Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36008078›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

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

Sara Cibralic, Mafruha Alam, Antonio Mendoza Diaz, Susan Woolfenden, Ilan Katz, Dimitra Tzioumi, Elisabeth Murphy, April Deering, Lorna McNamara, Shanti Raman and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Sara CibralicIngham Institute, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia s.cibralic@unsw.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-1888-2956
Mafruha AlamIngham Institute, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia.
Antonio Mendoza DiazDepartment of Psychiatry, University of South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Susan WoolfendenSydney Local Health District, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Ilan KatzDepartment of Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Dimitra TzioumiUniversity of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Elisabeth MurphyNew South Wales Ministry of Health, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
April DeeringNew South Wales Ministry of Health, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
Lorna McNamaraNew South Wales Ministry of Health, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
Shanti RamanSouth Western Sydney Local Health District, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia.
Valsamma EapenDepartment of Psychiatry, University of South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6296-8306

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo 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).

designA 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.

resultsInitial 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.

conclusionAs 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).

Indexed as

Adverse Childhood ExperiencesAdolescentAdultCaregiversChildChild, PreschoolDelivery of Health CareFamilyHumansInfantInfant, NewbornParentsYoung Adultchild & adolescent psychiatrypaediatric pathologyquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID36008078
PMCPMC9422820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.