Evaluation of an Embedded Health Psychologist Intervention for Obstetric Patients With Adverse Childhood Experiences.

BACKGROUND: Screening for adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and resilience in pregnancy is a promising practice for mitigating ACEs-related health complications. Yet, the best follow-up for pregnant patients with high ACEs and/or low resilience has not been established. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates referrals to and participation in an embedded health psychologist (EHP) intervention for pregnant patients with ACEs and/or low resilience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in 3 Kaiser Permanente Northern California medical centers with ACEs who had also received resilience screening during standard prenatal care and who were participating in an EHP intervention were included (N = 910). The authors used multivariable logistic regression to examine whether ACEs (0, 1-2, 3+) and resilience (high vs low) were associated with referrals to and participation in EHP intervention. They also evaluated the impact of EHP intervention through clinician (N = 53) and patient (N = 51) surveys. RESULTS: Patients with 3+ vs 0 ACEs were more likely to receive an EHP referral (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.89, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.93-4.33) and were more likely to participate in EHP intervention (aOR = 2.85, 95% CI: 1.87-4.36). Those with low vs high resilience were also more likely to receive an EHP referral (aOR = 1.86, 95% CI: 1.32-2.62) and participate in EHP (aOR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.19-2.44). When ACEs and resilience were combined, those with high ACEs and low resilience had the greatest odds of referrals and participation. Patients and clinicians reported positive experiences with EHP intervention. CONCLUSION: Patients with higher ACEs and lower resilience scores were more likely to be referred to and participate in EHP intervention, suggesting that at-risk patients can be successfully linked with a health psychologist when accessible within obstetric care.

Association of Adverse Childhood Experiences and Resilience With Depression and Anxiety During Pregnancy.

This was a retrospective cohort study of pregnant individuals in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California system who were screened for adverse childhood experiences and resilience as part of standard prenatal care at about 16 weeks of gestation. Overall, 14,625 pregnancies were included; 17.0% had newly identified depression; 9.8% had newly identified depression symptoms; and 8.9% had newly identified anxiety during the pregnancy with no known preexisting diagnosis. We found that adverse childhood experiences and low resilience were independently associated with newly identified depressive disorders, depression symptoms, and anxiety disorders during pregnancy. When adverse childhood experiences and resilience were modeled in combination, the greatest odds of each outcome occurred in individuals with a combination of four or more adverse childhood experiences and low resilience (vs no adverse childhood experiences and high resilience): depression adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 6.43 (95% CI, 5.23-7.90), depression symptoms aOR 9.49 (95% CI, 7.50-12.0), and anxiety disorder aOR 4.79 (95% CI, 3.81-6.02). Routine screening for adverse childhood experiences and resilience may identify individuals at risk of developing prenatal depression and anxiety, allowing faster resource linkage and potentially improved maternal and child outcomes.

Implementation and Evaluation of Adverse Childhood Experiences Screening in Pediatrics and Obstetrics Settings.

BACKGROUND: Screening for adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in prenatal and pediatric populations is recommended by the California ACEs Aware initiative and is a promising practice to interrupt ACEs in children and mitigate ACEs-related health complications in children and families. Yet, integrating ACEs screening into clinical practice poses several challenges. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this report was to evaluate the Kaiser Permanente Northern California and Kaiser Permanente Southern California pilots and implementation of ACEs screening into routine prenatal (Kaiser Permanente Northern California) and pediatric (Kaiser Permanente Southern California) care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: These pilots were evaluated and compared to identify common challenges to implementation and offer promising practices for negotiating these challenges. Evaluation methods included feedback from staff, clinicians, and patients, as well as comparisons of methods to overcome various barriers to screening implementation. RESULTS: Implementing ACEs screening, like implementation of any new component of clinical care, takes careful planning, education, creation of content and workflows, and continuous integration of feedback from both patients and staff. CONCLUSION: This evaluation can serve as support for care teams who are considering implementing ACEs screening or who are already screening for ACEs. More research is needed regarding the relationship between ACEs and preventable and treatable health outcomes to improve health for patients and their families.