Therapeutic Potential of Psilocybin for Treating Psychological Distress among Survivors of Adverse Childhood Experiences: Evidence on Acceptability and Potential Efficacy of Psilocybin Use

The researchers conducted an online cross-sectional survey in Canada using paid and unpaid social media advertisements and email distribution. Recruitment targeted adults aged 16 years or older who reported living in Canada; participants completed an informed-consent process and an online Qualtrics survey. Incentivisation was a 1:100 chance to win a CA$100 e-transfer. The median survey duration reported was 33 minutes for people who had used psilocybin and 11 minutes for those who had never used it. The study received Research Ethics Board approval from Simon Fraser University (#30001311). Measures included standard demographics (age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, income, education and disability status); the 10-item Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire (ACE-Q), scored 0–10 with a common clinical threshold at 4+ exposures; and the Kessler 6-item Psychological Distress Scale (K6), scored 0–24 with cut points commonly set at 8 (clinically relevant distress) and 13 (serious mental illness). Psilocybin-specific measures asked about recency of use (including a key moderator variable: use within the past three months), lifetime and past-year frequencies stratified by dose categories (micro to “hero” doses), self-rated knowledge and experience, motives for use (including addressing mental health), and barriers and opinions regarding use and legality. For the primary analysis the team tested whether recent psilocybin use moderated the relationship between ACE-Q score (predictor) and K6 score (outcome). Linear regression models included an interaction term between ACE-Q and past-three-month psilocybin use; models were run unadjusted and adjusted for age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, income, education and disability status. Model diagnostics and a Breusch–Pagan test checked regression assumptions and heteroscedasticity. Sensitivity analyses compared binomial, Poisson and log-linear specifications. Simple slopes were examined using the interactions package to characterise the ACE–distress relationship among recent users versus non-users. For descriptive comparisons of opinions and experiences, ACE-Q scores were presented in three groups (0, 1–3, 4+), and multivariable linear models tested associations controlling for the same demographic covariates.

The analytic sample comprised 1,249 respondents. Mean age was 39.8 years (sd = 15.5). Gender identification was 44.1% men, 45.9% women and 10.0% non-binary/other. Most participants identified as white (72.4%), heterosexual (58.3%), not living with a disability (55.6%) and had some post‑secondary education (80.9%). On the K6, 46.6% scored below 8 (low distress), 26.2% scored 8–12 (moderate distress), and 27.2% scored 13+ (high distress). ACE-Q distribution showed 17.4% with 0 exposures, 44.1% with 1–3 exposures and 38.5% with 4 or more. Lifetime psilocybin use was common (76.1%) and 44.7% reported using psilocybin in the past three months. Bivariable regression indicated a positive association between ACE-Q score and K6 score (β = 0.597; se = 0.071; p < .001) and an association between past-three-month psilocybin use and lower K6 scores (β = -1.959; se = 0.324; p < .001). In adjusted models that included both ACE-Q and recent psilocybin use, ACE-Q remained positively associated with distress (adjusted β = 0.374; se = 0.074; p < .001) and recent psilocybin use remained associated with lower distress (adjusted β = -1.687; se = 0.346; p < .001). When an interaction term between ACE-Q score and past-three-month psilocybin use was added, the main effect of recent psilocybin use became non-significant (adjusted β = -0.663; se = 0.533; p = .21), ACE-Q retained a positive main effect (adjusted β = 0.517; se = 0.093; p < .001), and the interaction term was statistically significant (adjusted β = -0.322; se = 0.137; p = .019). The authors interpreted this as a cross-over interaction: recent psilocybin use was associated with lower psychological distress among people with higher ACE-Q scores but not among those with low or no ACE exposure. Simple slopes analysis quantified the interaction: among participants who had not used psilocybin in the past three months, ACE-Q score predicted K6 score with β = 0.52 (95% CI = 0.32, 0.71), whereas among those who had used psilocybin in the past three months the slope was β = 0.20 (95% CI = -0.02, 0.41), consistent with attenuation of the ACE–distress relationship in recent users. Supplemental analyses reported a similar moderating pattern for self-rated level of psilocybin experience. Descriptive analyses of use patterns and opinions showed high overall acceptability: 89.4% agreed or strongly agreed that psilocybin is beneficial and 65.2% agreed it is safe. Many users reported consuming psilocybin to address mental health or emotional problems Often/Always (49.9%) or Sometimes (32.2%). ACE-Q score was not associated with most indicators of use (ever use, recent use, frequency by dose category, self-rated knowledge or experience) but was associated with a greater likelihood of reporting using psilocybin to help with mental or emotional problems (p = .001) and was marginally associated with increased likelihood of future use (p = .044). Reasons commonly cited for not using in the past year included not knowing where to obtain psilocybin (41.5%), fear of legal repercussions (82.9%) and worry about a bad trip (48.1%). Higher ACE-Q scores were more likely to be associated with reporting lack of a safe place to use as a reason for not using (p = .039). ACE-Q scores were also associated with greater likelihood of endorsing psilocybin as good for physical health (p = .035) and overall beneficial (p = .023).

Card Phd and colleagues interpreted their findings as preliminary evidence that recent naturalistic psilocybin use may attenuate the association between childhood adversity and current psychological distress, with the moderating effect most apparent among people reporting higher ACE burden. They note that these results align with prior observational and clinical literature linking psychedelic use to lower odds of adverse outcomes and improvements in mental health, and that some evidence suggests dose–response relationships and long-term effects after one or two doses in controlled settings. The authors emphasised that naturalistic use differs fundamentally from controlled therapeutic administration — for example, clinical trials pair psilocybin with psychological support — but suggested their findings converge with clinical and population-based studies in indicating potential benefit even outside formal care. They also discussed accessibility: psilocybin can be obtained or grown by some individuals and, in certain jurisdictions such as Canada, access is changing through special access programmes and emerging dispensaries. Safety considerations were acknowledged; the discussion cites the possibility of adverse acute reactions (for example, anxiety or very occasionally psychotic episodes) and notes that feasibility studies have generally reported favourable safety profiles and low addiction potential. Key limitations stated by the authors include the cross-sectional, observational design that precludes causal inference, and the online, opt-in convenience sample that invites selection and response biases. The authors recommended replication using more representative sampling, larger samples and deeper theoretical and mixed-methods work to explore mechanisms and moderators. They concluded that a substantial proportion of people with ACEs use or are interested in psilocybin and that survivors with greater childhood adversity may uniquely benefit, while stressing that these findings are preliminary and warrant further, more rigorous study.