Does screening or routine enquiry for adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) meet criteria for a screening programme? A rapid evidence summary

BACKGROUND

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are traumatic events in childhood that can have impacts throughout life. It has been suggested that ACEs should be 'screened' for, or routinely enquired about, in childhood or adulthood. The aim of this work is to review evidence for this against the United Kingdom National Screening Committee (UKNSC) programme criteria.

METHODS

A rapid review of evidence on ACEs screening was conducted using the approach of the UKNSC.

RESULTS

Good quality evidence was identified from meta-analyses for associations between ACEs and a wide range of adverse outcomes. There was no consistent evidence on the most suitable screening tool, setting of administration, and time or frequency of use. Routine enquiry among adults was feasible and acceptable to service users and professionals in various settings. A wide range of potentially effective interventions was identified. Limited evidence was available on the potential for screening or routine enquiry to reduce morbidity and mortality or possible harms of screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the application of available evidence to UKNSC screening criteria, there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend the implementation of a screening programme for ACEs. Further research is needed to determine whether routine enquiry can improve morbidity, mortality, health and wellbeing.

How can we achieve impact from public health research? A meta-ethnography of case studies

BACKGROUND

Generation of public health impact from research is challenging. Research of similar quality often has differential uptake and there is considerable lag time between initiation and uptake of research. Improving understanding of how research impact can be achieved may identify areas stakeholders could target.

METHODS

This work uses meta-ethnography to synthesize 21 case studies exploring how researchers have generated public health policy impact.

RESULTS

Eight constructs were identified: expertise; motivation; practical solutions to important problems; support structure and funding; collaboration; wide dissemination and use of media to contribute ideas to the wider narrative; understanding the policy realm; and models of impact. The constructs were combined in a lines-of-argument synthesis, producing a model that seeks to illustrate the diffuse, complex and dynamic nature of the process of generating impact from research.

CONCLUSION

Achieving research impact involves seeking to shape wider debates, building relationships with policy makers, becoming a trusted collaborator and being available to provide relevant and practical solutions to questions of concern to policy makers at the appropriate time.