Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Integrating Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Risks Screening in Adult Primary Care

India Gill, Ariana Thompson-Lastad, Denise Ruvalcaba, Laura M. Gottlieb and Danielle Hessler Jones
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine April 2025, jabfm.2024.240170R1; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2024.240170R1
India Gill
From the Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (IG, LMG, DHJ); Osher Center for Integrative Health, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (AT-L, DR); Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (LMG, DHJ, AT-L).
PhD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ariana Thompson-Lastad
From the Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (IG, LMG, DHJ); Osher Center for Integrative Health, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (AT-L, DR); Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (LMG, DHJ, AT-L).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Denise Ruvalcaba
From the Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (IG, LMG, DHJ); Osher Center for Integrative Health, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (AT-L, DR); Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (LMG, DHJ, AT-L).
BA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laura M. Gottlieb
From the Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (IG, LMG, DHJ); Osher Center for Integrative Health, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (AT-L, DR); Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (LMG, DHJ, AT-L).
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Danielle Hessler Jones
From the Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (IG, LMG, DHJ); Osher Center for Integrative Health, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (AT-L, DR); Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (LMG, DHJ, AT-L).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Clinic Staff Demographics (n = 39)

    MeanStd. Dev.
     Years at Participating CHC5.35.2
    CountPercentage
    Clinical roles
     Clinic leadership1538.5%
     Allied health professionals1435.9%
     Licensed clinicians1025.6%
    Gender
     Woman3282.1%
     Man615.4%
     Non-binary12.6%
    Race and ethnicity
     Asian or Pacific Islander410.3%
     Black or African American37.7%
     Hispanic/Latine1743.6%
     Multi-racial25.1%
     White1333.3%
    Languages spoken
     English and Spanish2256.4%
     English only820.5%
     English, Spanish, and at least one  other language615.4%
     English and one other language  (excluding Spanish)37.7%
    • Note: Sixty percent of clinic leaders were also licensed clinicians (n = 9).

    • Abbreviations: CHC, Community health center.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Patient Demographics (n = 10)

    CountPercentage
    Years receiving care at CHC
     Less than 1 year330.0%
     1 to 2 years220.0%
     3 years or more440.0%
     Unknown110.0%
    Age
     18 to 24330.0%
     25 to 44550.0%
     45 to 64220.0%
    Gender
     Woman880.0%
     Man110.0%
     Prefer not to answer110.0%
    Race
     Black or African American110.0%
     Multi-racial or other220.0%
     Prefer not to answer110.0%
     White660.0%
    Ethnicity
     Non-Hispanic/Latine660.0%
     Hispanic/Latine330.0%
     Prefer not to answer110.0%
    Highest level of education
     Some high school110.0%
     Graduated high school/GED220.0%
     Some college440.0%
     Graduated college or graduate degree330.0%
    Household income
     0 to 25K440.0%
     25K to 50K440.0%
     50K to 100k110.0%
     Unsure110.0%
    • Abbreviation: CHC, Community health center.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Conceptual Benefits and Drawbacks of Integrating ACEs and SR Screening

    TopicsDescriptionSupporting Quotes
    Benefits
     Interconnection  between  ACEs and SR
    • ACEs and SR are correlated.

    • Childhood trauma shapes current life stressors.

    • “They all work so hand in hand with each other. It's impossible to take one out from the other.” – primary care clinician

    • “The ACEs questionnaire, the original adult 10 question questionnaires, is just not, in and by itself, as useful as when we combine it with more social determinants of health questions. And even just the PEARLS tool that we use for kids is so much more helpful, because it has these additional categories that are really crucial for us to know about.” – clinic leader and primary care clinician

    • “I believe it's absolutely necessary to have both. If you're opening a wound and not addressing it… It's not trauma informed, it's not patient-centered. And I believe it defeats the purpose of the conversation… As we look at social determinants of health, these are things that people live, experience, work. All these conditions impacted their family from their childhood, impacted their teenage selves or adult selves, the kids that they're raising and the families that they're starting. If we're talking about ending cycles of ACEs, it means giving them support.” – ACEs navigator

     Building Trust
    • ACEs and SR screening can have positive impact on patient-clinician relationships.

    • Screening may elicit trust and open communication.

    • “I think it opens so many beautiful doors. I've never ever felt it hindered my connection with my patients… I would say 90% of the time it leads to an opening and… a deeper connection with the patient.” – primary care clinician

    • “I feel that it does open things up, it does open a gateway to be able to interact and understand your patients more and see where they're coming from, as well as for the patient, who realizes that the provider does care.” – medical assistant

    • “I could see it definitely being triggering for some people… it perhaps creates a barrier between the provider and the patient. But I think at the end of the day, opening the dialogue and also, it does create a sense of trust if asked appropriately. And then with some sensitivity, knowing that they can trust their primary care provider.” – patient

    Drawbacks
     Overwhelming  to patients  and staff
    • ACEs screening can trigger emotional responses from patients – Addition of SR screening could overwhelm patients.

    • “What I'm afraid would happen is that people would start to deny their economic needs that we could help with… Because they're like, ‘Every time you ask me these questions, it re-traumatizes me. I don't want to talk about this anymore.’ They're like, ‘No, I'm fine. I have enough food.’ ‘No, I'm fine. I don't need transportation.’” – primary care clinician

    • “I feel like the ACEs is very personal and if you ask those personal questions, sometimes it brings up bad memories. They tend to get emotional, it just brings up their past… And then if you turn around and you're like, ‘Okay, well are you homeless? Are you, this?’ And then it's kind of like, ‘No, I don't want to talk about it.’ So like, ‘I'm done with the conversation, I don't want to talk about anything else.’ So I feel like one thing at a time, instead of bombarding them with 20 million questions, I think would be better.” – medical assistant

    • “It would feel like… a job interview instead of a doctor's appointment.” – patient

    • Abbreviations: ACEs, Adverse childhood experiences; SR, Suicide risk.

    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Practical Advantages and Barriers to Integrating ACEs and SR Screening

    TopicsDescriptionSupporting Quotes
    Advantage
     Efficiency
    • More effective and efficient to complete one integrated screening.

    • Reduce discussion of overlapping topics.

    • Offer more resources for referrals.

    • “I would say that the shorter the better, the quicker the better for everybody.” – primary care clinician

    • “We see a lot of patients a day… sometimes over 30 patients a day… So to be honest, yes [integrated screening] will be helpful, if it's shorter screening, or less time-consuming, especially for adult patients, they have a lot of comorbidities.” – primary care clinician

    • “That could definitely be harder for some people. If I had gotten all of that at the same time, I think that would've been fine. Especially if you're a new patient…it'd just kind of be nice to get that out of the way.” – patient

    Barriers
     Screening  Frequency
    • Data collection frequency for ACEs and SR differs.

    • ACEs screening are generally administered once a lifetime.

    • SR screening varies (e.g., during new patient intake, every visit, or annually).

    • “We were talking about the frequency because it's like, ‘Okay, do you do the social determinants, every visit every time or how do you do it?’ With ACEs it's easy after the age of 18, you only do it once in a lifetime because it never changes. Right? So with social determinants that can change in a day. Right? You could lose your job.” – clinic leader

    • “I feel if we ask both of them together every year, we can probably miss out on a opportunity to help out somebody that's in need before the year hits.” – medical assistant

     Time  Constraints
    • Brief visit time (10 to 15 minutes).

    • Clinic staff have competing needs to address.

    • Clinic staff may feel hesitant to “open a can of worms”.

    • "I guess my input is that for it to happen at the same visit isn't totally necessary. Would both of that information be useful? Absolutely. I'm just not certain that getting all of that done in one swoop is totally advisable in terms of the timing.” – primary care clinician

    • “It's more conversation around what the patient is facing both in their past and their present, and an opportunity to intervene if we have the resources to do so. So I think it's a good idea. Whether it's feasible is the only piece that you would have to really think about, just because our visits are 15 minutes.” – clinic leader and primary care clinician

    • “There's just so many things that have to be done and it could become overwhelming for staff, the provider and the patient… So I think that's where we get less compliance because it's like, ‘Now I have to do this, now I have to do that.’ It's like some of them say, ‘I don't even want to fill out this paperwork anymore. Why is there so much paperwork?’” – clinic leader

    • “Those are delicate subjects, and they're delicate things that people go through in life. It's not just something that you can put somebody in a room and say, ‘Oh, yeah, we'll do this for half an hour,’ and then send them on their way.” – patient

     Workforce- related  Concerns
    • High staff turnover and burnout impacts morale and results in fewer staff trained in ACEs/SR.

    • Differences in clinic staff responsible for administering ACEs and SR screening (e.g., medical assistants, ACEs navigators, social workers, clinicians).

    • Sustainability of grant-funded roles (e.g., ACEs navigator)

    • “I mean we try to fill the gaps as much as we can on the areas that we can, but the way that I look at it is that we can't be everything to all because it takes a village in some regards. And we got in this business being focused on this particular area and now it's kind of grown into, okay, we got to be your primary care provider, we got to be your mental health provider, we got to be your electric company, we got to be your taxi cab, we got to be your food bank, your grocery store, we got to be your landlord. That's a lot.” – clinic leader

    • “From front desk to MAs to medical clinicians, we had gone through an incredible rotation of clinicians. So that's a huge challenge. So whoever you train or whoever you have conversation about this, you have to retrain because we getting new clinicians and who knows, these new clinicians may be gone in a year or so.” – clinic leader

    • View popup
    Table 5.

    Clinic Staff and Patient Recommendations to Improve ACEs and SR Screening Programs

    RecommendationsDescription
    Clinic staff should fully explain why both screenings are administered and how they relate to current health.Although the majority of patients seen at study clinics completed the ACEs screening when there was hesitancy, staff observed that patients were more likely to complete the ACEs screening when staff had adequate time and training to provide context.
    Healthcare teams should take the type of visit into consideration before administering ACEs surveys to minimize potential re-traumatization.Clinic staff had differing approaches to what kinds of visits ACEs screening should be conducted. For example, many sites did not administer ACEs screening during telehealth visits. One medical assistant firmly suggested that ACEs screening should not be administered before a well-woman exam.
    Clinicians should always discuss screening results and offer resources.Many study participants highlighted the importance of discussing ACEs and SR screening results and offering referrals and resources accessible to patients at home. Many acknowledged that it takes time to accept or realize the impact of trauma. Some patients may initially decline referrals but may be interested later. One clinic staff member therefore recommended that referrals are always offered. Clinics should be clear about the availability of referrals and provide context for accessing resources with longer waiting periods.
    ACEs and SR-related resources and referrals should be provided whether or not formal screening takes place.A patient recommended posting SR resources on bulletin boards. This would allow patients to find community organizations or clinic resources (e.g., on-site food pantry) even when SR are not discussed in a visit.
    • Abbreviations: ACEs, Adverse childhood experiences; SR, Suicide risk.

    • View popup
    Table A1.

    ACEs Screening Workflow and Variability among Clinics

    ACEs Screening Workflows Description  Variability
    Screening Frequency  Clinics varied on frequency of screening ranging from once a year to once a lifetime.Most clinics conducted ACEs screening once in a lifetime. Few clinics collected ACEs once a year.
    Workforce  Clinics varied on who administered the screening.Most clinics had medical assistants distribute ACEs screening; one had dedicated ACEs navigators who distributed ACEs screening forms. Clinicians discussed the results of ACEs surveys with patients. Behavioral health clinicians sometimes readminister ACEs surveys for referred patients.
    Screening typeClinics varied in the type of ACEs survey they administered.Most clinics used a de-identified screening; one used an identified survey. There was variation in the version of the ACEs survey administered (e.g., ACE-10 or ACE-8 plus “resiliency questions”).
    ReferralsClinic staff varied on the type of resources or referrals offered and the criteria for offering referrals.Most clinics had access to on-site behavioral health care. The criteria for referrals were widely variable (e.g., no ACEs, 1 or more ACEs, or 4 or more ACEs).
    • Abbreviation: ACEs, Adverse childhood experiences.

    • View popup
    Table A2.

    SR Screening Workflow and Variability among Clinics

    SR Screening Workflows Description  Variability  
    MethodClinics varied on offering formal surveys (paper or digital) or informal conversations to discuss SR.Most clinics had informal discussions about SR instead of formal screening. SR screening was conducted during new patient intake or regular office visits.
    Screening typeClinic staff varied on the type of SR they discussed.There was variation in the types of SR discussed. Formal surveys included PRAPARE, Staying Healthy Assessment, and a clinic-specific checklist. Informal discussions were tailored to individual patients’ SR or available referral resources.
    WorkforceClinics varied on who administered the screening.There was wide variation in clinic staff administering formal surveys or informal conversations including front desk staff, MAs, clinicians, social workers, and ACEs navigators.
    ReferralsClinic staff varied in the type of resources they offered after SR screening.There was high variability in the types of resources and referrals offered (e.g., collaboration with 211 San Diego’s Community Information Exchange, Unite Us platform, on-site food banks).
    • Abbreviations: ACEs, Adverse childhood experiences; SR, Suicide risk; PRAPARE, Protocol for responding to and assessing patients' assets, risks, and experiences; MAS, Medical assistance services.

Previous
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 38 (1)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 38, Issue 1
January-February 2025
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Integrating Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Risks Screening in Adult Primary Care
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 19 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Integrating Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Risks Screening in Adult Primary Care
India Gill, Ariana Thompson-Lastad, Denise Ruvalcaba, Laura M. Gottlieb, Danielle Hessler Jones
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Apr 2025, jabfm.2024.240170R1; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2024.240170R1

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Integrating Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Risks Screening in Adult Primary Care
India Gill, Ariana Thompson-Lastad, Denise Ruvalcaba, Laura M. Gottlieb, Danielle Hessler Jones
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Apr 2025, jabfm.2024.240170R1; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2024.240170R1
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Appendix
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Research on the Social Context of Medicine and the Modern Family Physician
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Successful Implementation of Integrated Behavioral Health
  • Identifying and Addressing Social Determinants of Health with an Electronic Health Record
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Adverse Childhood Experiences
  • Community Health Centers
  • Integrated Health Care Systems
  • Patient-Centered Care
  • Physician-Patient Relations
  • Social Risk Factors

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire