Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

Adverse childhood experiences: Can government policy reduce trauma?

Ariane Marie-Mitchell, MD, PhD, MPH
Conditions
October 23, 2022
Share
Tweet
Share

One of the most radical implications of the literature on early childhood trauma is that abuse needs to be eliminated from all of our relationships: our families, teachers, colleagues, and government. When government leaders create a new policy, they can proceed in a way that disempowers constituents, or they can proceed in a way that fosters dialogue and shared decision-making. Ironically, the development and implementation of California’s policy to address childhood trauma provides an example of leadership with good intentions but execution that was neither trauma-informed nor evidence-based.

Many states have developed or are developing public health policies to reduce adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). The original ACE study defined ACEs as child abuse and neglect, plus parental separation or divorce, a household member with a mental illness or substance abuse problem, domestic violence, and incarceration of a household member. This study found that the accumulation of ACEs was linearly associated with an increased risk of medical problems in adulthood, including mental illness, substance abuse, sexually transmitted infections, cardiovascular disease, liver disease, pulmonary disease, and cancer. Numerous studies have corroborated the finding that ACEs are associated with an increased risk of medical problems and psychosocial problems such as school failure and homelessness. Thus, there are good reasons for states to take action, but what action to take is less clear, given gaps in evidence.

A trauma-informed approach to creating state policy would empower constituents by considering both public feedback and the latest scientific evidence such that the resulting policy is viewed as coming “from us” and justified rather than something that is being “done to us” and questionable. California solicited public input through the AB340 Task Force on Trauma and later public commentary. However, the policy that was implemented ignored AB340 recommendations to allow provider choice of a tool for ACE screening, despite the fact that no tool had (or has) such extensive evidence for validity that a state policy is justified in determining reimbursement based upon the use of that tool only. There was also no formal response to public concerns about the use of an ACE score to differentiate patient risk, which various authors have noted can result in potential harms, including misdiagnosis, unnecessary anxiety, and inappropriate use of community resources with unclear benefits. It is not clear why California chose this approach. My best guess is that the simplicity of giving providers a number (ACE score) was appealing, as was the idea of having pediatric patients throughout California use the same tool (a strategy that might be justifiable after best practice is determined).

Advocates of the current California ACEs policy point to population-level research which shows a clear linear association between more ACEs and more health problems, and therefore they argue that there is enough evidence for using an ACE score in clinical practice. But to translate population studies into clinical practice for the purpose of screening generally healthy patients, individual-level research is needed on the psychometric properties of a screening tool. Population-level research shows that increases in ACEs are statistically significantly associated with group mean health problems. But an individual patient does not care about a group mean; they want to know about their own risk. A recent study evaluated whether an individual’s ACE score predicted the risk of poor health outcomes for that same individual. This study found an ACE score was associated with increases in group means for later health problems but was barely above chance (not much better than flipping a coin) in predicting an individual’s risk of health problems. This is not surprising since an ACE score by itself does not factor in resilience and protective factors that reduce the impact of ACEs. Focusing on an ACE score also misses a key opportunity in pediatric practice: preventing ACEs.

There is an alternative approach to incorporating information about ACEs into pediatric practice. This is to screen for specific ACEs (e.g. parent divorce or mental health problem), and this approach may explain more variance in outcomes than the use of a total ACE score. Consideration of specific ACEs by pediatricians is consistent with a biopsychosocial model aimed at promoting optimal child development through healthy parent-child relationships. Suppose patient care focuses on response to specific ACEs. In that case, potential harms of using an ACE score are unlikely because the goal is to understand the family context and address specific risk factors, not to make a diagnosis based upon a total score. Furthermore, patient counseling and education can be tailored to specific family needs rather than a number that has been evaluated in population-level but not individual-level research.

While more health care research is often needed, governments do not have to wait for the completion of research to set policies to promote public health. Governments can proceed with policies so long as these are justified based on current evidence and developed through shared decision-making with the public. Regarding addressing ACEs through pediatric practice and in consideration of current evidence to date, I suggest that state policy on ACEs:

  1. Recommend that pediatricians screen for specific ACEs (not a total ACE score).
  2. Provide an algorithm for management and related training focused on managing specific ACEs with and without associated child symptoms.
  3. Allow for reimbursement based upon the use of any tool that includes specific ACEs.

A policy that allows provider choice of tools and workflow supports provider autonomy and response to patient preferences while encouraging clinical innovation and research to determine best practices.

California’s new leadership on ACEs has an opportunity to amend the current ACEs policy, and other states have an opportunity to learn from related scientific and public discourse before implementing their own policies on ACEs. Arguably, all government action should be justified based on evidence and respectful of the perspectives of constituents. However, this is particularly important for policies about ending childhood trauma since the process of policymaking in and of itself provides an opportunity for modeling how to create healthy relationships throughout our society.

Ariane Marie-Mitchell is a preventive medicine physician.

Image credit: Shutterstock.com

Prev

Institutionalized racism in psychiatry: a doctor's experience

October 23, 2022 Kevin 1
…
Next

A cancer patient's last wish [PODCAST]

October 23, 2022 Kevin 0
…

Tagged as: Pediatrics, Psychiatry

Post navigation

< Previous Post
Institutionalized racism in psychiatry: a doctor's experience
Next Post >
A cancer patient's last wish [PODCAST]

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Related Posts

  • Why is trauma activation so expensive?

    Skeptical Scalpel, MD
  • The crippling health effects of another government shutdown

    Alani Gregory, MD
  • Both markets and the government are needed to fix health care

    Matthew Hahn, MD
  • 5 things America can do today to reduce gun deaths

    Megan L. Ranney, MD, MPH
  • What would an optimal government-run health care system look like?

    Taylor J. Christensen, MD
  • Why is age only a concern regarding surgeons, and not government officials?

    Brian C. Joondeph, MD

More in Conditions

  • How robotics are reshaping the future of vascular procedures

    David Fischel
  • How the shingles vaccine could help prevent dementia

    Marc Arginteanu, MD
  • Why removing fluoride from water is a public health disaster

    Steven J. Katz, DDS
  • What the research really says about infrared saunas

    Khushali Jhaveri, MD
  • How the cycle of rage is affecting physicians—and how to break free

    Alexandra M.P. Brito, MD and Jennifer L. Hartwell, MD
  • Dedicated hypermobility clinics can transform patient care

    Katharina Schwan, MPH
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Why Medicaid cuts should alarm every doctor

      Ilan Shapiro, MD | Policy
    • When the diagnosis is personal: What my mother’s Alzheimer’s taught me about healing

      Pearl Jones, MD | Conditions
    • 2 hours to decide my future: How the SOAP residency match traps future doctors

      Nicolette V. S. Sewall, MD, MPH | Education
    • Key strategies for smooth EHR transitions in health care

      Sandra Johnson | Tech
    • Reassessing the impact of CDC’s opioid guidelines on chronic pain care [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why removing fluoride from water is a public health disaster

      Steven J. Katz, DDS | Conditions
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why tracking cognitive load could save doctors and patients

      Hiba Fatima Hamid | Education
    • What the world must learn from the life and death of Hind Rajab

      Saba Qaiser, RN | Conditions
    • The silent toll of ICE raids on U.S. patient care

      Carlin Lockwood | Policy
    • “Think twice, heal once”: Why medical decision-making needs a second opinion from your slower brain (and AI)

      Harvey Castro, MD, MBA | Tech
    • Why we fear being forgotten more than death itself

      Patrick Hudson, MD | Physician
    • Bureaucracy over care: How the U.S. health care system lost its way

      Kayvan Haddadan, MD | Physician
  • Recent Posts

    • How robotics are reshaping the future of vascular procedures

      David Fischel | Conditions
    • Medicalizing burnout misses the real problem

      Jessie Mahoney, MD | Physician
    • How the shingles vaccine could help prevent dementia

      Marc Arginteanu, MD | Conditions
    • How to survive a broken health care system without losing yourself [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why some doctors age gracefully—and others grow bitter

      Patrick Hudson, MD | Physician
    • Why removing fluoride from water is a public health disaster

      Steven J. Katz, DDS | Conditions

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

View 1 Comments >

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Why Medicaid cuts should alarm every doctor

      Ilan Shapiro, MD | Policy
    • When the diagnosis is personal: What my mother’s Alzheimer’s taught me about healing

      Pearl Jones, MD | Conditions
    • 2 hours to decide my future: How the SOAP residency match traps future doctors

      Nicolette V. S. Sewall, MD, MPH | Education
    • Key strategies for smooth EHR transitions in health care

      Sandra Johnson | Tech
    • Reassessing the impact of CDC’s opioid guidelines on chronic pain care [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why removing fluoride from water is a public health disaster

      Steven J. Katz, DDS | Conditions
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why tracking cognitive load could save doctors and patients

      Hiba Fatima Hamid | Education
    • What the world must learn from the life and death of Hind Rajab

      Saba Qaiser, RN | Conditions
    • The silent toll of ICE raids on U.S. patient care

      Carlin Lockwood | Policy
    • “Think twice, heal once”: Why medical decision-making needs a second opinion from your slower brain (and AI)

      Harvey Castro, MD, MBA | Tech
    • Why we fear being forgotten more than death itself

      Patrick Hudson, MD | Physician
    • Bureaucracy over care: How the U.S. health care system lost its way

      Kayvan Haddadan, MD | Physician
  • Recent Posts

    • How robotics are reshaping the future of vascular procedures

      David Fischel | Conditions
    • Medicalizing burnout misses the real problem

      Jessie Mahoney, MD | Physician
    • How the shingles vaccine could help prevent dementia

      Marc Arginteanu, MD | Conditions
    • How to survive a broken health care system without losing yourself [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why some doctors age gracefully—and others grow bitter

      Patrick Hudson, MD | Physician
    • Why removing fluoride from water is a public health disaster

      Steven J. Katz, DDS | Conditions

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

Adverse childhood experiences: Can government policy reduce trauma?
1 comments

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...