Operationalizing inclusion: moving from an elusive goal to strategic action.

To mitigate the structural and institutional biases that contribute to inequities in health, we need a diverse cadre of individuals to feel included and advance within our field in order to bring a multicultural set of perspectives to the studies we conduct, the science we generate, the health and academic systems we design, and the medical and scientific knowledge we impart. There has been increasing focus on diversity, inclusion, and equity in recent years; however, often these terms are presented without adequate precision and, therefore, the inability to effectively operationalize inclusion and achieve diversity within organizations. This narrative review details several key studies, with the primary objective of presenting a roadmap to guide defining, measuring, and operationalizing inclusion within work and learning environments.

The Youth Firearm Risk and Safety Tool (Youth-FiRST): Psychometrics and Validation of a Gun Attitudes and Violence Exposure Assessment Tool.

This study reports on the development of a comprehensive assessment of exposure to guns and gun-related violence for evaluating the risk of gun-related trauma. Gun access, gun attitudes, gun safety education, and exposure to gun violence were measured. Participants were 630 youth, aged 2-17. Youth, ages 10-17, completed a self-report survey and caregivers of young children, ages 2-9, completed the survey as a proxy for that child. The youth were from urban (n = 286) and rural (n = 344) areas. Factor analysis, item response theory, and structural equation modeling were used. Two factors described access to guns, two factors described gun attitudes, and a single construct captured gun safety education. The gun violence exposure factor showed strong associations with trauma symptomatology. The individual constructs showed good psychometric properties and measurement noninvariance by urbanicity.

Methods to Assess Adverse Childhood Experiences of Children and Families: Toward Approaches to Promote Child Well-being in Policy and Practice.

BACKGROUND: Advances in human development sciences point to tremendous possibilities to promote healthy child development and well-being across life by proactively supporting safe, stable and nurturing family relationships (SSNRs), teaching resilience, and intervening early to promote healing the trauma and stress associated with disruptions in SSNRs. Assessing potential disruptions in SSNRs, such as adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), can contribute to assessing risk for trauma and chronic and toxic stress. Asking about ACEs can help with efforts to prevent and attenuate negative impacts on child development and both child and family well-being. Many methods to assess ACEs exist but have not been compared. The National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH) now measures ACEs for children, but requires further assessment and validation. METHODS: We identified and compared methods to assess ACEs among children and families, evaluated the acceptability and validity of the new NSCH-ACEs measure, and identified implications for assessing ACEs in research and practice. RESULTS: Of 14 ACEs assessment methods identified, 5 have been used in clinical settings (vs public health assessment or research) and all but 1 require self or parent report (3 allow child report). Across methods, 6 to 20 constructs are assessed, 4 of which are common to all: parental incarceration, domestic violence, household mental illness/suicide, household alcohol or substance abuse. Common additional content includes assessing exposure to neighborhood violence, bullying, discrimination, or parental death. All methods use a numeric, cumulative risk scoring methodology. The NSCH-ACEs measure was acceptable to respondents as evidenced by few missing values and no reduction in response rate attributable to asking about children's ACEs. The 9 ACEs assessed in the NSCH co-occur, with most children with 1 ACE having additional ACEs. This measure showed efficiency and confirmatory factor analysis as well as latent class analysis supported a cumulative risk scoring method. Formative as well as reflective measurement models further support cumulative risk scoring and provide evidence of predictive validity of the NSCH-ACEs. Common effects of ACEs across household income groups confirm information distinct from economic status is provided and suggest use of population-wide versus high-risk approaches to assessing ACEs. CONCLUSIONS: Although important variations exist, available ACEs measurement methods are similar and show consistent associations with poorer health outcomes in absence of protective factors and resilience. All methods reviewed appear to coincide with broader goals to facilitate health education, promote health and, where needed, to mitigate the trauma, chronic stress, and behavioral and emotional sequelae that can arise with exposure to ACEs. Assessing ACEs appears acceptable to individuals and families when conducted in population-based and clinical research contexts. Although research to date and neurobiological findings compel early identification and health education about ACEs in clinical settings, further research to guide use in pediatric practice is required, especially as it relates to distinguishing ACEs assessment from identifying current family psychosocial risks and child abuse. The reflective as well as formative psychometric analyses conducted in this study confirm use of cumulative risk scoring for the NSCH-ACEs measure. Even if children have not been exposed to ACEs, assessing ACEs has value as an educational tool for engaging and educating families and children about the importance of SSNRs and how to recognize and manage stress and learn resilience.

Screening for Social Determinants of Health Among Children and Families Living in Poverty: A Guide for Clinicians.

Approximately 20% of all children in the United States live in poverty, which exists in rural, urban, and suburban areas. Thus, all child health clinicians need to be familiar with the effects of poverty on health and to understand associated, preventable, and modifiable social factors that impact health. Social determinants of health are identifiable root causes of medical problems. For children living in poverty, social determinants of health for which clinicians may play a role include the following: child maltreatment, child care and education, family financial support, physical environment, family social support, intimate partner violence, maternal depression and family mental illness, household substance abuse, firearm exposure, and parental health literacy. Children, particularly those living in poverty, exposed to adverse childhood experiences are susceptible to toxic stress and a variety of child and adult health problems, including developmental delay, asthma and heart disease. Despite the detrimental effects of social determinants on health, few child health clinicians routinely address the unmet social and psychosocial factors impacting children and their families during routine primary care visits. Clinicians need tools to screen for social determinants of health and to be familiar with available local and national resources to address these issues. These guidelines provide an overview of social determinants of health impacting children living in poverty and provide clinicians with practical screening tools and resources.

Household and community-level Adverse Childhood Experiences and adult health outcomes in a diverse urban population.

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), which include family dysfunction and community-level stressors, negatively impact the health and well being of children throughout the life course. While several studies have examined the impact of these childhood exposures amongst racially and socially diverse populations, the contribution of ACEs in the persistence of socioeconomic disparities in health is poorly understood. To determine the association between ACEs and health outcomes amongst a sample of adults living in Philadelphia and examine the moderating effect of Socioeconomic Status (SES) on this association, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of 1,784 Philadelphia adults, ages 18 and older, using random digit dialing methodology to assess Conventional ACEs (experiences related to family dysfunction), Expanded ACEs (community-level stressors), and health outcomes. Using weighted, multivariable logistic regression analyses along with SES stratified models, we examined the relationship between ACEs and health outcomes as well as the modifying effect of current SES. High Conventional ACE scores were significantly associated with health risk behaviors, physical and mental illness, while elevated Expanded ACE scores were associated only with substance abuse history and sexually transmitted infections. ACEs did have some differential impacts on health outcomes based on SES. Given the robust impact of Conventional ACEs on health, our results support prior research highlighting the primacy of family relationships on a child's life course trajectory and the importance of interventions designed to support families. Our findings related to the modifying effect of SES may provide additional insight into the complex relationship between poverty and childhood adversity.

Adverse Childhood Experiences: Expanding the Concept of Adversity.

INTRODUCTION: Current knowledge of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) relies on data predominantly collected from white, middle- / upper-middle-class participants and focuses on experiences within the home. Using a more socioeconomically and racially diverse urban population, Conventional and Expanded (community-level) ACEs were measured to help understand whether Conventional ACEs alone can sufficiently measure adversity, particularly among various subgroups. METHODS: Participants from a previous large, representative, community-based health survey in Southeast Pennsylvania who were aged ≥18 years were contacted between November 2012 and January 2013 to complete another phone survey measuring ACEs. Ordinal logistic regression models were used to test associations between Conventional and Expanded ACEs scores and demographic characteristics. Analysis was conducted in 2013 and 2014. RESULTS: Of 1,784 respondents, 72.9% had at least one Conventional ACE, 63.4% at least one Expanded ACE, and 49.3% experienced both. A total of 13.9% experienced only Expanded ACEs and would have gone unrecognized if only Conventional ACEs were assessed. Certain demographic characteristics were associated with higher risk for Conventional ACEs but were not predictive of Expanded ACEs, and vice versa. Few adversities were associated with both Conventional and Expanded ACEs. CONCLUSIONS: To more accurately represent the level of adversity experienced across various sociodemographic groups, these data support extending the Conventional ACEs measure.