Research in developmental disabilities · 2021
Prevalence of and relationship between adverse childhood experiences and family context risk factors among children with intellectual disabilities and borderline intellectual functioning.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vervoort-Schel Jessica, Mercera Gabriëlle, Wissink Inge, Van der Helm Peer, Lindauer Ramón, Moonen Xavier
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are an overlooked risk factor for behavioural, mental and physical health disparities in children with intellectual disabilities (ID) and borderline intellectual functioning (BIF).
AIMS: To gain insight into the presence of the 10 original Wave II ACEs and family context risk variables in a convenience sample of children with ID and BIF in Dutch residential care.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES: 134 case-files of children with ID (n = 82) and BIF (n = 52) were analysed quantitatively.
OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: 81.7 % of the children with ID experienced at least 1 ACE, as did 92.3 % of the children with BIF. The average number of ACEs in children with ID was 2.02 (range 0-8) and in children with BIF 2.88 (range 0-7). About 20 % of the children with moderate and mild ID experienced 4 ACEs or more. Many of their families faced multiple and complex problems (ID: 69.5 %; BIF 86.5 %). Multiple regression analysis indicated an association between family context risk variables and the number of ACEs in children.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The prevalence of ACEs in children with ID and BIF appears to be considerably high. ACEs awareness in clinical practice is vital to help mitigate negative outcomes.
AIMS: To gain insight into the presence of the 10 original Wave II ACEs and family context risk variables in a convenience sample of children with ID and BIF in Dutch residential care.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES: 134 case-files of children with ID (n = 82) and BIF (n = 52) were analysed quantitatively.
OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: 81.7 % of the children with ID experienced at least 1 ACE, as did 92.3 % of the children with BIF. The average number of ACEs in children with ID was 2.02 (range 0-8) and in children with BIF 2.88 (range 0-7). About 20 % of the children with moderate and mild ID experienced 4 ACEs or more. Many of their families faced multiple and complex problems (ID: 69.5 %; BIF 86.5 %). Multiple regression analysis indicated an association between family context risk variables and the number of ACEs in children.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The prevalence of ACEs in children with ID and BIF appears to be considerably high. ACEs awareness in clinical practice is vital to help mitigate negative outcomes.