Disparities in Screening for Adverse Childhood Experiences.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in the clinical setting is set to become more commonplace with continued efforts to reimburse clinicians for screening. However, an examination of disparities in ACEs screening and related attitudes and beliefs is needed. METHODS: Using the 2021 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS), this study examined if several measures of socioeconomic status, access to care and identities were associated with 3 outcomes: 1) getting screened for ACEs by a clinician; 2) beliefs about the importance of screening and 3) satisfaction with efforts to address the impacts of ACEs. Logistic regressions were used to estimate odds of the outcomes. RESULTS: Black, Latinx, and Asian individuals had lower odds of being screened for ACEs than non-Hispanic Whites. A recent doctor's visit, higher burden of ACEs, and serious psychological distress were associated with higher odds of being screened. Latinx individuals, women, bisexual individuals, those with a recent doctor's visit and those with serious psychological distress had higher odds of believing clinicians asking about ACEs was very important, relative to their counterparts. Latinx individuals, American Indian or Alaska native individuals, Asian individuals, those with higher educational attainment and those with serious psychological distress had lower odds of being very satisfied with providers' efforts to address the impact of ACEs, relative to their counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to expand ACEs screening should consider the disparities in screening that currently exist. Given the wide-ranging impacts that ACEs have on health, an equitable approach to screening is necessary.

A window of opportunity: Adverse childhood experiences and time alone with a provider in the United States.

BACKGROUND: To date, there is limited literature on the relationship between Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and the quality of health care provider encounters. This is key, as people with a history of ACEs have a greater burden of illness. METHODS: This study uses data from the 2020-2021 National Survey of Children's Health to examine relationships between ACEs and (1) spending less than ten minutes with a health care provider, and (2) spending time alone with a health care provider. RESULTS: In general, our results suggested most ACEs were associated with higher odds of a provider spending <10 min with a child during their last preventative care visit, while ACEs were inconsistently related to spending time alone with a provider. Each additional ACE was found to be associated with higher odds of both outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This work emphasizes the importance of ACEs screening in a health care setting and may set the groundwork for future research investigating mechanisms within these associations. Given the established link between health care quality and patient-provider trust, and health outcomes, intervention work is needed to develop healthcare practices that may encourage the length and quality of health care provider visits.

Adverse Childhood Experiences and Family-Centered Care.

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) include experiences of child maltreatment and household dysfunction. Prior work has shown that children with ACEs may have suboptimal utilization of preventive health care, including annual well-visits, however little is known about the relationship between ACEs and quality of patient care. Using data from the 2020 National Survey of Children's Health (N = 22,760) a series of logistic regression models estimated associations between ACEs, both individually and cumulatively, and five components of family-centered care. Most ACEs were consistently associated with lower odds of family-centered care (e.g. financial hardship was associated with doctors always spend enough time with children, AOR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.47, 0.61), except for having a parent or guardian die, which was associated with higher odds. Cumulative ACE score was also associated with lower odds of family-centered care (e.g. doctors always listened carefully to the parent, AOR = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.81, 0.90). These findings emphasize the importance of the consideration of ACEs in the context of family-centered care, and support the need for ACEs screening in the clinical setting. Future work should focus on mechanisms explaining the observed associations.