4.4 Article

Prevalence of and relationship between adverse childhood experiences and family context risk factors among children with intellectual disabilities and borderline intellectual functioning

Journal

RESEARCH IN DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Volume 113, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2021.103935

Keywords

Adverse Childhood Experiences; Children; Intellectual disabilities; Borderline intellectual functioning; Family problems; Residential care

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found a high prevalence of ACEs in children with ID and BIF, with family context risk variables showing an association with the number of ACEs. Awareness of ACEs in clinical practice is crucial to mitigate negative outcomes.
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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available