ABSTRACT
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) confer considerable risk for negative outcomes across the lifespan, but there is limited research examining whether the measurement of ACEs can be interpreted the same way across diverse groups of individuals. In particular, the measurement of ACEs among early child education teachers has received little attention. Given that millions of children receive care from early child education teachers, and evidence that ACEs can severely disrupt teacher's abilities to support young children, it is critical to accurately assess for and respond to teacher ACEs. The present study examined the factor structure and measurement invariance of the 11-item Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (BRFSS) version of the ACEs measure across a diverse group of teachers. Data were collected from 605 teachers in a southeastern state between 2018 and 2021. Teachers ranged in age from 18 to 81 years (35% young; 56% middle; and 9% older adults) and were diverse across race (46% White; 53% Black). Teachers completed the BRFSS version of the ACEs measure and a demographics questionnaire. Factor analyses replicated the theorized three-factor solution, with household dysfunction, emotional/psychological abuse, and sexual abuse emerging as distinct factors. Multigroup confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated measurement invariance across teacher age and race. Comparisons of scores indicated ACEs levels varied across teacher age and race. Overall, findings suggest the BRFSS version of the ACEs measure can be used to assess adverse childhood experiences across diverse groups of early child education teachers.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Returning neuroimaging incidental findings (IF) may create a challenge to research participants' health literacy skills as they must interpret and make appropriate healthcare decisions based on complex radiology jargon. Disclosing IF can therefore present difficulties for participants, research institutions and the healthcare system. The purpose of this study was to identify the extent of the health literacy challenges encountered when returning neuroimaging IF. We report on findings from a retrospective survey and focus group sessions with major stakeholders involved in disclosing IF. METHODS: We surveyed participants who had received a radiology report from a research study and conducted focus groups with participants, parents of child participants, Institutional Review Board (IRB) members, investigators and physicians. Qualitative thematic analyses were conducted using standard group-coding procedures and descriptive summaries of health literacy scores and radiology report outcomes are examined. RESULTS: Although participants reported high health literacy skills (m = 87.3 on a scale of 1-100), 67 % did not seek medical care when recommended to do so; and many participants in the focus groups disclosed they could not understand the findings described in their report. Despite their lack of understanding, participants desire to have information about their radiology results, and the investigators feel ethically inclined to return findings. CONCLUSIONS: The language in clinically useful radiology reports can create a challenge for participants' health literacy skills and has the potential to negatively impact the healthcare system and investigators conducting imaging research. Radiology reports need accompanying resources that explain findings in lay language, which can help reduce the challenge caused by the need to communicate incidental findings.
