ArticleBMC pediatrics2025
Adverse childhood experiences screening in pediatric primary care and changes in the rate of visits to social work and behavioral health.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) Screening in Pediatric Primary Care: Is "Social Drivers of Health (SDoH) Screening" Sufficient?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is increasing interest in screening for adverse childhood experiences in pediatric primary care, but no evidence of the actual consequences on behavioral/mental health services. This study tested the association between initiation of ACEs screening in pediatric primary care and changes in the rate of referrals to social work and visits to social work and behavioral health.
methodsData came from the electronic health records of children and adolescents between 2 and 18 years old who were members of a large integrated healthcare system serving Southern California (N = 513,812). Poisson regression was used to compare the rate of referrals and visits to social work and behavioral health visits for clinics doing standardized ACEs screening (i.e., intervention clinics; n = 28) versus clinics not screening (i.e., control clinics; n = 64) during June 1-December 31 2022 as well as for these same months in 2020 and 2021.
resultsIntervention clinics had an average screening rate of 57% (range 26.8 to 91.9%) and an average positive screen rate of 11% (range 1.6-25.1%). The difference in the adjusted rate from 2021 to 2022 was significantly different between intervention and control clinics for referrals to social work (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.25, 1.74), but was not statistically different for visits to social work or behavioral health.
conclusionsThe findings suggest that ACEs screening does not significantly increase the rates of social work and behavioral health visits, although it did increase referrals to social work. We acknowledge that this may vary based on geographic areas and populations served by different healthcare systems.
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.