Borrego Health
Desert Hot Springs, California, 92240, United States
NCT Number: NCT04916587
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are pervasive among children with 45% experiencing at least one ACE and 10% experiencing three or more, placing them at high risk for toxic stress and symptomatology. Yet, ACEs often go undetected in primary care settings during well-child visits due to unclear policies and tested implementation strategies. This pilot study will use mapping methodology, guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment (EPIS) framework, to refine a multi-faceted strategy supporting the implementation of the state of California's 2020 policy promoting universal ACE screening in community clinics, and a stepped-wedge trial to test the impact of the strategy on implementation and child-level outcomes.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me0 year–5 year
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Desert Hot Springs, California, 92240, United States
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are defined as traumatic events occurring before age 18, such as maltreatment, life-threatening accident, harsh migration experiences or exposure to violence. ACEs are pervasive, with 45% experiencing at least one ACE and 10% experiencing three or more ACEs, placing them at high risk for negative life outcomes. ACEs are more prevalent among minority and immigrant communities due to exposure to poverty, discrimination, community violence, national disasters, and refugee experiences. ACEs screenings have potential value in identifying children experiencing toxic stress and the physical and mental health conditions associated with it such as asthma, Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) and anxiety. Yet, they are seldom used in primary care during well-child visits. The Surgeon General of the state of California have addressed this care gap by issuing an ACEs screening policy. Starting January 2020, MediCal, California's Medicaid health care program, will reimburse primary care settings ($29) for using the Pediatric ACEs and Related Life-events Screener (PEARLS) tool to screen children for ACEs during wellness visits. Despite significant investment in California and nationwide, evidence of the public health value of universal child screening policies is unclear. Increased screening efforts often do not translate into higher access to care for children and may even exacerbate disparities by increasing stigma and reinforcing a deficit view of marginalized groups. These results have been attributed to a lack of rigorous studies testing implementation strategies suited for pediatric screening policies. This mixed-method study will fill this gap by refining and testing an implementation strategy using a multi-site controlled trial within a Federally Qualified Health Center in Southern California. [Update 05/2024] Using the EPIS framework, we will employ a hybrid (type 2), controlled trial using a stepped-wedge design (n=5 clinics; 3 in the study and 2 clinics already implementing ACEs and used as comparison sites) to test the central hypothesis that clinics employing a multifaceted implementation strategy will have higher fidelity and reach of the ACEs screening policy. The partner FQHC system experienced financial strain during the COVID-19 pandemic and several of the randomly selected clinics closed prior to randomization.Selection of replacement clinics was based on clinic capacity to participate in the trial. Secondary hypothesis: impact of the ACEs policy on child mental health service and symptom outcomes. Aims are: 1. Refine a multifaceted implementation strategy to support the implementation of the ACEs screening policy in community-based clinics, and 2. Pilot test the feasibility, acceptability, fidelity and reach of the implementation strategy and the impact of the ACEs policy on child patient-level outcomes. This project capitalizes on a rare opportunity to pilot test an implementation strategy to maximize the impact of a state-wide policy intended to improve child health in under-resourced settings.
Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
We will use implementation mapping, guided by the EPIS framework, to promote a co-created process and refine the strategy comprised of online training videos, a customized ACEs algorithm and use of technology to improve workflow efficiency, implementation technical assistance/coaching, and written implementation protocols.
The ACEs Aware policy goal is to "equip providers with training and clinical protocols to screen children and adults for ACEs, detect ACEs early, and connect patients to interventions, resources, and other support to improve patient health and well-being." ACEs screenings are comprised of: a) a 2-hour on-line provider training; b) the Pediatric ACEs and Related Life-events Screener or PEARLS tool; c) an ACEs associated health conditions checklist; and d) complete a wellness exam. The primary care provider uses multiple sources of information to identify a child's need for follow-up services.
Other names: ACEs Screenings
Time frame: Every 10 weeks during the study trial, up to 19 months
The number of participants with ACEs screenings.
Time frame: Every 10 weeks during the study trial, up to 19 months.
Number of participants with a mental health referral (behavioral analysis, behavioral health, care coordinator, care management, child development/development center or social work)
Time frame: First score measure during ACEs screenings. Follow-up scores from 8 - 16 months
The percentage of children screening positive for BPSS or PPSC from the time of the ACEs screening. These data were collected on a subsample of study participants during ACEs screenings (n=414). From that group, a total of 50 caregivers provided follow up information on PSC scores (n=50).
This secondary outcome was collected as part of the strategy in the intervention group only (i.e., ACEs screenings plus the multifaceted implementation strategy group). The data were only collected from the "ACEs Screenings and a Multifaceted Implementation Strategy" Arm/Group.
Time frame: End of data collection -End of period 7 in the stepped-wedge schedule
Self-reported 4-item instrument to evaluate acceptability of ACEs policy and implementation efforts. 5-pt Likert scale; average score of 4+ shows acceptability. Good internal consistency (α=0.83). Test-retest reliability r=0.83. At the end of the stepped-wedge schedule, clinical personnel were invited to participate in a survey to evaluate the acceptability of the strategy. These data were collected on a subsample of clinic personnel involved in the implementation of the ACEs screenings at the study clinical sites.
This self-reported 4-item instrument to evaluate acceptability used a 5-point Likert scale for each item, ranging from 1 (Completely Disagree) to 5 (Completely Agree). The total score is calculated by summing the responses across all four items, which range from 4 to 20, with higher scores indicating greater acceptability.
Time frame: End of data collection- End of Period 7 based on the Stepped-Wedge Schedule
Self-reported 4-item instrument to evaluate the feasibility of implementation efforts. 5-pt Likert scale; average score of 4+ shows ACEs policy and implementation strategy perceived as feasible. Good internal consistency (α=0.89). Test-retest reliability r=0.88. At the end of the stepped-wedge schedule, clinical personnel were invited to participate in a survey to evaluate the feasibility of the strategy. These data were collected on a subsample of clinic personnel involved in the implementation of the ACEs screenings at the study clinical sites.
This self-reported 4-item instrument to evaluate feasibility used a 5-point Likert scale for each item, ranging from 1 (Completely Disagree) to 5 (Completely Agree). The total score is calculated by summing the responses across all four items, which range from 4 to 20, with higher scores indicating greater feasibility.
University of Colorado, Denver
Other
Supporting the Implementation of a State Policy on Screening for Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC)
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT06983327
Adverse Childhood Experiences, Chronic Pain
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT05122988
Adverse Childhood Experiences, Behavior
Olten, Switzerland
View Trial DetailsNCT05824182
Adverse Childhood Experiences, Behavior
Olten, Canton of Solothurn, Switzerland
View Trial DetailsNCT04958694
Adolescent Behavior, Adverse Childhood Experiences
Chicago, Illinois, United States
View Trial Details