Cargando…

Utility of screening for adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in children and young people attending clinical and healthcare settings: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: To examine and synthesise the literature on adverse childhood experience (ACE) screening in clinical and healthcare settings servicing children (0–11) and young people (12–25). DESIGN: A systematic review of literature was undertaken. DATA SOURCE: PsycInfo, Web of Science, Embase, PubMed...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cibralic, Sara, Alam, Mafruha, Mendoza Diaz, Antonio, Woolfenden, Susan, Katz, Ilan, Tzioumi, Dimitra, Murphy, Elisabeth, Deering, April, McNamara, Lorna, Raman, Shanti, Eapen, Valsamma
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9422820/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36008078
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060395
_version_ 1784777896836988928
author Cibralic, Sara
Alam, Mafruha
Mendoza Diaz, Antonio
Woolfenden, Susan
Katz, Ilan
Tzioumi, Dimitra
Murphy, Elisabeth
Deering, April
McNamara, Lorna
Raman, Shanti
Eapen, Valsamma
author_facet Cibralic, Sara
Alam, Mafruha
Mendoza Diaz, Antonio
Woolfenden, Susan
Katz, Ilan
Tzioumi, Dimitra
Murphy, Elisabeth
Deering, April
McNamara, Lorna
Raman, Shanti
Eapen, Valsamma
author_sort Cibralic, Sara
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To examine and synthesise the literature on adverse childhood experience (ACE) screening in clinical and healthcare settings servicing children (0–11) and young people (12–25). DESIGN: A systematic review of literature was undertaken. DATA SOURCE: PsycInfo, Web of Science, Embase, PubMed and CINAHL were searched through June 2021. Additional searches were also undertaken. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English language studies were included if they reported results of an ACE tool being used in a clinical or healthcare setting, participants were aged between 0 and 25 years and the ACE tool was completed by children/young people or by parents/caregivers/clinicians on behalf of the child/young person. Studies assessing clinicians’ views on ACE screening in children/young people attending health settings were also included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed for risk of bias using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results were synthesised qualitatively. RESULTS: Initial searches identified 5231 articles, of which 36 were included in the final review. Findings showed that the most commonly used tool for assessing ACE was the ACE questionnaire; administering ACE tools was found to be feasible and acceptable; there were limited studies looking at the utility, feasibility and acceptability of assessing for ACE in First Nations people; and while four studies provided information on actions taken following ACE screening, no follow-up data were collected to determine whether participants accessed services and/or the impact of accessing services. CONCLUSION: As the evidence stands, widespread ACE screening is not recommended for routine clinical use. More research is needed on how and what specific ACE to screen for and the impact of screening on well-being. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD42021260420).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9422820
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94228202022-09-12 Utility of screening for adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in children and young people attending clinical and healthcare settings: a systematic review Cibralic, Sara Alam, Mafruha Mendoza Diaz, Antonio Woolfenden, Susan Katz, Ilan Tzioumi, Dimitra Murphy, Elisabeth Deering, April McNamara, Lorna Raman, Shanti Eapen, Valsamma BMJ Open Public Health OBJECTIVE: To examine and synthesise the literature on adverse childhood experience (ACE) screening in clinical and healthcare settings servicing children (0–11) and young people (12–25). DESIGN: A systematic review of literature was undertaken. DATA SOURCE: PsycInfo, Web of Science, Embase, PubMed and CINAHL were searched through June 2021. Additional searches were also undertaken. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English language studies were included if they reported results of an ACE tool being used in a clinical or healthcare setting, participants were aged between 0 and 25 years and the ACE tool was completed by children/young people or by parents/caregivers/clinicians on behalf of the child/young person. Studies assessing clinicians’ views on ACE screening in children/young people attending health settings were also included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed for risk of bias using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results were synthesised qualitatively. RESULTS: Initial searches identified 5231 articles, of which 36 were included in the final review. Findings showed that the most commonly used tool for assessing ACE was the ACE questionnaire; administering ACE tools was found to be feasible and acceptable; there were limited studies looking at the utility, feasibility and acceptability of assessing for ACE in First Nations people; and while four studies provided information on actions taken following ACE screening, no follow-up data were collected to determine whether participants accessed services and/or the impact of accessing services. CONCLUSION: As the evidence stands, widespread ACE screening is not recommended for routine clinical use. More research is needed on how and what specific ACE to screen for and the impact of screening on well-being. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD42021260420). BMJ Publishing Group 2022-08-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9422820/ /pubmed/36008078 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060395 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Public Health
Cibralic, Sara
Alam, Mafruha
Mendoza Diaz, Antonio
Woolfenden, Susan
Katz, Ilan
Tzioumi, Dimitra
Murphy, Elisabeth
Deering, April
McNamara, Lorna
Raman, Shanti
Eapen, Valsamma
Utility of screening for adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in children and young people attending clinical and healthcare settings: a systematic review
title Utility of screening for adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in children and young people attending clinical and healthcare settings: a systematic review
title_full Utility of screening for adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in children and young people attending clinical and healthcare settings: a systematic review
title_fullStr Utility of screening for adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in children and young people attending clinical and healthcare settings: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Utility of screening for adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in children and young people attending clinical and healthcare settings: a systematic review
title_short Utility of screening for adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in children and young people attending clinical and healthcare settings: a systematic review
title_sort utility of screening for adverse childhood experiences (ace) in children and young people attending clinical and healthcare settings: a systematic review
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9422820/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36008078
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060395
work_keys_str_mv AT cibralicsara utilityofscreeningforadversechildhoodexperiencesaceinchildrenandyoungpeopleattendingclinicalandhealthcaresettingsasystematicreview
AT alammafruha utilityofscreeningforadversechildhoodexperiencesaceinchildrenandyoungpeopleattendingclinicalandhealthcaresettingsasystematicreview
AT mendozadiazantonio utilityofscreeningforadversechildhoodexperiencesaceinchildrenandyoungpeopleattendingclinicalandhealthcaresettingsasystematicreview
AT woolfendensusan utilityofscreeningforadversechildhoodexperiencesaceinchildrenandyoungpeopleattendingclinicalandhealthcaresettingsasystematicreview
AT katzilan utilityofscreeningforadversechildhoodexperiencesaceinchildrenandyoungpeopleattendingclinicalandhealthcaresettingsasystematicreview
AT tzioumidimitra utilityofscreeningforadversechildhoodexperiencesaceinchildrenandyoungpeopleattendingclinicalandhealthcaresettingsasystematicreview
AT murphyelisabeth utilityofscreeningforadversechildhoodexperiencesaceinchildrenandyoungpeopleattendingclinicalandhealthcaresettingsasystematicreview
AT deeringapril utilityofscreeningforadversechildhoodexperiencesaceinchildrenandyoungpeopleattendingclinicalandhealthcaresettingsasystematicreview
AT mcnamaralorna utilityofscreeningforadversechildhoodexperiencesaceinchildrenandyoungpeopleattendingclinicalandhealthcaresettingsasystematicreview
AT ramanshanti utilityofscreeningforadversechildhoodexperiencesaceinchildrenandyoungpeopleattendingclinicalandhealthcaresettingsasystematicreview
AT eapenvalsamma utilityofscreeningforadversechildhoodexperiencesaceinchildrenandyoungpeopleattendingclinicalandhealthcaresettingsasystematicreview