SynthesisFamily medicine2026
ACEs Educational Interventions for Medical Students and Residents: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Family medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesAdverse childhood experiences (ACEs) affect nearly two-thirds of the US population and have long-lasting consequences on health and well-being. Integrating ACEs education into medical curricula is vital to equip future physicians to address these effects. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of ACEs educational interventions in US medical education on student and resident knowledge, attitudes, or practice.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature search in January 2025 using MEDLINE (PubMed), ERIC, and PsycInfo databases for studies published between 2013 and 2025, reported using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were empirical studies evaluating ACEs training in US medical schools and residency programs in the English language. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors, with discrepancies resolved by coauthor consensus.
resultsA total of 608 unique studies were identified from our search and screened, with 15 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Most interventions relied on lecture-based formats, though 46.7% included interactive components such as small-group discussions and standardized patient interactions. While most studies reported significant increases in ACEs knowledge postintervention, only 20% evaluated objective knowledge changes, with the majority relying on self-assessment. Confidence in addressing ACEs improved in 46.7% of studies, but only 6.7% objectively measured behavioral changes.
conclusionsACEs education in medical training is expanding, but current interventions vary and often lack methodological rigor. Most studies show short-term knowledge gains, though few assess lasting behavior change. Future research should prioritize objective and longitudinal outcomes to better prepare physicians to address ACEs in clinical practice.
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.