interactions suggest that interventions cannot be ‘one-size-fits-all’ but must be finely attuned to the age, disability status, educational circumstance, and socioeconomic realities of children in conflict zones.
Moreover, the findings reinforce that mental health cannot be siloed from broader humanitarian efforts. To mitigate the detrimental psychological impacts of war, multi-sectoral approaches are required, encompassing education, physical rehabilitation, family support, economic aid, and community resilience-building. Mental health practitioners and policymakers are called upon to design and implement programs that reflect the complex interplay of factors uncovered by this research.
The study also encourages a shift in global research priorities. There is a pressing need for longitudinal data to track how these moderating effects evolve over time, and for qualitative inquiry into the lived experiences of children navigating the intersecting spheres of war and mental health. Only through such comprehensive understanding can interventions become genuinely responsive and effective.
In conclusion, this multi-country cross-sectional study elucidates the profound and multifaceted role war plays in shaping children’s mental well-being. By revealing that exposure to conflict modifies how age, disability, education, economic standing, and residence impact mental health, it highlights the urgency for tailored, context-specific mental health strategies. As global conflict persists, protecting the mental health of the youngest and most vulnerable must remain a high priority for the international community.
Subject of Research: The moderating effect of war on the association between mental well-being and its established predictors among children aged 5–17 in low and middle-low income countries.
Article Title: Does war moderate the association between mental wellbeing and its predictors among children? A multi-country cross-sectional study
Article References:
Chen, S., Rotenberg, S. & Kuper, H. Does war moderate the association between mental wellbeing and its predictors among children? A multi-country cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry 25, 436 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-025-06795-3
Image Credits: AI Generated
