Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29350573›Full record

ArticleJournal of women's health (2002)2018

Feasibility and Acceptability of Screening for Adverse Childhood Experiences in Prenatal Care.

Tracy Flanagan, Amy Alabaster, Brigid McCaw, Nicole Stoller, Carey Watson, Kelly C Young-Wolff

Open access · greenAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of women's health (2002), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
16.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

76 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 150 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tracy Flanagan1 The Permanente Medical Group, Regional Offices, Kaiser Permanente Northern California , Oakland, California.
Amy Alabaster2 Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California , Oakland, California.
Brigid McCaw3 Family Violence Prevention Program, Kaiser Permanente Northern California , Oakland, California.
Nicole Stoller2 Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California , Oakland, California.
Carey Watson4 Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaiser Permanente Antioch Medical Center , Antioch, California.
Kelly C Young-Wolff2 Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California , Oakland, California.
Kaiser Permanente · US

Funding

Identifying Risk Factors for Prenatal Substance and Polysubstance UseK01DA043604 · NIDA · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI YOUNG-WOLFF, KELLY CORINNE · 2017 to 2021
$907k
NIDA NIH HHS K01 DA043604
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAdverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are common among pregnant women and contribute to increased risk for negative perinatal outcomes, yet few clinicians screen prenatal patients for ACEs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of screening for ACEs in standard prenatal care.

methodsWe evaluated a 4-month pilot (March 2016-June 2016) to screen pregnant women (at ∼14-23 weeks of gestation) for ACEs and resiliency in two Kaiser Permanente Northern California medical centers (N = 480). We examined the acceptability of the screening to patients through telephone surveys (N = 210) and to clinicians through surveys and focus groups (N = 26).

resultsMost eligible patients (78%) were screened. Patients who received the screening were significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic White, Asian, or of "Other" or "Unknown" race/ethnicity than African American or Hispanic race/ethnicity (p = 0.02). Among those screened, 88% completed the questionnaires; 54% reported 0 ACEs, 28% reported 1-2 ACEs, and 18% reported ≥3 ACEs. Most patients were somewhat or very comfortable completing the questionnaires (91%) and discussing ACEs with their clinician (93%), and strongly or somewhat strongly agreed that clinicians should ask their prenatal patients about ACEs (85%). Clinicians reported significant pre- to postpilot increases in comfort discussing ACEs, providing education, and offering resources (ps < 0.01). Clinicians' willingness to screen for ACEs was contingent on adequate training, streamlined workflows, inclusion of resilience screening, and availability of mental health, parenting, and social work resources.

conclusionACEs screening as part of standard prenatal care is feasible and generally acceptable to patients. Women's health clinicians are willing to screen patients for ACEs when appropriately trained and adequate behavioral health referral resources are available.

Indexed as

Life Change EventsPatient Acceptance of Health CarePrenatal CareAdult Survivors of Child Adverse EventsCaliforniaFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPregnancySurveys and Questionnairesadverse childhood experienceshealthcarepregnancyresiliencescreening

Identifiers

PMID29350573
PMCPMC6065513
OpenAlexW2785753894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.