ArticleAnnals of family medicine
Clinician and Staff Perspectives on Implementing Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) Screening in Los Angeles County Pediatric Clinics.
Article in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementing Digital Mental Health Tools in the Public Behavioral Health Systems: A Multi-City/County Evaluation of California's Help@Hand Project.Research square · 2025Article
- Integrating Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Risks Screening in Adult Primary Care.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025Article
- Clinician actions in response to Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) screening.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo understand clinician and clinical staff perspectives on the implementation of routine Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) screening in pediatric primary care.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative evaluation in 5 clinics in Los Angeles County, California, using 2 rounds of focus group discussions: during an early phase of the initiative, and 7 months later. In the first round, we conducted 14 focus group discussions with 67 participants. In the second round, we conducted 12 focus group discussions with 58 participants. Participants comprised clinic staff involved in ACE screening, including frontline staff that administer the screening, medical clinicians that use screening to counsel patients and make referrals, and psychosocial support staff who may receive referrals.
resultsThemes were grouped into 3 categories: (1) screening acceptability and perceived utility, (2) implementation and quality improvement, and (3) effects of screening on patients and clinicians. Regarding screening acceptability and perceived utility, clinicians generally considered ACE screening to be acceptable and useful. In terms of implementation and quality improvement, significant barriers included: insufficient time for screening and response, insufficient training, and lack of clarity about referral networks and resources that could be offered to patients. Lastly, regarding effects of screening, clinicians expressed that ACE screening helped elicit important patient information and build trust with patients. Further, no adverse events were reported from screening.
conclusionsClinic staff felt ACE screening was feasible, acceptable, and beneficial within pediatric care settings to improve trauma-informed care and that ACE screening could be strengthened by addressing time constraints and limited referral resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.