This article draws attention to the overlapping literature on social determinants of health and adverse childhood experiences, and the growing clinical interest in addressing them to promote children’s and parents’ health and well-being. We address important considerations and suggest solutions for leaders and practitioners in primary care to address social determinants of health/adverse childhood experiences. Priorities include: begin with a few prevalent conditions for which there are helpful resources; focus on conditions that are current or recent and where parents may be more apt to engage in services; focus initially on families with children aged <6 given the frequency of well-child visits and the especially strong relationships between primary care professionals and parents during this period; ensure training of primary care professionals and staff to help them play this role competently and comfortably; and have good referral processes to facilitate additional evaluation or help.

Recognition of the critical roles family, community, and society play in the health and development of children has been a pillar of pediatric and family medicine.1,2  Primary care professionals (PCPs) help parents navigate the challenges of raising children with advice on an array of issues including feeding, toilet training, and child safety. Increasingly, both social and biological sciences highlight the impact of the social environment3  and childhood trauma on health and well-being.46  This understanding coupled with the commitment to prevention and support for families leads to mounting interest in better addressing social determinants of health (SDH) and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) urged in a 2012 policy statement that pediatricians play leadership roles in addressing the enduring effects of early life adversity on child health and development.4  More recently, the AAP Screening Technical Assistance & Resource (STAR) Center developed materials “to improve the health, wellness, and development of children through practice and system-based interventions to increase rates of early childhood screening, counseling, referral, and follow-up for developmental milestones, perinatal depression, and SDH.”7  Marie-Mitchell and Kosotlansky conducted a valuable systematic review of trials to improve outcomes associated with ACEs.8  Sokol and colleagues did a similar review of screening children for SDH.9  This state-of the-art article is based on clinical experience and the literature regarding conceptual and practical challenges in addressing SDH/ACEs. Our goal is to guide primary care leaders, managers, and practitioners to better address ACEs and SDHs and improve child and family outcomes.

ACEs and SDH are conceptually similar, despite developing as separate fields of inquiry, advocacy, policy, and practice. Their definitions vary while including a variety of environmental exposures that threaten children’s health, development, well-being, and safety.4,10  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines ACEs as “potentially traumatic events that occur in childhood, and aspects of the child’s environment that can undermine their sense of safety, stability, and bonding.”11  They define SDH as “conditions in the places where people live, learn, work, and play that affect a wide range of health and quality-of-life risks and outcomes.”12  Lists of potential ACEs and SDH vary (Table 1). The family and home environment are the critical social context, especially for young children. Exposure to domestic violence (DV), for example, is clearly both part of their social context and likely traumatic, and an example where ACEs and SDH overlap. Other issues, such as access to education or health care, more typically are construed as SDH. Although ACEs and SDH somewhat overlap, PCPs have been encouraged to screen for both. In practice, the core task is to prioritize which of the many possible SDH/ACEs to address, regardless of varying taxonomies.

TABLE 1

Examples of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and Social Determinants of Health (SDH)

ACEs10 SDH11 
Physical abuse by caregiver Social and community context 
Neglect by caregiver Economic stability 
Domestic violence Education access and quality 
Family member substance misuse Health care access and quality 
Family member mental health problems Neighborhood and built environment 
Parental incarceration  
ACEs10 SDH11 
Physical abuse by caregiver Social and community context 
Neglect by caregiver Economic stability 
Domestic violence Education access and quality 
Family member substance misuse Health care access and quality 
Family member mental health problems Neighborhood and built environment 
Parental incarceration  

For over a century, pediatricians have held high ideals for primary care to be comprehensive, but practice has often been narrowly focused.1  With renewed interest in SDH/ACEs, how can primary care be modified to realize this broad vision? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, health systems, and professional organizations increasingly highlight the important role that SDH/ACEs play in people’s overall health.13,14  Growing evidence of this relationship has led government payers, private insurance companies, and health care systems to consider ways to address problems facing many families.15  Nevertheless, some question the appropriateness of primary care accepting this evolving role, particularly in the context of time and fiscal constraints.16  Good practice for identifying, assessing, and addressing SDH/ACEs, as well as the effectiveness of interventions, remain subjects of debate.17,18 

Exposure to ACEs in childhood has been associated with multiple long-term health consequences, including heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and depression.4,19  The risks increase with the number of ACEs, and the linkage is thought to be in part via high levels of stress hormones in childhood and adolescence.4,1921  The substantial evidence of the economic and societal impact of ACEs provides justification to both prevent these experiences and to intervene if they have occurred.

The science underpinning approaches to SDH/ACEs remains preliminary: which problems to prioritize, how far back in time to cover, when to screen, how to phrase questions, and how to treat. For example, although multiple screening tools exist, few have been rigorously evaluated for usability, reliability, and comparative effectiveness.18,22  Priorities and resources vary; a screener that works well in one community may be less suitable elsewhere. Ideally, empirical evidence would demonstrate that screening for SDH/ACEs and resultant interventions lead to long-term improvements in health. Unfortunately, there are many links and many years in that chain of causal events. Despite uncertainties, applying the best available science, while continuing to evaluate, learn, and refine the evidence to better address SDH/ACEs, is a realistic strategy.

As the US health care system grapples with high costs and varying quality, and as payment moves from fee for service to fee for value, PCPs must consider their role in helping address SDH/ACEs. Ideally, advocacy, education, clinical tools, payment reform, referral platforms, and integration of care management and behavioral health with medical services are needed to improve children’s social environment and health; such innovations should improve the value of care.

As health care financing has evolved, incentives for quality have been combined with managing costs in a variety of payment methods known as “fee for value.” The spectrum of fee for value structures starts with incentives for quality and cost control, moves toward shared risk and shared reward, and, in its most robust form, involves fully capitated payments with embedded quality metrics.23  The trend toward value-based care has accelerated over recent decades, with increasing national penetration.24  Some payers or health systems use addressing SDH/ACEs as a quality metric or as an end in and of itself.25  However, as health care delivery moves toward full capitation and responsibility for total cost of care, PCPs will need to innovate to keep patients as healthy as possible. Programs that address SDH/ACEs, such as transportation limitations and food insecurity, do exist,26  but more approaches need to be evaluated.15 

Other promising developments in primary care are embedded (ie, within a practice) care management and integrated behavioral health (IBH). These sometimes overlap depending on the expertise, clinical skills, training, and reimbursement mechanisms in a particular practice. Licensed clinical social workers often provide both IBH and care management.

Although care management and IBH are increasingly viewed as essential and cost effective,2729  challenges remain. A practice must be of sufficient size to support extra personnel. In addition, payment systems vary for such services, and practices often differentiate which services are available for whom based on payment source. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic fostered the increased use of telehealth; this could expand to help address these issues. Video visits and use of community hubs can be effective3033  and can enable professionals to efficiently cover several practices. Importantly, such models can help limit the costs of providing such care.

Lack of staff and expertise illustrates the conundrum facing PCPs as they aim to offer broad, supportive care within the current health care environment. That said, the role in primary care is often one of triage and facilitating additional evaluation and/or help when needed. In this sense, helping address SDH/ACEs is akin to addressing many medical problems. The following sections focus on important practical aspects of addressing SDH/ACEs.

Screening may target family conditions, parent or child experiences (current and/or past), or a combination (Table 2). Although past experiences can have long-lasting impacts, current or recent problems tend to have more current effects, may be easier to address, and parents may be more amenable to accept help.34,35  Both parents and children typically are affected by problems such as parental substance use and food insecurity. We thus recommend prioritizing SDH/ACEs that are current or recent.

TABLE 2

Suggestions for Screening for SDH/ACEs

IssueSuggested Solution
What lifecycle period to target? Focus on recent and current problems. 
Whom to screen? Prioritize parents of young children (eg, ages 0–5). 
Universal versus selective screening Universal (eg, parents of all young children). 
Broad versus focused screening Prioritize a few SDH/ACEs to address. 
What to screen for? Parental depression, severe stress, unhealthy drug use, domestic violence, harsh punishment, food insecurity. 
Selecting a screener Use an evidence-informed screener that fits the practice. The AAP STAR center has a list.7  
When to screen? Select several well-child visits. 
Responding to positive screens Acknowledge parent’s disclosure. 
 Use evidence-informed approach.If possible, work with a behavioral health professional (eg, social worker). 
Reimbursement Use CPT code 96161, check with local insurers. 
Training for PCPs Prepare PCPs to play this role. 
 See AAP STAR Center, SEEK Website. 
Motivational interviewing (MI) Incorporate principles of MI. 
Protective factors/strengths Identify family strengths and resources to facilitate engagement. 
Informal support for families Foster and strengthen informal supports. 
Parent handouts Provide handouts as an adjunct to conversation. 
 Customize with information on local resources. 
Facilitating referrals Plan and assess the practice’s system to ensure referrals succeed. 
Use of technology Use software to facilitate screening, assessment, parent education and follow-up. 
IssueSuggested Solution
What lifecycle period to target? Focus on recent and current problems. 
Whom to screen? Prioritize parents of young children (eg, ages 0–5). 
Universal versus selective screening Universal (eg, parents of all young children). 
Broad versus focused screening Prioritize a few SDH/ACEs to address. 
What to screen for? Parental depression, severe stress, unhealthy drug use, domestic violence, harsh punishment, food insecurity. 
Selecting a screener Use an evidence-informed screener that fits the practice. The AAP STAR center has a list.7  
When to screen? Select several well-child visits. 
Responding to positive screens Acknowledge parent’s disclosure. 
 Use evidence-informed approach.If possible, work with a behavioral health professional (eg, social worker). 
Reimbursement Use CPT code 96161, check with local insurers. 
Training for PCPs Prepare PCPs to play this role. 
 See AAP STAR Center, SEEK Website. 
Motivational interviewing (MI) Incorporate principles of MI. 
Protective factors/strengths Identify family strengths and resources to facilitate engagement. 
Informal support for families Foster and strengthen informal supports. 
Parent handouts Provide handouts as an adjunct to conversation. 
 Customize with information on local resources. 
Facilitating referrals Plan and assess the practice’s system to ensure referrals succeed. 
Use of technology Use software to facilitate screening, assessment, parent education and follow-up. 

CPT, Current Procedural Terminology; SEEK, Safe Environment for Every Kid.

SDH/ACEs can affect children of any age (Table 2). However, an argument exists for prioritizing early childhood, a period when children have the most frequent visits for health care and their families’ relationships with PCPs may be the most influential. Early childhood is also an especially critical time in children’s development.36  Nonetheless, many SDH/ACEs remain relevant throughout childhood, although the prevalence of some SDH/ACEs varies across different developmental periods. Another consideration is that it is already standard practice to screen adolescents directly for several SDH/ACEs. We suggest prioritizing screening for parents of young children (aged 0–5), but PCPs may reasonably choose to extend this to families with older children.

Decisions about whom to screen are sometimes based on whether there are known higher-risk populations to prioritize or whether there are subgroups for whom the interventions are more available or more efficacious (Table 2). There may be ethical problems to screening based solely on demographic factors that are associated with risk unless there is very strong evidence. Until evidence is developed, it seems preferable to screen more broadly (eg, parents of all children aged 0–5).

Many practices have adapted the Kaiser Permanente model, screening for 10 or more adversities.37,38  Such a broad approach comports with the findings about “dose-related” impact (ie, a greater number of adversities is associated with poorer outcomes),39  thus identifying the most exposed and possibly most affected children. It remains uncertain, however, what to do with the high-exposure families, given that there is no generic high-exposure intervention. It is likely more useful to instead identify and address specific problems the family prioritizes. However, we acknowledge that some families have multiple problems that may challenge a comprehensive approach.

Broad approaches may have other drawbacks. Screening for more problems requires more PCP training, more time to address them, identifying more resources, and more referrals facilitated, as well as efforts to ensure these occur. An important consideration is the paucity of evidence for screening for some problems, such as current or recent child abuse. In addition, some problems, such as emotional maltreatment, are quite complex and difficult to readily identify; PCPs may feel ill-equipped to assess and respond. Other problems, such as inadequate housing, may be especially challenging to address, considering the scarcity of resources in many regions. Given the preliminary state of the science, it is our judgment that it is prudent to start addressing a few prioritized SDH/ACEs.

Commonly accepted criteria for screening include:

  1. the condition must be prevalent or of significant public health importance;

  2. a sensitive and acceptable screening tool that is easy and inexpensive to administer with little risk must be available;36  and

  3. effective interventions must be available (Table 2).

Many problems are widely prevalent and are clearly connected to health (eg, parental substance use).40  In contrast, other problems may be rare in some communities. Without systematic surveillance, however, the prevalence of problems is often uncertain. Recent studies comparing the impact of ACEs found that the most trauma-related symptoms manifested among the children and teens who were exposed to parental emotional abuse, DV, and parental mental health problems.41  ACEs such as parental incarceration appeared less toxic. Other problems that are relatively prevalent and toxic included bullying, parental stress, and food insecurity. Some of these SDH/ACEs have evidence-informed interventions that are generally available, such as treatment of depression, parental stress, substance use, and food insecurity.4244  These and the above considerations point to the advantage of prioritizing a limited number of problems with readily available interventions to help meet critical needs of the population served. The following SDH/ACEs have a relatively strong evidence base and may serve as useful targets to address:

  • Parental depression. Its negative impact has been amply demonstrated, validated screening tools exist, and evidence-based interventions are generally accessible.4447 

  • Severe parental stress. The problem is common. Evidence-informed parenting programs exist in many communities.4851 

  • Unhealthy drug use. This problem, too, is prevalent. Treatment can be effective,40  and there is support from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force for screening adults.52 

  • Domestic violence. This is a toxic and relatively prevalent adversity. Widely used screens and evidence-informed intervention programs exist.5356 

  • Harsh punishment. The potential harm associated with these practices is well established. An array of parent training and disciplinary interventions are available.57,58 

  • Food insecurity. This problem is prevalent in low-income communities. The interventions are relatively straightforward. Evidence exists that screening can increase access to programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.42,5961 

It is optimal to use a validated questionnaire with good sensitivity and specificity, as well as predictive values (Table 2). Research has focused on screening for individual problems, such as depression,6264  food insecurity,42,65,66  DV,67,68  substance use,69,70  and discipline challenges.71  Of note, screeners targeting multiple problems have not been validated in their specific formats, although some component questions may be validated. Related considerations in selecting a screener include the ease of administration, scoring, and interpretation, which is critical in a busy practice. Some screeners are brief and simple to interpret; others are longer with multiple response options. The screener should be easily understood (ie, at no more than an eighth grade reading level) and available in locally used languages. Acceptability to providers and parents is also important. The introduction can help convey its purpose in an empathic tone; building upon PCPs’ longstanding concern for children’s well-being offers a familiar context for screening. The AAP STAR Center lists several available screeners,72  and systematic reviews provide valuable critiques.8,9 

One consideration is whether to focus only on well-child visits or also “sick” visits for addressing SDH/ACEs. Parents of an ill child may be anxious and reluctant to delve into psychosocial problems at that time. Alternatively, some opt to seize all opportunities and screen at sick and even emergency visits. Optimal timing and frequency for SDH/ACEs screening have not been established. Screening repeatedly over time does seem warranted given that conditions change, including perhaps parents’ readiness to disclose problems.

PCPs need to specifically acknowledge when parents disclose SDH/ACEs on forms.73,74  Otherwise, parents may doubt the seriousness of the inquiry. It is helpful to briefly reflect the sensitive information a parent has shared, together with an expression of empathy and a wish to help.

Clearly, screening is only a first step. PCPs need also to be prepared to briefly assess and initially address identified problems; often this is with help from a behavioral health colleague in the practice. Many problems are best addressed by community resources, requiring good referral processes in primary care practices. Reviews cited earlier describe several options, as does the AAP STAR Center.79  One example of an evidence-informed model is the Safe Environment for Every Kid (SEEK), involving training of PCPs in brief interventions incorporating principles of motivational interviewing, screening for targeted problems, assessment tools, parent handouts, and behavioral health or care management if possible, in conjunction with referrals to community resources. This model has been shown to decrease reports to child protective services, medical neglect, harsh punishment, and immunization delay.75,76 

An important concern PCPs face is the limited time to address many issues in a brief well-child visit. Though studies show that it is possible to improve preventive services in clinical settings,77,78  adding elements to primary care requires more time, eliminating some aspects of the visit, or sharing responsibilities with team members. Models for improving efficiency include parent self-administered screening, EHR-based screening, integrated behavioral health care, and/or care managers.79 

Generally, reimbursement for well-child visits is relatively modest and may be a disincentive to expanding the scope of care and the time required. The Current Procedural Terminology code 96161 covers care provided to parents during well-child visits and 96060 covers psychosocial screening that pertains to a child’s health80 ; reimbursement for these codes, however, tends to be minimal. An exception is California’s program aiming to halve the rate of ACEs by 2030; practices receive $29 each time a family is screened at well-child visits.81  Furthermore, the National Committee for Quality Assurance has criteria for practices to qualify as a “Patient-Centered Medical Home.”82  By providing comprehensive care, including helping address SDH/ACEs, this designation can lead to enhanced reimbursement. In addition, as health care reimbursement shifts toward value-based care, the incentive at the practice level will be for healthier patients, not more units of service, which should help support this work. Advocacy to bolster reasonable reimbursement for more comprehensive care is critical to encourage attention to SDH/ACEs.

It is easy to deploy screeners; it is less easy to ensure appropriate responses. Many pediatric PCPs have not been trained to address problems such as DV or parental substance use disorders.83,84  PCPs and staff need training and support to play this role competently and comfortably. High-quality online training to efficiently assess and address these problems is increasingly available.7,85  “One-off” training, however, seldom suffices86 ; it should be ongoing. In addition to formal training, ongoing clinical involvement and collaboration with behavioral health professionals increase PCP competence and confidence.87 

The medical model has long involved professionals instructing patients and parents on what to do. This often does not work. MI offers a different approach to improve health outcomes in adults88  and youth (Table 2).89,90  It begins with recognizing that parents, youth, and many children aged >6 may have their own view of an issue and whether and how to address it. MI begins by assessing their stance and working with them to develop a plan. In this way, they largely “own” the plan and are more likely to adhere to it.

Identifying and working with parent or child strengths or protective factors may help buffer the impact of stressors and contribute to health and resilience (Table 2).91,92  Protective factors may be “internal” to a family, such as a parent’s wish for their child to be healthy or a child’s goal to be a good soccer player. Other protective factors are “external” to the immediate family, such as extended family support, home visitation or after-school programs, community health workers, mental health resources, food pantries, or the care provided by caring PCPs. Deliberately identifying and incorporating protective factors into one’s clinical approach can strengthen the professional–parent relationship and support families in overcoming adversities, thereby promoting resilience. However, systematic research on screening for and utilizing protective factors is preliminary.93,94  Rather, these can be identified via observation and during an assessment, such as a parent’s concern for their child’s health or their constructive approach to challenging behaviors.

In addressing SDH/ACEs, professionals often think solely of professional services, but most people often receive help informally, from family, friends, Internet sites and support groups.95  PCPs can play a useful role in fostering such support (eg, promoting a father’s involvement in his child’s health care). Various recommendations have been made about how to identify and promote child and family resilience.96  Applying principles of MI in the context of a trusting relationship may enhance engagement with needed resources. In addition, the caring attitude that a PCP conveys may itself provide valuable emotional support.97,98  Understanding a family’s psychosocial issues may also help manage medical problems. With this broader perspective, PCPs usually have something meaningful to offer.

Parent handouts with easily understood information on targeted problems and, ideally, with customized information on local resources are valuable adjuncts to what is communicated in person. This information may be conveyed, with parental permission, electronically via a parent’s portal or text messages with links to services. In addition, posters and educational videos in waiting areas can introduce families to the importance of SDH/ACEs.

Referrals are often not made or completed.99  Barriers include logistical challenges, such as time availability, scheduling and keeping an appointment, ambivalence about addressing a problem, insufficient resources, criteria for qualifying for the service, and other barriers (eg, phone service, transportation, language, and limited hours). Some parents may think obtaining help is stigmatizing or anticipate cultural insensitivity or judgments. PCPs therefore need to have good referral processes (Table 2).100  Helpful components include having referral information readily available, written protocols on when referrals should be made, a tracking system for monitoring referral completion and, when possible, formal agreements with local agencies.100102  Ideally, practices have relationships with community agencies and a clear understanding of the information needed for the referral. In addition, with parental permission, a two-way exchange of key information can be helpful. Clinical experience suggests that a “warm hand-off” to a social worker or care manager, a personal introduction, helps instill confidence in someone ambivalent about a referral.103  Similarly, when PCPs express confidence in an intervention, parents are more apt to adopt a positive stance.

EHRs have transformed health care. Addressing SDH/ACEs using technology integrated into standard workflows and the EHR is optimal. For example, a parent can receive a link to a screener in advance, complete it at their convenience, and the PCP has the responses at the start of the visit. In addition, the monitor can serve as a teleprompter, guiding an assessment and planning. Software can efficiently facilitate auto-documentation, referral, and sharing information and parent handouts via a portal, with parental agreement. Given that federal legislation facilitates parents’ access to their child’s EHR, tact is needed when documenting DV discretely to avoid endangerment (eg, “discussed family conflict”).

In summary, SDH/ACEs clearly influence the health, development, well-being, and safety of children and their families. Helping address these problems should be a fundamental part of pediatric primary care. Yet, questions and challenges remain. No one or best way exists to achieve this vision. Among our most important suggestions: start with a small number of prioritized SDH/ACEs (Table 2). Choose them based on their prevalence, seriousness, and the availability of evidence-informed resources in the care network or community. Prioritize screening for families of children aged <6. Ensure adequate training and preparation of PCPs to help them respond competently to positive screens. Have good referral processes to facilitate successful transitions. Technological advances can facilitate implementation. It is our hope that pediatricians can apply the solutions suggested in this article to select an approach to addressing SDH/ACEs that best fits their practice and the children and families they serve.

Drs Dubowitz, Finkelhor, Zolotar, Kleven, and Davis conceptualized this article, drafted the initial manuscript, reviewed and revised the manuscript, approved the final manuscript as submitted, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

The guidelines/recommendations in this article are not American Academy of Pediatrics policy, and publication herein does not imply endorsement.

This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, #NCT03642327, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03642327.

FUNDING: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dissemination and Implementation of the Safe Environment for Every Kid (SEEK) Model for Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect. 1R01HD092489-01A1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. A supplement to Dissemination and Implementation of the Safe Environment for Every Kid (SEEK) Model for Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect. 1R01HD092489-02S1. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study. Funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The article reviews knowledge regarding screening for and addressing social determinants of health or adverse childhood experiences and offers recommendations for practice.

AAP

American Academy of Pediatrics

ACE

adverse childhood experience

DV

domestic violence

EHR

electronic health record

IBH

integrated behavioral health

MI

motivational interviewing

PCP

primary care professional

SDH

social determinants of health

STAR

Screening Technical Assistance & Resource

1
Mahnke
CB
.
The growth and development of a specialty: the history of pediatrics
.
Clin Pediatr (Phila)
.
2000
;
39
(
12
):
705
714
2
McWhinney
IR
.
The foundations of family medicine
.
Can Fam Physician
.
1969
;
15
(
4
):
13
27
3
Braveman
P
,
Gottlieb
L
.
The social determinants of health: it’s time to consider the causes of the causes
.
Public Health Rep
.
2014
;
129
(
Suppl 2
):
19
31
4
Shonkoff
JP
,
Garner
AS
,
Siegel
BS
, et al.
Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health
;
Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care
.
Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics
.
The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress
.
Pediatrics
.
2012
;
129
(
1
):
e232
e246
5
Beck
AF
,
Tschudy
MM
,
Coker
TR
, et al
.
Determinants of health and pediatric primary care practices
.
Pediatrics
.
2016
;
137
(
3
):
e20153673
6
Oral
R
,
Ramirez
M
,
Coohey
C
, et al
.
Adverse childhood experiences and trauma informed care: the future of health care
.
Pediatr Res
.
2016
;
79
(
1–2
):
227
233
7
American Academy of Pediatrics
.
Screening technical assistance & resource center
. .
8
Marie-Mitchell
A
,
Kostolansky
R
.
A systematic review of trials to improve child outcomes associated with adverse childhood experiences
.
Am J Prev Med
.
2019
;
56
(
5
):
756
764
9
Sokol
R
,
Austin
A
,
Chandler
C
, et al
.
Screening children for social determinants of health: a systematic review
.
Pediatrics
.
2019
;
144
(
4
):
e20191622
10
Garner
A
,
Yogman
M
.
Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, Section on Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics, Council on Early Childhood
.
Preventing childhood toxic stress: partnering with families and communities to promote relational health
.
Pediatrics
.
2021
;
148
(
2
):
e2021052582
11
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
.
Preventing adverse childhood experiences
.
12
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
.
Social determinants of health: know what affects health
.
Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/socialdeterminants/index.htm. 2021. Accessed May 10, 2021
13
World Health Organization
.
Social determinants of health
.
14
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
.
Healthy people 2030: building a healthier future for all
.
Available at: https://health.gov/healthypeople. 2021. Accessed May 10, 2021
15
Nichols
LM
,
Taylor
LA
.
Social determinants as public goods: a new approach to financing key investments in healthy communities
.
Health Aff (Millwood)
.
2018
;
37
(
8
):
1223
1230
16
Runyan
CN
.
Assessing social determinants of health in primary care: liability or opportunity?
Fam Syst Health
.
2018
;
36
(
4
):
550
552
17
Berkowitz
SA
,
Kangovi
S
.
Quarterly Opinion Health Care’s Social Movement Should Not Leave Science Behind
.
Xxx, Xxx
:
Milbank Quarterly Opinion
;
2020
18
DeCamp
M
,
DeSalvo
K
,
Dzeng
E
.
Ethics and Spheres of Influence in Addressing Social Determinants of Health
.
J Gen Intern Med
.
2020
;
35
(
9
):
2743
2745
19
Felitti
VJ
,
Anda
RF
,
Nordenberg
D
, et al
.
Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The adverse childhood experiences (ace) study
.
Am J Prev Med
.
1998
;
14
(
4
):
245
258
20
Dube
SR
,
Felitti
VJ
,
Dong
M
, %
Chapman
DP
,
Giles
WH
,
Anda
RF
.
Childhood abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction and the risk of illicit drug use: the adverse childhood experiences study
.
Pediatrics
.
2003
;
111
(
3
):
564
572
21
Petruccelli
K
,
Davis
J
,
Berman
T
.
Adverse childhood experiences and associated health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Child Abuse Negl
.
2019
;
97
:
104127
22
Morone
J
.
An integrative review of social determinants of health assessment and screening tools used in pediatrics
.
J Pediatr Nurs
.
2017
;
37
:
22
28
23
Gerhardt
W
,
Korenda
L
,
Morris
M
Vadnerkar
G
.
The Road to Value-Based Care: Your Mileage May Vary
.
Deloitte Center for Health Solutions
;
2015
:
1
24
.
24
Muhlestein
D
,
Saunders
R
,
McClellan
M
.
Growth of ACOs and Alternative Payment Models in 2017
.
Health Affairs Blog
;
2017
25
North Carolina Institute of Medicine
.
Metrics to Drive Improvements in Health: A Report From the NCIOM Task Force
.
Morrisville, NC
:
North Carolina Institute of Medicine
;
2017
26
Lane
WG
,
Dubowitz
H
,
Frick
KD
,
Semiatin
J
,
Magder
L
.
Cost effectiveness of SEEK: a primary care-based child maltreatment prevention model
.
Child Abuse Negl
.
2021
;
111
:
104809
27
Schulte
A
,
Musolf
J
,
Meurer
JR
,
Cohn
JH
,
Kelly
KJ
.
Pediatric asthma case management: a review of evidence and an experimental study design
.
J Pediatr Nurs
.
2004
;
19
(
4
):
304
310
28
Hale
R
,
Giese
J
.
Cost-effectiveness of health coaching: an integrative review
.
Prof Case Manag
.
2017
;
22
(
5
):
228
238
29
Treadwell
J
,
Giardino
A
.
Collaborating for care: initial experience of embedded case managers across five medical homes
.
Prof Case Manag
.
2014
;
19
(
2
):
86
92
30
Gould
MS
,
Kalafat
J
,
Harrismunfakh
JL
,
Kleinman
M
.
An evaluation of crisis hotline outcomes. Part 2: suicidal callers
.
Suicide Life Threat Behav
.
2007
;
37
(
3
):
338
352
31
Bennett
L
,
Riger
S
,
Schewe
P
,
Howard
A
,
Wasco
S
.
Effectiveness of hotline, advocacy, counseling, and shelter services for victims of domestic violence: a statewide evaluation
.
J Interpers Violence
.
2004
;
19
(
7
):
815
829
32
Gates
P
.
The effectiveness of helplines for the treatment of alcohol and illicit substance use
.
J Telemed Telecare
.
2015
;
21
(
1
):
18
28
33
Downes
MJ
,
Mervin
MC
,
Byrnes
JM
,
Scuffham
PA
.
Telephone consultations for general practice: a systematic review
.
Syst Rev
.
2017
;
6
(
1
):
128
134
34
Flaherty
EG
,
Thompson
R
,
Dubowitz
H
, et al
.
Adverse childhood experiences and child health in early adolescence
.
JAMA Pediatr
.
2013
;
167
(
7
):
622
629
35
Flaherty
EG
,
Thompson
R
,
Litrownik
AJ
, et al
.
Adverse childhood exposures and reported child health at age 12
.
Acad Pediatr
.
2009
;
9
(
3
):
150
156
36
Aboud
FE
,
Yousafzai
AK
.
Very early childhood development
. In:
Black
RE
,
Laxminarayan
R
,
Temmerman
M
,
Walker
N
, eds.
Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health: Disease Control Priorities
.
Vol. 2
. 3rd ed.
Washington, DC
:
The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank
;
2016
:
241
261
37
Koita
K
,
Long
D
,
Hessler
D
, et al
.
Development and implementation of a pediatric adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and other determinants of health questionnaire in the pediatric medical home: a pilot study
.
PLoS One
.
2018
;
13
(
12
):
e0208088
38
Marie-Mitchell
A
,
Lee
J
,
Siplon
C
,
Chan
F
,
Riesen
S
,
Vercio
C
.
Implementation of the whole child assessment to screen for adverse childhood experiences
.
Glob Pediatr Health
.
2019
;
6
:
2333794X19862093
39
Danese
A
,
Moffitt
TE
,
Harrington
H
, et al
.
Adverse childhood experiences and adult risk factors for age-related disease: depression, inflammation, and clustering of metabolic risk markers
.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
.
2009
;
163
(
12
):
1135
1143
40
Wlodarczyk
O
,
Schwarze
M
,
Rumpf
H-J
,
Metzner
F
,
Pawils
S
.
Protective mental health factors in children of parents with alcohol and drug use disorders: A systematic review
.
PLoS One
.
2017
;
12
(
6
):
e0179140
41
Turner
HA
,
Finkelhor
D
,
Mitchell
KJ
,
Jones
LM
,
Henly
M
.
Strengthening the predictive power of screening for adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in younger and older children
.
Child Abuse Negl
.
2020
;
107
:
104522
[online first.]
42
Lane
WG
,
Dubowitz
H
,
Feigelman
S
,
Poole
G
.
The effectiveness of food insecurity screening in pediatric primary care
.
Int J Child Health Nutr
.
2014
;
3
(
3
):
130
138
43
Ray
LA
,
Meredith
LR
,
Kiluk
BD
,
Walthers
J
,
Carroll
KM
,
Magill
M
.
Combined pharmacotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy for adults with alcohol or substance use disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
JAMA Netw Open
.
2020
;
3
(
6
):
e208279
44
Letourneau
NL
,
Dennis
CL
,
Cosic
N
,
Linder
J
.
The effect of perinatal depression treatment for mothers on parenting and child development: a systematic review
.
Depress Anxiety
.
2017
;
34
(
10
):
928
966
45
Gilbert
AL
,
Balio
C
,
Bauer
NS
.
Making the legal and ethical case for universal screening for postpartum mood and anxiety disorders in pediatric primary care
.
Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care
.
2017
;
47
(
10
):
267
277
46
Olson
AL
,
Dietrich
AJ
,
Prazar
G
,
Hurley
J
.
Brief maternal depression screening at well-child visits
.
Pediatrics
.
2006
;
118
(
1
):
207
216
47
Freed
RD
,
Chan
PT
,
Boger
KD
,
Tompson
MC
.
Enhancing maternal depression recognition in health care settings: a review of strategies to improve detection, reduce barriers, and reach mothers in need
.
Fam Syst Health
.
2012
;
30
(
1
):
1
18
48
Neece
CL
.
Mindfulness-based stress reduction for parents of young children with developmental delays: implications for parental mental health and child behavior problems
.
J Appl Res Intellect Disabil
.
2014
;
27
(
2
):
174
186
49
Golfenshtein
N
,
Srulovici
E
,
Deatrick
JA
.
Interventions for reducing parenting stress in families with pediatric conditions: an integrative review
.
J Fam Nurs
.
2016
;
22
(
4
):
460
492
50
Hynan
MT
,
Mounts
KO
,
Vanderbilt
DL
.
Screening parents of high-risk infants for emotional distress: rationale and recommendations
.
J Perinatol
.
2013
;
33
(
10
):
748
753
51
Kemper
KJ
.
Self-administered questionnaire for structured psychosocial screening in pediatrics
.
Pediatrics
.
1992
;
89
(
3
):
433
436
52
Krist
AH
,
Davidson
KW
,
Mangione
CM
, et al.
US Preventive Services Task Force
.
Screening for unhealthy drug use: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement
.
JAMA
.
2020
;
323
(
22
):
2301
2309
53
Curry
SJ
,
Krist
AH
,
Owens
DK
, et al.
US Preventive Services Task Force
.
Screening for intimate partner violence, elder abuse, and abuse of vulnerable adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force final recommendation statement
.
JAMA
.
2018
;
320
(
16
):
1678
1687
54
Trabold
N
.
Screening for intimate partner violence within a health care setting: a systematic review of the literature
.
Soc Work Health Care
.
2007
;
45
(
1
):
1
18
55
Nelson
HD
,
Bougatsos
C
,
Blazina
I
.
Screening women for intimate partner violence: a systematic review to update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation
.
Ann Intern Med
.
2012
;
156
(
11
):
796
808
,
W-279, W-280, W-281, W-282
56
Harold
GT
,
Sellers
R
.
Annual research review: interparental conflict and youth psychopathology: an evidence review and practice focused update
.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry
.
2018
;
59
(
4
):
374
402
57
Anthony
KP
,
Scholer
SJ
,
Randolph
JW
,
Dietrich
MS
.
The Parenting-Related Adverse Childhood Experiences survey: a new tool to screen for unhealthy parenting in pediatric primary care
.
Pediatrics
.
2019
;
144
(
2_Meeting Abstract
):
68
58
Zolotor
AJ
.
Corporal punishment
.
Pediatr Clin North Am
.
2014
;
61
(
5
):
971
978
59
Cutts
D
,
Cook
J
.
Screening for food insecurity: short-term alleviation and long-term prevention
.
Am J Public Health
.
2017
;
107
(
11
):
1699
1700
60
Hager
ER
,
Quigg
AM
,
Black
MM
, et al
.
Development and validity of a 2-item screen to identify families at risk for food insecurity
.
Pediatrics
.
2010
;
126
(
1
):
e26
e32
61
De Marchis
EH
,
Torres
JM
,
Fichtenberg
C
,
Gottlieb
LM
.
Identifying food insecurity in health care settings: a systematic scoping review of the evidence
.
Fam Community Health
.
2019
;
42
(
1
):
20
29
62
Dubowitz
H
,
Feigelman
S
,
Lane
W
, et al
.
Screening for depression in an urban pediatric primary care clinic
.
Pediatrics
.
2007
;
119
(
3
):
435
443
63
Kroenke
K
,
Spitzer
RL
,
Williams
JB
,
Löwe
B
.
The patient health questionnaire somatic, anxiety, and depressive symptom scales: a systematic review
.
Gen Hosp Psychiatry
.
2010
;
32
(
4
):
345
359
64
Siu
AL
,
Bibbins-Domingo
K
,
Grossman
DC
, et al.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)
.
Screening for depression in adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement
.
JAMA
.
2016
;
315
(
4
):
380
387
65
Bottino
CJ
,
Rhodes
ET
,
Kreatsoulas
C
,
Cox
JE
,
Fleegler
EW
.
Food insecurity screening in pediatric primary care: can offering referrals help identify families in need?
Acad Pediatr
.
2017
;
17
(
5
):
497
503
66
Makelarski
JA
,
Abramsohn
E
,
Benjamin
JH
,
Du
S
,
Lindau
ST
.
Diagnostic accuracy of two food insecurity screeners recommended for use in health care settings
.
Am J Public Health
.
2017
;
107
(
11
):
1812
1817
67
Dubowitz
H
,
Prescott
L
,
Feigelman
S
,
Lane
W
,
Kim
J
.
Screening for intimate partner violence in a pediatric primary care clinic
.
Pediatrics
.
2008
;
121
(
1
):
e85
e91
68
Feltner
C
,
Wallace
I
,
Berkman
N
, et al
.
Screening for intimate partner violence, elder abuse, and abuse of vulnerable adults: evidence report and systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
.
JAMA
.
2018
;
320
(
16
):
1688
1701
69
Curry
SJ
,
Krist
AH
,
Owens
DK
, et al.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
.
Screening and behavioral counseling interventions to reduce unhealthy alcohol use in adolescents and adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement
.
JAMA
.
2018
;
320
(
18
):
1899
1909
70
Lane
WG
,
Dubowitz
H
,
Feigelman
S
, et al
.
Screening for parental substance abuse in pediatric primary care
.
Ambul Pediatr
.
2007
;
7
(
6
):
458
462
71
Feigelman
S
,
Dubowitz
H
,
Lane
W
, et al
.
Screening for harsh punishment in a pediatric primary care clinic
.
Child Abuse Negl
.
2009
;
33
(
5
):
269
277
72
American Academy of Pediatrics
.
Screening technical assistance & resource center
.
Available at: https://screeningtime.org/star-center/#/screening-tools. Accessed June 30, 2021
.
73
Finkelhor
D
,
Berliner
L
.
Screening for traumatic childhood experiences in health care settings
.
JAMA Internal Med
.
2021
;
181
(
7
):
903
904
74
Austin
AE
.
Screening for traumatic experiences in health care settings: a personal perspective from a trauma survivor
.
JAMA Intern Med
.
2021
;
181
(
7
):
902
903
75
Dubowitz
H
,
Feigelman
S
,
Lane
W
,
Kim
J
.
Pediatric primary care to help prevent child maltreatment: the Safe Environment for Every Kid (SEEK) Model
.
Pediatrics
.
2009
;
123
(
3
):
858
864
76
Dubowitz
H
,
Lane
WG
,
Semiatin
JN
,
Magder
LS
.
The SEEK model of pediatric primary care: can child maltreatment be prevented in a low-risk population?
Acad Pediatr
.
2012
;
12
(
4
):
259
268
77
Duncan
PM
,
Pirretti
A
,
Earls
MF
, et al
.
Improving delivery of Bright Futures preventive services at the 9- and 24-month well child visit
.
Pediatrics
.
2015
;
135
(
1
):
e178
e186
78
Lannon
CM
,
Flower
K
,
Duncan
P
,
Moore
KS
,
Stuart
J
,
Bassewitz
J
.
The Bright Futures Training Intervention Project: implementing systems to support preventive and developmental services in practice
.
Pediatrics
.
2008
;
122
(
1
):
e163
e171
79
Daniel
H
,
Bornstein
SS
,
Kane
GC
, et al.
Health and Public Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians
.
Addressing social determinants to improve patient care and promote health equity: an American College of Physicians position paper
.
Ann Intern Med
.
2018
;
168
(
8
):
577
578
80
AAP Division of Health Care Finance
.
Update on use of payment for new health risk assessment codes
.
81
Ostrov
BF
.
California Healthline
.
5 things to know as California starts screening children for toxic stress
.
82
National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA)
.
Patient-centered medical home (PCMH)
.
83
Feigelman
S
,
Dubowitz
H
,
Lane
W
,
Grube
L
,
Kim
J
.
Training pediatric residents in a primary care clinic to help address psychosocial problems and prevent child maltreatment
.
Acad Pediatr
.
2011
;
11
(
6
):
474
480
84
Carlson
M
,
Kamimura
A
,
Al-Obaydi
S
,
Trinh
HN
,
Franchek-Roa
K
.
Background and clinical knowledge of intimate partner violence: a study of primary care residents and medical students at a United States medical school
.
Health Equity
.
2017
;
1
(
1
):
77
82
85
University of Maryland School of Medicine
.
SEEK: Safe Environment for Every Kid
.
Available at: https://seekwellbeing.org/. 2021. Accessed Jan 7, 2021
86
Zeiger
RF
.
Toward continuous medical education
.
J Gen Intern Med
.
2005
;
20
(
1
):
91
94
87
Mishra
K
,
Atkins
DE
,
Gutierrez
B
,
Wu
J
,
Cousineau
MR
,
Hempel
S
.
Screening for adverse childhood experiences in preventive medicine settings: a scoping review
.
J Public Health
.
2021
:
1
10
88
Frost
H
,
Campbell
P
,
Maxwell
M
, et al
.
Effectiveness of motivational interviewing on adult behaviour change in health and social care settings: a systematic review of reviews
.
PLoS One
.
2018
;
13
(
10
):
e0204890
89
Desai
N
.
The role of motivational interviewing in children and adolescents in pediatric care
.
Pediatr Ann
.
2019
;
48
(
9
):
e376
e379
91
Bethell
CD
,
Solloway
MR
,
Guinosso
S
, et al
.
Prioritizing possibilities for child and family health: an agenda to address adverse childhood experiences and foster the social and emotional roots of well-being in pediatrics
.
Acad Pediatr
.
2017
;
17
(
7S
):
S36
S50
92
Bethell
C
,
Jones
J
,
Gombojav
N
,
Linkenbach
J
,
Sege
R
.
Positive childhood experiences and adult mental and relational health in a statewide sample: associations across adverse childhood experiences levels
.
JAMA Pediatr
.
2019
;
173
(
11
):
e193007
e193007
93
Merrick
JS
,
Narayan
AJ
,
DePasquale
CE
,
Masten
AS
.
Benevolent childhood experiences (BCEs) in homeless parents: a validation and replication study
.
J Fam Psychol
.
2019
;
33
(
4
):
493
498
94
Merrick
JS
,
Narayan
AJ
.
Assessment and screening of positive childhood experiences along with childhood adversity in research, practice, and policy
.
J Child Poverty
.
2020
;
26
(
2
):
269
281
95
Plantin
L
,
Daneback
K
.
Parenthood, information and support on the internet. A literature review of research on parents and professionals online
.
BMC Fam Pract
.
2009
;
10
:
34
96
Traub
F
,
Boynton-Jarrett
R
.
Modifiable resilience factors to childhood adversity for clinical pediatric practice
.
Pediatrics
.
2017
;
139
(
5
):
e20162569
97
Conn
AM
,
Szilagyi
MA
,
Jee
SH
,
Manly
JT
,
Briggs
R
,
Szilagyi
PG
.
Parental perspectives of screening for adverse childhood experiences in pediatric primary care
.
Fam Syst Health
.
2018
;
36
(
1
):
62
72
98
Kirk
S
,
Fallon
D
,
Fraser
C
,
Robinson
G
,
Vassallo
G
.
Supporting parents following childhood traumatic brain injury: a qualitative study to examine information and emotional support needs across key care transitions
.
Child Care Health Dev
.
2015
;
41
(
2
):
303
313
99
Berman
S
.
There and back again: the referral journey
.
Pediatrics
.
2019
;
144
(
6
):
e20192975
100
Tobin-Schnittger
P
,
O’Doherty
J
,
O’Connor
R
,
O’Regan
A
.
Improving quality of referral letters from primary to secondary care: a literature review and discussion paper
.
Prim Health Care Res Dev
.
2018
;
19
(
3
):
211
222
101
Measure Evaluation
.
Referral Systems Assessment and Monitoring Toolkit 2013
.
102
Ray
KN
,
Ashcraft
LE
,
Kahn
JM
,
Mehrotra
A
,
Miller
E
.
Family perspectives on high-quality pediatric subspecialty referrals
.
Acad Pediatr
.
2016
;
16
(
6
):
594
600
103
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
.
Warm Handoff: intervention
.

Competing Interests

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES: Dr Dubowitz owns the copyright to the SEEK materials. All revenues from licenses and trainings help sustain the dissemination of the SEEK model. The other authors have indicated they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.