Talk:Adverse Childhood Experiences movement

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 August 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caredgate1, Teedwards, Maggiejaxson. Peer reviewers: Mlanham12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Citation

https://www.wbaltv.com/amp/article/childhood-trauma-forum-baltimore-congressman-elijah-cummings/28763595 This can be used as a citation for Grass Roots involvement, but I can't get editor to load 🤷‍♂️ John Mark Wagnon (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

NB content not available in Europe so not great reference Dakinijones (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Adverse Childhood Experiences Study with Adverse Childhood Experiences movement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge both articles to form the start of a broader topic article at Adverse childhood experiences. Klbrain (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Research on impacts are better discussed in single article. Original study doesn't need separate article. Movement and interest are better discussed with responses to ACEs as a social issue and along with impacts of studies. Daask (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - the page Adverse Childhood Experiences movement refers to a movement spurred to bring awareness to the subject created by the earlier study in 1998. The movement as referred to is actually termed ACE-aware (now added to the page). The whole subject needs its own page as Adverse childhood experiences requiring little change to the existing page. The badly worded first sentence might indicate a wrong turning. A few sentences on the ACE-aware movement (not acceptable universally) could be added to the Study page. It has been more than twenty years since the ACE Study, and Adverse childhood experiences now have nearly one and a half million Google hits contrasted with 29k for Adverse Childhood Experiences Study and no entry on Wikipedia. Just to note that I had requested such a page move earlier today before this merge proposal was made. --Iztwoz (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Daask that only one page is needed but feel that that page be named Adverse childhood symptoms with info on the Study and on the movement, included as sections. Shall post a proposed name change on that page.--Iztwoz (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I would like to see an article named “Adverse childhood experiences” (no movement) and another named “Adverse childhood experiences questionnaires” or “ACEs questionnaires” I don’t think it should be “ACE study” as I believe it’s the questionnaires - both the original US and the WHO version - that are important long term rather than the studies testing their validity. And the term study opens up confusion with all the future studies done worldwide that employ the questionnaires, even if their focus is more about health or fiscal policies for example. The WHO version needs addressing to the same extent as the original version since it’s twice the size and adds concerns with peer, community and war violence. Also there’s research into race and class bias in the questionnaires and similar methodological research sufficient to justify a separate page from ACEs. But we do need to be sure to clarify the content for each and keep it pretty separate. If the consensus decision is to go for these two kinds of pages I’d be happy to help with the editing so that we do have two distinct pages for future editors. I think at the moment the titles of the two pages are confusing editors as to what should go where and what they find on the pages only confuses them further. Certainly I was confused when I first searched for Adverse childhood experiences and found a movement and a study!

As for the ACE page there’s a lot of good references available for material that isn’t written into the article yet. Policy makers are interested in health and other implications. (Apparently a high number of ACEs can lead to a 20 year lower life expectancy and 7 times more likelihood of addiction. Facts like these have lead to a lot of studies. Looking at google scholar there are over 100 pages of good referenced sources we could use to expand the ACE page and reflect what professionals and the general public alike are talking about in terms of ACEs. There are also some sources suitable for an ACE questionnaires page. https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=adverse+childhood+experiences&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart Studies are as diverse as ACES and adult pain, ACES and sexually transmitted diseases, ACEs and lesbian intimate partner violence, personality disorders and ACES and the economic costs of ACEs. So my vote is to divide methodology from the implications of the data gathered as a result of administering ACE questionnaires. Dakinijones (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)9

• Comment: Currently there are only three hits for the term "adverse childhood experiences movement" in Google Scholar, none of which have been cited by other sources, and there are only three hits for the term in Google News, none of which are in a major news source, so I wonder: How notable is the subject? Searching for "adverse childhood" + "ACE movement" finds no additional sources in Google News and a few more hits in Google Scholar, but none that are highly cited (or cited at all). Does the movement have any alternative names? Merging would be indicated in the absence of notability.

Notice that there are many articles in Wikipedia covering related topics, and editors in this area should consider how they all relate to each other when editing the content of any of them. The related articles that I found in a search for "adverse childhood experiences" are: (1) Adverse Childhood Experiences Study, (2) Adverse Childhood Experiences movement, (3) Adverse Childhood Experiences International Questionnaire (ACE-IQ), and (4) articles in the category Category:Adverse childhood experiences. Biogeographist (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Adverse childhood experiences now links to Causes of mental disorders.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Given the above, I suggest, merging both articles (and linking to other mentioned by Biogeographist) to Adverse childhood experiences. As Iztwoz notes, that's currently a redirect, but that's not an insurmountable obstacle to change. Klbrain (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

That would be a very good move - the only way I could get there before was by way of targeting the other page. It is a very widely used term.--Iztwoz (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the community section

(first wikipedia post) I am a graduate student planning on editing the community section to provide some additional information. Open to feedback, but will post by 5/9/21. The bolded is the original text.

As knowledge about the prevalence and consequences of ACEs increases, more communities seek to integrate trauma-informed and resilience-building practices into their agencies and systems. Research with American Indian tribal communities has demonstrated that social support and cultural involvement can ameliorate the effects of ACEs.[19] Additionally, focus group research with over 100 low-income urban youth indicates that the common systems of classifying ACEs are not currently sufficient in capturing community stressors, such as racial discrimination, poverty, and community violence, that can also result in childhood trauma (Wade et al., 2014).

Qualitative studies have proposed a handful of models on how best to disseminate information about ACEs to community members in order to create trauma-informed systemic change. For example, after conducting a series of interviews and focus groups in 10 cities around the US, Ellis & Dietz (2017) proposed the Building Community Resilience model, a two-phase model that emphasizes collaboration across public sectors in order to create a coordinated array of community services. The focus of phase 1 is developing shared goals and understanding between different stakeholders (community health workers, pediatricians, parents, etc) in order to assess areas of strength, design interventions, and create a broader network of care. Phase 2 then utilizes the established community care network to create coordinated initiatives aimed at prevention of toxic stress. Data collection and community feedback is to be conducted continuously in order to refine strategies. The empower action model (created as part of the South Carolina ACE Initiative) also recommends a collaborative approach to knit together different community stakeholders and uses data-driven feedback to inform decision-making. The authors created concrete steps for implementation after studying the shortcomings of previous models and examining 3 years of post-ACE training survey data, then refining the model through a series of focus groups with participants who work in child welfare. In the empower action model, community resilience is built by reinforcing 5 protective factors across multiple social levels (individual, organizational, community, and public policy) and throughout the lifespan. Racial equity is fundamental for creating healthy communities, and in this model, ACE prevalence is expected to diminish as systemic barriers are removed for entire populations. Currently, 3 different state-funded agencies have implemented the empower action model and from these experiences the authors recommended the following: having representation from multiple stakeholders, selecting a facilitator for meetings, developing a formalized “readiness process” prior to application of the model, celebrating progress, and understanding that sustainable change takes time and flexibility (Srivastav et al., 2020).

There is a paucity of empirical research documenting the experiences of communities who have attempted to implement information about ACEs and trauma-informed practice into widespread public action. The Matlin et al. (2019) article on Pottstown, Pennsylvania’s process demonstrated the challenges associated with community implementation. The Pottstown Trauma-Informed Community Connection (PTICC) initiative evolved from a series of prior collectives that all had similar goals of creating community resilience in order to prevent and treat ACEs. Over the course of the two year study, over 230 individuals from nearly 100 organizations attended one training offered by the PTICC, raising the number of engaged public sectors from 2 to 14. Participation in training and events was fairly steady and this was largely due to community networking.

However, the PTICC faced several challenges similar to those predicted by the Building Community Resilience model. These barriers included availability of resources over time, competition for power within the group, and the lack of systemic change needed to support long-term goals. Still, Pottstown has built a trauma-informed community foundation and offers lessons to other communities who have similar goals: start with a dedicated small team, identify community connectors, secure long term financial backing, and conduct data-informed evaluations throughout (Matlin et al., 2019).

Other community examples exist, such as Tarpon Springs, Florida which became the first trauma-informed community in 2011.[16][17] Trauma-informed initiatives in Tarpon Springs include trauma-awareness training for the local housing authority, changes in programs for ex-offenders, and new approaches to educating students with learning difficulties.[18] HelenHywater (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)