The Journal of Family Practice

Twenty years ago, the American Journal of Preventive Medicine published Felitti and colleagues’ seminal publication on the relationship between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and poor mental and physical health.¹ It is astonishing that mainstream medicine is only now taking this finding seriously under the current banner of “trauma informed care.” Better late than never.

In this issue of JFP, Stillerman provides a cogent summary of the research on diagnosis and treatment of ACEs performed over the past 20 years. There are good data supporting the effectiveness of identifying and treating ACEs to lessen the adverse health outcomes that can result. More important, however, is taking a public health approach to preventing the adverse health effects of ACEs by staging community interventions and providing support to new mothers and families.

Research strongly supports a causal relationship between ACEs and a host of mental and physical ailments. Felitti found that adults with 4 or more ACEs compared with none had a 4- to 12-fold increased health risk for alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, and suicide attempt. ACEs also increased the risk of ischemic heart disease, cancer, chronic lung disease, skeletal fractures, and liver disease.¹

The research strongly supports a causal relationship between adverse childhood experiences and a host of mental and physical ailments.

There is need for further research on screening for, and treating, ACEs. A large randomized trial using one of the practical brief screeners would help us learn more about the impact that screening can have on the mental and physical health of those affected. Does the identification and empathetic acknowledgement of the traumatic events lead to improved health? If it does not, what type of treatment is most effective?

Continue to: Pending further research...

Pending further research, here are 3 steps that family physicians can take today:

1. Be aware of the strength of the relationship between ACEs and health problems.
2. Begin screening adults and children for ACEs using one of the simple, validated screening tools described by Stillerman. In a large follow-up study, screening along with discussion of the results with the patient’s physician led to remarkable decreases in health care utilization in the year following screening, which suggests that there are therapeutic benefits to bringing ACEs to light and fostering discussion.²
3. Remain ever compassionate in your interactions with all patients, knowing that many have significant childhood scars.

Twenty years ago, the American Journal of Preventive Medicine published Felitti and colleagues’ seminal publication on the relationship between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and poor mental and physical health.¹ It is astonishing that mainstream medicine is only now taking this finding seriously under the current banner of “trauma informed care.” Better late than never.

In this issue of JFP, Stillerman provides a cogent summary of the research on diagnosis and treatment of ACEs performed over the past 20 years. There are good data supporting the effectiveness of identifying and treating ACEs to lessen the adverse health outcomes that can result. More important, however, is taking a public health approach to preventing the adverse health effects of ACEs by staging community interventions and providing support to new mothers and families.

Research strongly supports a causal relationship between ACEs and a host of mental and physical ailments. Felitti found that adults with 4 or more ACEs compared with none had a 4- to 12-fold increased health risk for alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, and suicide attempt. ACEs also increased the risk of ischemic heart disease, cancer, chronic lung disease, skeletal fractures, and liver disease.¹

The research strongly supports a causal relationship between adverse childhood experiences and a host of mental and physical ailments.

There is need for further research on screening for, and treating, ACEs. A large randomized trial using one of the practical brief screeners would help us learn more about the impact that screening can have on the mental and physical health of those affected. Does the identification and empathetic acknowledgement of the traumatic events lead to improved health? If it does not, what type of treatment is most effective?

Continue to: Pending further research...

Pending further research, here are 3 steps that family physicians can take today:

1. Be aware of the strength of the relationship between ACEs and health problems.
2. Begin screening adults and children for ACEs using one of the simple, validated screening tools described by Stillerman. In a large follow-up study, screening along with discussion of the results with the patient’s physician led to remarkable decreases in health care utilization in the year following screening, which suggests that there are therapeutic benefits to bringing ACEs to light and fostering discussion.²
3. Remain ever compassionate in your interactions with all patients, knowing that many have significant childhood scars.

Twenty years ago, the American Journal of Preventive Medicine published Felitti and colleagues’ seminal publication on the relationship between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and poor mental and physical health.¹ It is astonishing that mainstream medicine is only now taking this finding seriously under the current banner of “trauma informed care.” Better late than never.

In this issue of JFP, Stillerman provides a cogent summary of the research on diagnosis and treatment of ACEs performed over the past 20 years. There are good data supporting the effectiveness of identifying and treating ACEs to lessen the adverse health outcomes that can result. More important, however, is taking a public health approach to preventing the adverse health effects of ACEs by staging community interventions and providing support to new mothers and families.

Research strongly supports a causal relationship between ACEs and a host of mental and physical ailments. Felitti found that adults with 4 or more ACEs compared with none had a 4- to 12-fold increased health risk for alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, and suicide attempt. ACEs also increased the risk of ischemic heart disease, cancer, chronic lung disease, skeletal fractures, and liver disease.¹

The research strongly supports a causal relationship between adverse childhood experiences and a host of mental and physical ailments.

There is need for further research on screening for, and treating, ACEs. A large randomized trial using one of the practical brief screeners would help us learn more about the impact that screening can have on the mental and physical health of those affected. Does the identification and empathetic acknowledgement of the traumatic events lead to improved health? If it does not, what type of treatment is most effective?

Continue to: Pending further research...

Pending further research, here are 3 steps that family physicians can take today:

1. Be aware of the strength of the relationship between ACEs and health problems.
2. Begin screening adults and children for ACEs using one of the simple, validated screening tools described by Stillerman. In a large follow-up study, screening along with discussion of the results with the patient’s physician led to remarkable decreases in health care utilization in the year following screening, which suggests that there are therapeutic benefits to bringing ACEs to light and fostering discussion.²
3. Remain ever compassionate in your interactions with all patients, knowing that many have significant childhood scars.

The rising prevalence of obesity, widespread community violence, and the opioid epidemic are urgent health crises that we have, so far, failed to solve. Physicians must therefore ask: Are we employing the right framework to effectively understand and address these complex problems?

Careful review of the literature reveals that these problems and many others begin with, and are profoundly affected by, childhood adversity. Compounding this, studies over the past 20 years that have focused on abuse and neglect without including community, structural, and historical adversity demonstrate that our definitions of adversity and trauma have been too narrow. The prevalence and diversity of factors affecting development and health is much greater than our medical model anticipates.^1,2

CASE

Eileen W, a 55-year-old married, self-employed woman with a 20-year history of autoimmune thyroiditis, longstanding insomnia, and anxiety presents with intense episodes of terror related to public speaking, which are compromising her work performance. Her history is significant for tobacco and alcohol use beginning in early adolescence and continuing into young adulthood, as well as 2 unplanned pregnancies in her 20s. Additional adversities included the murder of her maternal aunt while Ms. W was in utero, resulting in her parents having fostered 2 young cousins; bullying; and the premature death of a special-needs sibling.

What treatment strategies might have been undertaken to manage consequences of the adversities of Ms. W’s childhood—both on her own initiative and as interventions by her health care providers?

IMAGE: © ALICIA BUELOW

Our medical model must be updated to be effective

Because at least 60% of Americans have had 1 or more experiences of childhood adversity, family physicians care for affected patients every day—a reality incompletely addressed by our conventional theories and practices.^1,3 Consequently, updating our medical model to incorporate research that confirms the critical and widespread impact of childhood experience on health and illness is an essential task for family medicine.

Core values of family medicine integrate biological, clinical, and behavioral sciences. They include comprehensive and compassionate care that is provided within the context of family and community across the lifespan.^4,5 Family medicine is therefore the ideal specialty to lead a movement that will translate scientific evidence of the effects of childhood adversity on health into training, delivery of care, and research—transforming clinical practice and patient health across the lifespan.

Because at least 60% of Americans have had 1 or more experiences of childhood adversity, family physicians care for affected patients every day.

This article describes the dramatic impact of childhood adversity on health and well-being and calls on family physicians to play a crucial role in preventing, mitigating, and treating the consequences of childhood adversity, an important root cause of disease.

Continue to: Childhood adversity makes us sick

The first paper about the landmark Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study, published 20 years ago, is 1 of more than 90 on this topic.³ This study explored the relationship of physical, emotional, and social health in adulthood and self-reported childhood adversity, and comprised 10 categories of abuse, neglect, and household distress between birth and 18 years of age. One of the largest epidemiological studies of its kind, the ACE Study surveyed more than 17,000 mostly white, middle-aged, educated, and insured participants. Study researchers developed an “ACE Score”—the total number of ACEs faced by a person before her (his) 18th birthday—and found that 64% of respondents endorsed 1 or more ACEs; 27% reported 3 or more ACEs; and 5% experienced 6 or more.

The ACE Study revealed a dose–response relationship between ACEs and more than 40 health-compromising behaviors, negative health conditions, and poor social outcomes. Examples include cardiac, autoimmune disease, obesity, intravenous drug abuse, depression and anxiety, adolescent pregnancy, and worker absenteeism. Tragically, an ACE score of ≥6 conferred a significant risk for premature death.¹

ACE data have been collected in diverse populations in 32 states and many countries through the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention³; the Child & Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative’s National Survey of Children’s Health⁶; and The World Health Organization’s ACE International Questionnaire⁷—underscoring the pervasiveness of childhood adversity. Evaluation of ACEs in special populations, such as people experiencing homelessness,⁸ incarcerated youth,⁹ people struggling with addiction,¹⁰ and even health care workers,¹¹ uncovers notably higher rates of ACEs in these populations than in the general population.

Is childhood adversity a true cause of bad outcomes?

Or is the relationship between the 2 entities merely an association? To help answer this question, researchers evaluated the ACE Study using Bradford Hill criteria—9 epidemiological principles employed to infer causation. Their findings strongly support the hypothesis that not only are ACEs associated with myriad negative outcomes, they are their root cause¹² and therefore a powerful determinant of our most pressing and expensive health and social problems.Nevertheless, strategies to prevent and address childhood adversity, which are critical to meeting national health goals of successful prevention and treatment of myriad conditions, are absent from the paradigm and practice of most physicians.

Childhood adversity is at the root of our most pressing physical, psychological, and social health problems.

The body of research about the health impact of additional adverse experiences is growing to include community violence, poverty, longstanding discrimination,² and other experiences that we describe as social determinants of health. Furthermore, social determinants of health, or adverse community experiences, appear to maintain a dose–response relationship with health and social outcomes.^{2 ,13} Along with adverse collective historical experiences (historical trauma),¹⁴ these community experiences are forcing further re-examination of existing paradigms of health.

Continue to: The biological pathway from experience to illness

Neuroscience supports the epidemiology of ACEs.¹² The brain develops from the bottom up, in a use-dependent fashion, contingent on genetic potential and, most importantly, on our experiences, which also influence genetic expression. Although present across the lifespan, the brain’s capacity to change—neuroplasticity—is most robust from the prenatal period until about 3 years of age.¹⁵ The autonomic nervous system receives information from the body about our internal world and from sensory organs about our external environment and sends it to the brain for processing and interpretation, resulting in micro- and macro-adaptations in structure and function, both within the brain and in the rest of the body.¹⁶

Neuroscience demonstrates that adverse experiences, in the context of insufficient protective factors and depending on their timing, severity, and frequency, cause overactivation or prolonged activation, or both, of the stress response system, thus derailing optimal growth and development of the brain and disrupting healthy signaling in all body systems. The dysregulated stress response drives inflammation and subsequent chronic disease (FIGURE^17,18), and may influence genetic expression in this, and future, generations.^12,14,19 Using neuroimaging and assessment of biomarkers, researchers can see the harm caused by inadequately buffered adversity on overall anatomy and physiology. Protective factors such as a safe environment and positive relationships provide hope that normal biological responses to adverse circumstances can be prevented or reversed, leading to clinical, cognitive, and functional improvement¹¹ (TABLE 1^20-22).

Evidence-based primary prevention of childhood adversity succeeds

Primary prevention of childhood adversity offers significant benefits across the lifespan and, likely, into the next generation. It ensures that every infant has at least 1 nurturing, attuned caregiver with whom to develop a secure attachment relationship that is essential for optimal growth and development of brain and body.

Primary prevention is most effective when it focuses on supporting caregivers during the perinatal and early childhood periods of their families, before children’s brains are fully organized. Primary prevention involves evidence-based program implementation; collaboration among multiple sectors, including early childhood education, child welfare, criminal justice, business, faith, and health care; and, ultimately, policy change. It incorporates individual, family, and community-based strategies to meet basic needs, ensure safety, fortify a sense of love and belonging in families, and support parents in developing optimal parenting skills. This allows caregivers to devote attention to their children, thus strengthening attunement and attachment, reducing toxic stress, and building protective factors and resilience. Evidence-based and -informed prevention programs include the Nurse–Family Partnership (NFP), Positive Parenting Program (Triple P), and the Family-Centered Medical Home.

NFP. Randomized controlled trials of the NFP, a perinatal home visiting program for low-income, first-time pregnant women and their offspring, showed a reduction in the incidence of domestic violence, child maltreatment, and maternal smoking, with improvement in maternal financial stability, cognitive and socioemotional outcomes, and rates of substance abuse and incarceration in children and/or youth.²³

Continue to: Triple P

Triple P. A randomized controlled trial of Triple P, an evidence-based, multilevel, population-based preventive intervention system that was designed to support parents and enhance parenting practices for families with at least 1 child (birth to 12 years old), demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in substantiated child maltreatment cases, out-of-home placements, and emergency room visits and hospitalizations for childhood injuries that were the result of child maltreatment.²⁴

The Family-Centered Medical Home, a primary care strategy to reduce premature and low-birth-weight deliveries, used Medicaid dollars for services not traditionally considered “medical” to address all physical and emotional needs of mothers and families as part of the medical relationship. This program eliminated premature delivery and low birth weight,²⁵ both considered evidence of in utero toxic stress.²⁶

Screening can be brief: In some cases, a single question

The prevalence and impact of childhood adversity, along with the opportunity for significant health improvements and savings, inspires providers to explore screening. Existing screening programs have consistent goals^27,28:

• identify unique experiences shaping our patients’ health
• reframe “What’s wrong with you?” as “What happened to you?” “What’s right with you?” and “What matters to you?”
• facilitate health education and neuro-education, particularly meaning-making and self-regulation
• prevent and mitigate the sequelae of exposure to ACEs
• promote health in this and subsequent generations.

The ACE Study screened patients in the context of a comprehensive periodic health assessment. Study participants completed an at-home questionnaire and reviewed it with their physician.¹ The Urban ACE Survey added important community stressors such as neighborhood violence, bullying, and food insecurity to the original ACE questionnaire.²

Primary care tool. Wade developed a short, 2-question ACE pre-screener for primary care²⁹ and is exploring screening for childhood adversity in pediatric practice, as are primary care clinicians around the country.

Continue to: Single-question screener

Single-question screener. A Chicago internist interviewed more than 500 patients using a single-question screener that asked whether growing up was “mostly okay or pretty difficult.” This tool accurately confirmed childhood adversity in patients with complex chronic illness, prevented re-traumatization by allowing patients control over disclosure, and opened the door to collaborative healing work over time.³⁰

The Hague Protocol, now mandated in the Netherlands for health and justice professionals, focuses its efforts upstream by offering early detection of children at risk for adverse experiences. The protocol requires asking adults who present with intimate partner violence, suicidality, psychiatric disturbance, or severe substance abuse whether they care for children in any capacity. Those who are so identified are referred to a center at which support services are offered.³¹

Toxic stress impairs and sensitizes the stress response system, causes neuroinflammation and systemic inflammation, and leads to chronic illness, disability, and early death.

Uncertainty about the utility of existing tools. Many screening tools appear to be promising in terms of identification of the risk for, or actual, childhood adversity, patient and provider satisfaction, and their “fit” in the clinical workflow. Even so, no best practice guidelines exist in primary care to steer screening efforts. Questions remain about^27-29:

• broad implementation of a specific tool
• how, when, and where screening should take place
• whether to screen adults, parents, or children—or all 3
• how best to use the content and pacing of screening questions to promote self-regulation and prevent re-traumatization
• best strategies for training and supporting health care workers around screening activities
• how to optimally manage a positive screen.

How best to approach treatment

Treatment includes trauma-informed care, an organizational transformation process (described in TABLE 2³²; in “The lexicon of childhood adversity: Concepts and tools for care”^33-45; and in the subsection, “Lessons from neuroscience”), and individual treatment strategies. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) of the US Department of Health and Human Services is advocating for implementation of trauma-informed approaches in health systems.

Continue to: The lexicon of childhood adversity...

Continue to: Trauma-informed care is a model...

Trauma-informed care is a model intended to promote healing and reduce the risk for re-traumatization of patients by staff—significant concerns in clinical settings, where the dynamics of loss of power, control, and safety that are inherent in traumatic experience can be replicated.⁴⁶ To operationalize trauma-informed care more formally, the Center for Health Care Strategies, Inc., and the National Council for Behavioral Health are developing recommendations for 1) standardized screening and assessment tools, evidence-based clinical interventions, implementation processes, and relevant and replicable outcome measures, and 2) policy changes to improve patient and staff engagement, enhance health outcomes, and reduce avoidable care and excess costs.^47,48

Asking patients whether growing up was “mostly okay or pretty difficult” accurately confirmed childhood adversity in patients with complex chronic illness.

Lessons from neuroscience guide effective treatment.¹⁶ Treatment begins with bottom-up strategies that are focused on decreasing suboptimal excitatory input from the survival brainstem to create safety, connect patients to resources to meet basic needs, teach self-regulation skills, and improve relational health in and outside of the office. Later-stage top-down methods, such as education and other cognitive activities, focus on strengthening the regulatory capacity of the thinking cortex.¹⁶ In many ways, treatment mirrors prevention: It emphasizes first helping patients feel safe and loved.

In a follow-up to the ACE Study, 100,000 patients had a primary care visit in which their practitioner reviewed the ACE questionnaire with them; said “I see that you have________. Tell me how that has affected you later in your life” for every “Yes” response; and listened to the answers without passing judgment. This simple intervention profoundly decreased health resource utilization by these patients during the following year: a reduction of 35% in office visits, 11% in emergency room visits, and 3% in hospitalizations.¹

The neurosequential model of therapeutics assesses neurodevelopment in the context of childhood adversity and relational health to evaluate consequences of childhood adversity and direct treatment. Adopted domestically and internationally, this model has had statistically significant success facilitating improvement in patients’ physical, emotional, and social health status.^16,49

Successful strategies for childhood adversity emphasize parenting education programs, trauma-informed organizational practices, and neuromodulatory treatments.

Trauma-specific treatment modalities such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy and eye-movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR),⁵⁰ a trauma-specific treatment effective in resolving painful childhood memories, are evidence-based treatments that reduce trauma-related symptoms; evidence is also emerging about the efficacy of yoga⁵¹ and neurofeedback.⁵² These therapies have been best studied as treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder and other mental health disorders and also hold promise for addressing physical and social consequences of adversity. They present a low risk for harm, appear to be cost-effective, and improve outcomes.

Continue to: Best regimens involve a multifaceted approach that combines...

Best regimens involve a multifaceted approach that combines health-system resources with referral to other community practitioners and agencies. An excellent example is a current collaboration between health systems and affordable housing programs to reduce and, ultimately, eliminate chronic homelessness. Positive outcomes of this collaboration include both improved health and life satisfaction for participants and cost savings to the health system.⁵³

CASE

Beginning in adulthood, Ms. W began long-term psychotherapy and had a therapeutic trial of antidepressants, without significant improvement. None of her medical or mental-health providers educated her about the connection between childhood adversity and illness to help her make sense of her health history and autoimmune disease, or to guide treatment. She learned from a friend about the relationship between childhood adversity and poor health and self-administered the ACE questionnaire, scoring 5 points out of a possible 10.

Ms. W enjoyed loving relationships with her mother, sisters, and friends. She had long-standing personal practices of individual and group physical activity, journaling, and spending time in nature.

Evidence is emerging about the efficacy of yoga and neurofeedback for reducing trauma-related symptoms.

About 10 years ago, Ms. W committed to regular yoga practice and later saw a functional medicine provider, who focused on nutrition and restorative sleep. She noticed improvement in all signs and symptoms; however, the terror of public speaking remained. Through friends, she found a practitioner who offered EMDR. Over the past 2 years, her terror has resolved and general anxiety and insomnia have continued to improve; she is now able to speak with fluency and comfort in any arena.

Addressing childhood adversity: Our “natural domain”

Experiences, positive and negative, shape our psychology and biology; they are powerful determinants of health—or illness. Prevention of, and response to, childhood adversity demand a systems approach to the whole person in context—the natural domain of family medicine.

Continue to: Although clinical translation is still unfolding...

Although clinical translation is still unfolding, the risks of implementing promising prevention and treatment strategies are low, the stakes are high, and the potential benefits are vast. Therefore, we as family physicians can—must—learn and incorporate the science of childhood adversity, neurobiology, and life course into our training, research, and clinical paradigm and practice; we can do that by embedding this framework throughout our training and continuing education in formal didactics, case discussions, hands-on skill-building, scientific investigation, and patient care.

We must make our offices and hospitals trauma-informed; connect patients with resources to meet basic needs and with home-visiting and parent education programs; educate patients about the impact of protective and adverse factors on health; provide and practice self-regulation training in our offices or by referral; and advocate for equity.

Using these strategies, family physicians will play a crucial role in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of the root cause of disease and society’s deepest individual and collective suffering.

CORRESPONDENCE
Audrey Stillerman, MD, ABFM, ABIHM, ABOIM, Office of Community Engagement and Neighborhood Health Partnerships, 808 South Wolcott Street, Room 809, Chicago, IL 60612; ajstille@uic.edu.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Patricia Rush, MD, MBA, and Adrienne Williams, PhD, reviewed the manuscript of this article.

The rising prevalence of obesity, widespread community violence, and the opioid epidemic are urgent health crises that we have, so far, failed to solve. Physicians must therefore ask: Are we employing the right framework to effectively understand and address these complex problems?

Careful review of the literature reveals that these problems and many others begin with, and are profoundly affected by, childhood adversity. Compounding this, studies over the past 20 years that have focused on abuse and neglect without including community, structural, and historical adversity demonstrate that our definitions of adversity and trauma have been too narrow. The prevalence and diversity of factors affecting development and health is much greater than our medical model anticipates.^1,2

CASE

Eileen W, a 55-year-old married, self-employed woman with a 20-year history of autoimmune thyroiditis, longstanding insomnia, and anxiety presents with intense episodes of terror related to public speaking, which are compromising her work performance. Her history is significant for tobacco and alcohol use beginning in early adolescence and continuing into young adulthood, as well as 2 unplanned pregnancies in her 20s. Additional adversities included the murder of her maternal aunt while Ms. W was in utero, resulting in her parents having fostered 2 young cousins; bullying; and the premature death of a special-needs sibling.

What treatment strategies might have been undertaken to manage consequences of the adversities of Ms. W’s childhood—both on her own initiative and as interventions by her health care providers?

IMAGE: © ALICIA BUELOW

Our medical model must be updated to be effective

Because at least 60% of Americans have had 1 or more experiences of childhood adversity, family physicians care for affected patients every day—a reality incompletely addressed by our conventional theories and practices.^1,3 Consequently, updating our medical model to incorporate research that confirms the critical and widespread impact of childhood experience on health and illness is an essential task for family medicine.

Core values of family medicine integrate biological, clinical, and behavioral sciences. They include comprehensive and compassionate care that is provided within the context of family and community across the lifespan.^4,5 Family medicine is therefore the ideal specialty to lead a movement that will translate scientific evidence of the effects of childhood adversity on health into training, delivery of care, and research—transforming clinical practice and patient health across the lifespan.

Because at least 60% of Americans have had 1 or more experiences of childhood adversity, family physicians care for affected patients every day.

This article describes the dramatic impact of childhood adversity on health and well-being and calls on family physicians to play a crucial role in preventing, mitigating, and treating the consequences of childhood adversity, an important root cause of disease.

Continue to: Childhood adversity makes us sick

The first paper about the landmark Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study, published 20 years ago, is 1 of more than 90 on this topic.³ This study explored the relationship of physical, emotional, and social health in adulthood and self-reported childhood adversity, and comprised 10 categories of abuse, neglect, and household distress between birth and 18 years of age. One of the largest epidemiological studies of its kind, the ACE Study surveyed more than 17,000 mostly white, middle-aged, educated, and insured participants. Study researchers developed an “ACE Score”—the total number of ACEs faced by a person before her (his) 18th birthday—and found that 64% of respondents endorsed 1 or more ACEs; 27% reported 3 or more ACEs; and 5% experienced 6 or more.

The ACE Study revealed a dose–response relationship between ACEs and more than 40 health-compromising behaviors, negative health conditions, and poor social outcomes. Examples include cardiac, autoimmune disease, obesity, intravenous drug abuse, depression and anxiety, adolescent pregnancy, and worker absenteeism. Tragically, an ACE score of ≥6 conferred a significant risk for premature death.¹

ACE data have been collected in diverse populations in 32 states and many countries through the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention³; the Child & Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative’s National Survey of Children’s Health⁶; and The World Health Organization’s ACE International Questionnaire⁷—underscoring the pervasiveness of childhood adversity. Evaluation of ACEs in special populations, such as people experiencing homelessness,⁸ incarcerated youth,⁹ people struggling with addiction,¹⁰ and even health care workers,¹¹ uncovers notably higher rates of ACEs in these populations than in the general population.

Is childhood adversity a true cause of bad outcomes?

Or is the relationship between the 2 entities merely an association? To help answer this question, researchers evaluated the ACE Study using Bradford Hill criteria—9 epidemiological principles employed to infer causation. Their findings strongly support the hypothesis that not only are ACEs associated with myriad negative outcomes, they are their root cause¹² and therefore a powerful determinant of our most pressing and expensive health and social problems.Nevertheless, strategies to prevent and address childhood adversity, which are critical to meeting national health goals of successful prevention and treatment of myriad conditions, are absent from the paradigm and practice of most physicians.

Childhood adversity is at the root of our most pressing physical, psychological, and social health problems.

The body of research about the health impact of additional adverse experiences is growing to include community violence, poverty, longstanding discrimination,² and other experiences that we describe as social determinants of health. Furthermore, social determinants of health, or adverse community experiences, appear to maintain a dose–response relationship with health and social outcomes.^{2 ,13} Along with adverse collective historical experiences (historical trauma),¹⁴ these community experiences are forcing further re-examination of existing paradigms of health.

Continue to: The biological pathway from experience to illness

Neuroscience supports the epidemiology of ACEs.¹² The brain develops from the bottom up, in a use-dependent fashion, contingent on genetic potential and, most importantly, on our experiences, which also influence genetic expression. Although present across the lifespan, the brain’s capacity to change—neuroplasticity—is most robust from the prenatal period until about 3 years of age.¹⁵ The autonomic nervous system receives information from the body about our internal world and from sensory organs about our external environment and sends it to the brain for processing and interpretation, resulting in micro- and macro-adaptations in structure and function, both within the brain and in the rest of the body.¹⁶

Neuroscience demonstrates that adverse experiences, in the context of insufficient protective factors and depending on their timing, severity, and frequency, cause overactivation or prolonged activation, or both, of the stress response system, thus derailing optimal growth and development of the brain and disrupting healthy signaling in all body systems. The dysregulated stress response drives inflammation and subsequent chronic disease (FIGURE^17,18), and may influence genetic expression in this, and future, generations.^12,14,19 Using neuroimaging and assessment of biomarkers, researchers can see the harm caused by inadequately buffered adversity on overall anatomy and physiology. Protective factors such as a safe environment and positive relationships provide hope that normal biological responses to adverse circumstances can be prevented or reversed, leading to clinical, cognitive, and functional improvement¹¹ (TABLE 1^20-22).

Evidence-based primary prevention of childhood adversity succeeds

Primary prevention of childhood adversity offers significant benefits across the lifespan and, likely, into the next generation. It ensures that every infant has at least 1 nurturing, attuned caregiver with whom to develop a secure attachment relationship that is essential for optimal growth and development of brain and body.

Primary prevention is most effective when it focuses on supporting caregivers during the perinatal and early childhood periods of their families, before children’s brains are fully organized. Primary prevention involves evidence-based program implementation; collaboration among multiple sectors, including early childhood education, child welfare, criminal justice, business, faith, and health care; and, ultimately, policy change. It incorporates individual, family, and community-based strategies to meet basic needs, ensure safety, fortify a sense of love and belonging in families, and support parents in developing optimal parenting skills. This allows caregivers to devote attention to their children, thus strengthening attunement and attachment, reducing toxic stress, and building protective factors and resilience. Evidence-based and -informed prevention programs include the Nurse–Family Partnership (NFP), Positive Parenting Program (Triple P), and the Family-Centered Medical Home.

NFP. Randomized controlled trials of the NFP, a perinatal home visiting program for low-income, first-time pregnant women and their offspring, showed a reduction in the incidence of domestic violence, child maltreatment, and maternal smoking, with improvement in maternal financial stability, cognitive and socioemotional outcomes, and rates of substance abuse and incarceration in children and/or youth.²³

Continue to: Triple P

Triple P. A randomized controlled trial of Triple P, an evidence-based, multilevel, population-based preventive intervention system that was designed to support parents and enhance parenting practices for families with at least 1 child (birth to 12 years old), demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in substantiated child maltreatment cases, out-of-home placements, and emergency room visits and hospitalizations for childhood injuries that were the result of child maltreatment.²⁴

The Family-Centered Medical Home, a primary care strategy to reduce premature and low-birth-weight deliveries, used Medicaid dollars for services not traditionally considered “medical” to address all physical and emotional needs of mothers and families as part of the medical relationship. This program eliminated premature delivery and low birth weight,²⁵ both considered evidence of in utero toxic stress.²⁶

Screening can be brief: In some cases, a single question

The prevalence and impact of childhood adversity, along with the opportunity for significant health improvements and savings, inspires providers to explore screening. Existing screening programs have consistent goals^27,28:

• identify unique experiences shaping our patients’ health
• reframe “What’s wrong with you?” as “What happened to you?” “What’s right with you?” and “What matters to you?”
• facilitate health education and neuro-education, particularly meaning-making and self-regulation
• prevent and mitigate the sequelae of exposure to ACEs
• promote health in this and subsequent generations.

The ACE Study screened patients in the context of a comprehensive periodic health assessment. Study participants completed an at-home questionnaire and reviewed it with their physician.¹ The Urban ACE Survey added important community stressors such as neighborhood violence, bullying, and food insecurity to the original ACE questionnaire.²

Primary care tool. Wade developed a short, 2-question ACE pre-screener for primary care²⁹ and is exploring screening for childhood adversity in pediatric practice, as are primary care clinicians around the country.

Continue to: Single-question screener

Single-question screener. A Chicago internist interviewed more than 500 patients using a single-question screener that asked whether growing up was “mostly okay or pretty difficult.” This tool accurately confirmed childhood adversity in patients with complex chronic illness, prevented re-traumatization by allowing patients control over disclosure, and opened the door to collaborative healing work over time.³⁰

The Hague Protocol, now mandated in the Netherlands for health and justice professionals, focuses its efforts upstream by offering early detection of children at risk for adverse experiences. The protocol requires asking adults who present with intimate partner violence, suicidality, psychiatric disturbance, or severe substance abuse whether they care for children in any capacity. Those who are so identified are referred to a center at which support services are offered.³¹

Toxic stress impairs and sensitizes the stress response system, causes neuroinflammation and systemic inflammation, and leads to chronic illness, disability, and early death.

Uncertainty about the utility of existing tools. Many screening tools appear to be promising in terms of identification of the risk for, or actual, childhood adversity, patient and provider satisfaction, and their “fit” in the clinical workflow. Even so, no best practice guidelines exist in primary care to steer screening efforts. Questions remain about^27-29:

• broad implementation of a specific tool
• how, when, and where screening should take place
• whether to screen adults, parents, or children—or all 3
• how best to use the content and pacing of screening questions to promote self-regulation and prevent re-traumatization
• best strategies for training and supporting health care workers around screening activities
• how to optimally manage a positive screen.

How best to approach treatment

Treatment includes trauma-informed care, an organizational transformation process (described in TABLE 2³²; in “The lexicon of childhood adversity: Concepts and tools for care”^33-45; and in the subsection, “Lessons from neuroscience”), and individual treatment strategies. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) of the US Department of Health and Human Services is advocating for implementation of trauma-informed approaches in health systems.

Continue to: The lexicon of childhood adversity...

Continue to: Trauma-informed care is a model...

Trauma-informed care is a model intended to promote healing and reduce the risk for re-traumatization of patients by staff—significant concerns in clinical settings, where the dynamics of loss of power, control, and safety that are inherent in traumatic experience can be replicated.⁴⁶ To operationalize trauma-informed care more formally, the Center for Health Care Strategies, Inc., and the National Council for Behavioral Health are developing recommendations for 1) standardized screening and assessment tools, evidence-based clinical interventions, implementation processes, and relevant and replicable outcome measures, and 2) policy changes to improve patient and staff engagement, enhance health outcomes, and reduce avoidable care and excess costs.^47,48

Asking patients whether growing up was “mostly okay or pretty difficult” accurately confirmed childhood adversity in patients with complex chronic illness.

Lessons from neuroscience guide effective treatment.¹⁶ Treatment begins with bottom-up strategies that are focused on decreasing suboptimal excitatory input from the survival brainstem to create safety, connect patients to resources to meet basic needs, teach self-regulation skills, and improve relational health in and outside of the office. Later-stage top-down methods, such as education and other cognitive activities, focus on strengthening the regulatory capacity of the thinking cortex.¹⁶ In many ways, treatment mirrors prevention: It emphasizes first helping patients feel safe and loved.

In a follow-up to the ACE Study, 100,000 patients had a primary care visit in which their practitioner reviewed the ACE questionnaire with them; said “I see that you have________. Tell me how that has affected you later in your life” for every “Yes” response; and listened to the answers without passing judgment. This simple intervention profoundly decreased health resource utilization by these patients during the following year: a reduction of 35% in office visits, 11% in emergency room visits, and 3% in hospitalizations.¹

The neurosequential model of therapeutics assesses neurodevelopment in the context of childhood adversity and relational health to evaluate consequences of childhood adversity and direct treatment. Adopted domestically and internationally, this model has had statistically significant success facilitating improvement in patients’ physical, emotional, and social health status.^16,49

Successful strategies for childhood adversity emphasize parenting education programs, trauma-informed organizational practices, and neuromodulatory treatments.

Trauma-specific treatment modalities such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy and eye-movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR),⁵⁰ a trauma-specific treatment effective in resolving painful childhood memories, are evidence-based treatments that reduce trauma-related symptoms; evidence is also emerging about the efficacy of yoga⁵¹ and neurofeedback.⁵² These therapies have been best studied as treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder and other mental health disorders and also hold promise for addressing physical and social consequences of adversity. They present a low risk for harm, appear to be cost-effective, and improve outcomes.

Continue to: Best regimens involve a multifaceted approach that combines...

Best regimens involve a multifaceted approach that combines health-system resources with referral to other community practitioners and agencies. An excellent example is a current collaboration between health systems and affordable housing programs to reduce and, ultimately, eliminate chronic homelessness. Positive outcomes of this collaboration include both improved health and life satisfaction for participants and cost savings to the health system.⁵³

CASE

Beginning in adulthood, Ms. W began long-term psychotherapy and had a therapeutic trial of antidepressants, without significant improvement. None of her medical or mental-health providers educated her about the connection between childhood adversity and illness to help her make sense of her health history and autoimmune disease, or to guide treatment. She learned from a friend about the relationship between childhood adversity and poor health and self-administered the ACE questionnaire, scoring 5 points out of a possible 10.

Ms. W enjoyed loving relationships with her mother, sisters, and friends. She had long-standing personal practices of individual and group physical activity, journaling, and spending time in nature.

Evidence is emerging about the efficacy of yoga and neurofeedback for reducing trauma-related symptoms.

About 10 years ago, Ms. W committed to regular yoga practice and later saw a functional medicine provider, who focused on nutrition and restorative sleep. She noticed improvement in all signs and symptoms; however, the terror of public speaking remained. Through friends, she found a practitioner who offered EMDR. Over the past 2 years, her terror has resolved and general anxiety and insomnia have continued to improve; she is now able to speak with fluency and comfort in any arena.

Addressing childhood adversity: Our “natural domain”

Experiences, positive and negative, shape our psychology and biology; they are powerful determinants of health—or illness. Prevention of, and response to, childhood adversity demand a systems approach to the whole person in context—the natural domain of family medicine.

Continue to: Although clinical translation is still unfolding...

Although clinical translation is still unfolding, the risks of implementing promising prevention and treatment strategies are low, the stakes are high, and the potential benefits are vast. Therefore, we as family physicians can—must—learn and incorporate the science of childhood adversity, neurobiology, and life course into our training, research, and clinical paradigm and practice; we can do that by embedding this framework throughout our training and continuing education in formal didactics, case discussions, hands-on skill-building, scientific investigation, and patient care.

We must make our offices and hospitals trauma-informed; connect patients with resources to meet basic needs and with home-visiting and parent education programs; educate patients about the impact of protective and adverse factors on health; provide and practice self-regulation training in our offices or by referral; and advocate for equity.

Using these strategies, family physicians will play a crucial role in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of the root cause of disease and society’s deepest individual and collective suffering.

CORRESPONDENCE
Audrey Stillerman, MD, ABFM, ABIHM, ABOIM, Office of Community Engagement and Neighborhood Health Partnerships, 808 South Wolcott Street, Room 809, Chicago, IL 60612; ajstille@uic.edu.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Patricia Rush, MD, MBA, and Adrienne Williams, PhD, reviewed the manuscript of this article.

The rising prevalence of obesity, widespread community violence, and the opioid epidemic are urgent health crises that we have, so far, failed to solve. Physicians must therefore ask: Are we employing the right framework to effectively understand and address these complex problems?

Careful review of the literature reveals that these problems and many others begin with, and are profoundly affected by, childhood adversity. Compounding this, studies over the past 20 years that have focused on abuse and neglect without including community, structural, and historical adversity demonstrate that our definitions of adversity and trauma have been too narrow. The prevalence and diversity of factors affecting development and health is much greater than our medical model anticipates.^1,2

CASE

Eileen W, a 55-year-old married, self-employed woman with a 20-year history of autoimmune thyroiditis, longstanding insomnia, and anxiety presents with intense episodes of terror related to public speaking, which are compromising her work performance. Her history is significant for tobacco and alcohol use beginning in early adolescence and continuing into young adulthood, as well as 2 unplanned pregnancies in her 20s. Additional adversities included the murder of her maternal aunt while Ms. W was in utero, resulting in her parents having fostered 2 young cousins; bullying; and the premature death of a special-needs sibling.

What treatment strategies might have been undertaken to manage consequences of the adversities of Ms. W’s childhood—both on her own initiative and as interventions by her health care providers?

IMAGE: © ALICIA BUELOW

Our medical model must be updated to be effective

Because at least 60% of Americans have had 1 or more experiences of childhood adversity, family physicians care for affected patients every day—a reality incompletely addressed by our conventional theories and practices.^1,3 Consequently, updating our medical model to incorporate research that confirms the critical and widespread impact of childhood experience on health and illness is an essential task for family medicine.

Core values of family medicine integrate biological, clinical, and behavioral sciences. They include comprehensive and compassionate care that is provided within the context of family and community across the lifespan.^4,5 Family medicine is therefore the ideal specialty to lead a movement that will translate scientific evidence of the effects of childhood adversity on health into training, delivery of care, and research—transforming clinical practice and patient health across the lifespan.

Because at least 60% of Americans have had 1 or more experiences of childhood adversity, family physicians care for affected patients every day.

This article describes the dramatic impact of childhood adversity on health and well-being and calls on family physicians to play a crucial role in preventing, mitigating, and treating the consequences of childhood adversity, an important root cause of disease.

Continue to: Childhood adversity makes us sick

The first paper about the landmark Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study, published 20 years ago, is 1 of more than 90 on this topic.³ This study explored the relationship of physical, emotional, and social health in adulthood and self-reported childhood adversity, and comprised 10 categories of abuse, neglect, and household distress between birth and 18 years of age. One of the largest epidemiological studies of its kind, the ACE Study surveyed more than 17,000 mostly white, middle-aged, educated, and insured participants. Study researchers developed an “ACE Score”—the total number of ACEs faced by a person before her (his) 18th birthday—and found that 64% of respondents endorsed 1 or more ACEs; 27% reported 3 or more ACEs; and 5% experienced 6 or more.

The ACE Study revealed a dose–response relationship between ACEs and more than 40 health-compromising behaviors, negative health conditions, and poor social outcomes. Examples include cardiac, autoimmune disease, obesity, intravenous drug abuse, depression and anxiety, adolescent pregnancy, and worker absenteeism. Tragically, an ACE score of ≥6 conferred a significant risk for premature death.¹

ACE data have been collected in diverse populations in 32 states and many countries through the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention³; the Child & Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative’s National Survey of Children’s Health⁶; and The World Health Organization’s ACE International Questionnaire⁷—underscoring the pervasiveness of childhood adversity. Evaluation of ACEs in special populations, such as people experiencing homelessness,⁸ incarcerated youth,⁹ people struggling with addiction,¹⁰ and even health care workers,¹¹ uncovers notably higher rates of ACEs in these populations than in the general population.

Is childhood adversity a true cause of bad outcomes?

Or is the relationship between the 2 entities merely an association? To help answer this question, researchers evaluated the ACE Study using Bradford Hill criteria—9 epidemiological principles employed to infer causation. Their findings strongly support the hypothesis that not only are ACEs associated with myriad negative outcomes, they are their root cause¹² and therefore a powerful determinant of our most pressing and expensive health and social problems.Nevertheless, strategies to prevent and address childhood adversity, which are critical to meeting national health goals of successful prevention and treatment of myriad conditions, are absent from the paradigm and practice of most physicians.

Childhood adversity is at the root of our most pressing physical, psychological, and social health problems.

The body of research about the health impact of additional adverse experiences is growing to include community violence, poverty, longstanding discrimination,² and other experiences that we describe as social determinants of health. Furthermore, social determinants of health, or adverse community experiences, appear to maintain a dose–response relationship with health and social outcomes.^{2 ,13} Along with adverse collective historical experiences (historical trauma),¹⁴ these community experiences are forcing further re-examination of existing paradigms of health.

Continue to: The biological pathway from experience to illness

Neuroscience supports the epidemiology of ACEs.¹² The brain develops from the bottom up, in a use-dependent fashion, contingent on genetic potential and, most importantly, on our experiences, which also influence genetic expression. Although present across the lifespan, the brain’s capacity to change—neuroplasticity—is most robust from the prenatal period until about 3 years of age.¹⁵ The autonomic nervous system receives information from the body about our internal world and from sensory organs about our external environment and sends it to the brain for processing and interpretation, resulting in micro- and macro-adaptations in structure and function, both within the brain and in the rest of the body.¹⁶

Neuroscience demonstrates that adverse experiences, in the context of insufficient protective factors and depending on their timing, severity, and frequency, cause overactivation or prolonged activation, or both, of the stress response system, thus derailing optimal growth and development of the brain and disrupting healthy signaling in all body systems. The dysregulated stress response drives inflammation and subsequent chronic disease (FIGURE^17,18), and may influence genetic expression in this, and future, generations.^12,14,19 Using neuroimaging and assessment of biomarkers, researchers can see the harm caused by inadequately buffered adversity on overall anatomy and physiology. Protective factors such as a safe environment and positive relationships provide hope that normal biological responses to adverse circumstances can be prevented or reversed, leading to clinical, cognitive, and functional improvement¹¹ (TABLE 1^20-22).

Evidence-based primary prevention of childhood adversity succeeds

Primary prevention of childhood adversity offers significant benefits across the lifespan and, likely, into the next generation. It ensures that every infant has at least 1 nurturing, attuned caregiver with whom to develop a secure attachment relationship that is essential for optimal growth and development of brain and body.

Primary prevention is most effective when it focuses on supporting caregivers during the perinatal and early childhood periods of their families, before children’s brains are fully organized. Primary prevention involves evidence-based program implementation; collaboration among multiple sectors, including early childhood education, child welfare, criminal justice, business, faith, and health care; and, ultimately, policy change. It incorporates individual, family, and community-based strategies to meet basic needs, ensure safety, fortify a sense of love and belonging in families, and support parents in developing optimal parenting skills. This allows caregivers to devote attention to their children, thus strengthening attunement and attachment, reducing toxic stress, and building protective factors and resilience. Evidence-based and -informed prevention programs include the Nurse–Family Partnership (NFP), Positive Parenting Program (Triple P), and the Family-Centered Medical Home.

NFP. Randomized controlled trials of the NFP, a perinatal home visiting program for low-income, first-time pregnant women and their offspring, showed a reduction in the incidence of domestic violence, child maltreatment, and maternal smoking, with improvement in maternal financial stability, cognitive and socioemotional outcomes, and rates of substance abuse and incarceration in children and/or youth.²³

Continue to: Triple P

Triple P. A randomized controlled trial of Triple P, an evidence-based, multilevel, population-based preventive intervention system that was designed to support parents and enhance parenting practices for families with at least 1 child (birth to 12 years old), demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in substantiated child maltreatment cases, out-of-home placements, and emergency room visits and hospitalizations for childhood injuries that were the result of child maltreatment.²⁴

The Family-Centered Medical Home, a primary care strategy to reduce premature and low-birth-weight deliveries, used Medicaid dollars for services not traditionally considered “medical” to address all physical and emotional needs of mothers and families as part of the medical relationship. This program eliminated premature delivery and low birth weight,²⁵ both considered evidence of in utero toxic stress.²⁶

Screening can be brief: In some cases, a single question

The prevalence and impact of childhood adversity, along with the opportunity for significant health improvements and savings, inspires providers to explore screening. Existing screening programs have consistent goals^27,28:

• identify unique experiences shaping our patients’ health
• reframe “What’s wrong with you?” as “What happened to you?” “What’s right with you?” and “What matters to you?”
• facilitate health education and neuro-education, particularly meaning-making and self-regulation
• prevent and mitigate the sequelae of exposure to ACEs
• promote health in this and subsequent generations.

The ACE Study screened patients in the context of a comprehensive periodic health assessment. Study participants completed an at-home questionnaire and reviewed it with their physician.¹ The Urban ACE Survey added important community stressors such as neighborhood violence, bullying, and food insecurity to the original ACE questionnaire.²

Primary care tool. Wade developed a short, 2-question ACE pre-screener for primary care²⁹ and is exploring screening for childhood adversity in pediatric practice, as are primary care clinicians around the country.

Continue to: Single-question screener

Single-question screener. A Chicago internist interviewed more than 500 patients using a single-question screener that asked whether growing up was “mostly okay or pretty difficult.” This tool accurately confirmed childhood adversity in patients with complex chronic illness, prevented re-traumatization by allowing patients control over disclosure, and opened the door to collaborative healing work over time.³⁰

The Hague Protocol, now mandated in the Netherlands for health and justice professionals, focuses its efforts upstream by offering early detection of children at risk for adverse experiences. The protocol requires asking adults who present with intimate partner violence, suicidality, psychiatric disturbance, or severe substance abuse whether they care for children in any capacity. Those who are so identified are referred to a center at which support services are offered.³¹

Toxic stress impairs and sensitizes the stress response system, causes neuroinflammation and systemic inflammation, and leads to chronic illness, disability, and early death.

Uncertainty about the utility of existing tools. Many screening tools appear to be promising in terms of identification of the risk for, or actual, childhood adversity, patient and provider satisfaction, and their “fit” in the clinical workflow. Even so, no best practice guidelines exist in primary care to steer screening efforts. Questions remain about^27-29:

• broad implementation of a specific tool
• how, when, and where screening should take place
• whether to screen adults, parents, or children—or all 3
• how best to use the content and pacing of screening questions to promote self-regulation and prevent re-traumatization
• best strategies for training and supporting health care workers around screening activities
• how to optimally manage a positive screen.

How best to approach treatment

Treatment includes trauma-informed care, an organizational transformation process (described in TABLE 2³²; in “The lexicon of childhood adversity: Concepts and tools for care”^33-45; and in the subsection, “Lessons from neuroscience”), and individual treatment strategies. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) of the US Department of Health and Human Services is advocating for implementation of trauma-informed approaches in health systems.

Continue to: The lexicon of childhood adversity...

Continue to: Trauma-informed care is a model...

Trauma-informed care is a model intended to promote healing and reduce the risk for re-traumatization of patients by staff—significant concerns in clinical settings, where the dynamics of loss of power, control, and safety that are inherent in traumatic experience can be replicated.⁴⁶ To operationalize trauma-informed care more formally, the Center for Health Care Strategies, Inc., and the National Council for Behavioral Health are developing recommendations for 1) standardized screening and assessment tools, evidence-based clinical interventions, implementation processes, and relevant and replicable outcome measures, and 2) policy changes to improve patient and staff engagement, enhance health outcomes, and reduce avoidable care and excess costs.^47,48

Asking patients whether growing up was “mostly okay or pretty difficult” accurately confirmed childhood adversity in patients with complex chronic illness.

Lessons from neuroscience guide effective treatment.¹⁶ Treatment begins with bottom-up strategies that are focused on decreasing suboptimal excitatory input from the survival brainstem to create safety, connect patients to resources to meet basic needs, teach self-regulation skills, and improve relational health in and outside of the office. Later-stage top-down methods, such as education and other cognitive activities, focus on strengthening the regulatory capacity of the thinking cortex.¹⁶ In many ways, treatment mirrors prevention: It emphasizes first helping patients feel safe and loved.

In a follow-up to the ACE Study, 100,000 patients had a primary care visit in which their practitioner reviewed the ACE questionnaire with them; said “I see that you have________. Tell me how that has affected you later in your life” for every “Yes” response; and listened to the answers without passing judgment. This simple intervention profoundly decreased health resource utilization by these patients during the following year: a reduction of 35% in office visits, 11% in emergency room visits, and 3% in hospitalizations.¹

The neurosequential model of therapeutics assesses neurodevelopment in the context of childhood adversity and relational health to evaluate consequences of childhood adversity and direct treatment. Adopted domestically and internationally, this model has had statistically significant success facilitating improvement in patients’ physical, emotional, and social health status.^16,49

Successful strategies for childhood adversity emphasize parenting education programs, trauma-informed organizational practices, and neuromodulatory treatments.

Trauma-specific treatment modalities such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy and eye-movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR),⁵⁰ a trauma-specific treatment effective in resolving painful childhood memories, are evidence-based treatments that reduce trauma-related symptoms; evidence is also emerging about the efficacy of yoga⁵¹ and neurofeedback.⁵² These therapies have been best studied as treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder and other mental health disorders and also hold promise for addressing physical and social consequences of adversity. They present a low risk for harm, appear to be cost-effective, and improve outcomes.

Continue to: Best regimens involve a multifaceted approach that combines...

Best regimens involve a multifaceted approach that combines health-system resources with referral to other community practitioners and agencies. An excellent example is a current collaboration between health systems and affordable housing programs to reduce and, ultimately, eliminate chronic homelessness. Positive outcomes of this collaboration include both improved health and life satisfaction for participants and cost savings to the health system.⁵³

CASE

Beginning in adulthood, Ms. W began long-term psychotherapy and had a therapeutic trial of antidepressants, without significant improvement. None of her medical or mental-health providers educated her about the connection between childhood adversity and illness to help her make sense of her health history and autoimmune disease, or to guide treatment. She learned from a friend about the relationship between childhood adversity and poor health and self-administered the ACE questionnaire, scoring 5 points out of a possible 10.

Ms. W enjoyed loving relationships with her mother, sisters, and friends. She had long-standing personal practices of individual and group physical activity, journaling, and spending time in nature.

Evidence is emerging about the efficacy of yoga and neurofeedback for reducing trauma-related symptoms.

About 10 years ago, Ms. W committed to regular yoga practice and later saw a functional medicine provider, who focused on nutrition and restorative sleep. She noticed improvement in all signs and symptoms; however, the terror of public speaking remained. Through friends, she found a practitioner who offered EMDR. Over the past 2 years, her terror has resolved and general anxiety and insomnia have continued to improve; she is now able to speak with fluency and comfort in any arena.

Addressing childhood adversity: Our “natural domain”

Experiences, positive and negative, shape our psychology and biology; they are powerful determinants of health—or illness. Prevention of, and response to, childhood adversity demand a systems approach to the whole person in context—the natural domain of family medicine.

Continue to: Although clinical translation is still unfolding...

Although clinical translation is still unfolding, the risks of implementing promising prevention and treatment strategies are low, the stakes are high, and the potential benefits are vast. Therefore, we as family physicians can—must—learn and incorporate the science of childhood adversity, neurobiology, and life course into our training, research, and clinical paradigm and practice; we can do that by embedding this framework throughout our training and continuing education in formal didactics, case discussions, hands-on skill-building, scientific investigation, and patient care.

We must make our offices and hospitals trauma-informed; connect patients with resources to meet basic needs and with home-visiting and parent education programs; educate patients about the impact of protective and adverse factors on health; provide and practice self-regulation training in our offices or by referral; and advocate for equity.

Using these strategies, family physicians will play a crucial role in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of the root cause of disease and society’s deepest individual and collective suffering.

CORRESPONDENCE
Audrey Stillerman, MD, ABFM, ABIHM, ABOIM, Office of Community Engagement and Neighborhood Health Partnerships, 808 South Wolcott Street, Room 809, Chicago, IL 60612; ajstille@uic.edu.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Patricia Rush, MD, MBA, and Adrienne Williams, PhD, reviewed the manuscript of this article.

Resources

US Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: Cardiovascular disease risk: screening with electrocardiography.
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/UpdateSummaryFinal/cardiovascular-disease-risk-screening-with-electrocardiography. Published June 2018. Accessed October 23, 2018.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: Atrial fibrillation: screening with electrocardiography.
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/UpdateSummaryFinal/atrial-fibrillation-screening-with-electrocardiography. Published August 2018. Accessed October 23, 2018.

Resources

US Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: Cardiovascular disease risk: screening with electrocardiography.
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/UpdateSummaryFinal/cardiovascular-disease-risk-screening-with-electrocardiography. Published June 2018. Accessed October 23, 2018.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: Atrial fibrillation: screening with electrocardiography.
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/UpdateSummaryFinal/atrial-fibrillation-screening-with-electrocardiography. Published August 2018. Accessed October 23, 2018.

Resources

US Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: Cardiovascular disease risk: screening with electrocardiography.
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/UpdateSummaryFinal/cardiovascular-disease-risk-screening-with-electrocardiography. Published June 2018. Accessed October 23, 2018.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: Atrial fibrillation: screening with electrocardiography.
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/UpdateSummaryFinal/atrial-fibrillation-screening-with-electrocardiography. Published August 2018. Accessed October 23, 2018.

The FP suspected a basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or squamous cell carcinoma.

Informed consent was obtained, and the FP numbed the area with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine using a 30 gauge needle. The area was exquisitely tender, so a small needle was used and the anesthesia was injected slowly. (It is safe and recommended to use epinephrine for biopsy on or around the nose.) The physician performed a shave biopsy. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”)

The biopsy results confirmed an infiltrative BCC. The physician recognized this as a more aggressive BCC and its location at the nasolabial fold suggested that the patient was at an increased risk for recurrence. He communicated these risk factors to the patient, and she accepted a referral for Mohs surgery.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Karnes J, Usatine R. Basal cell carcinoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:989-998.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP suspected a basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or squamous cell carcinoma.

Informed consent was obtained, and the FP numbed the area with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine using a 30 gauge needle. The area was exquisitely tender, so a small needle was used and the anesthesia was injected slowly. (It is safe and recommended to use epinephrine for biopsy on or around the nose.) The physician performed a shave biopsy. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”)

The biopsy results confirmed an infiltrative BCC. The physician recognized this as a more aggressive BCC and its location at the nasolabial fold suggested that the patient was at an increased risk for recurrence. He communicated these risk factors to the patient, and she accepted a referral for Mohs surgery.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Karnes J, Usatine R. Basal cell carcinoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:989-998.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP suspected a basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or squamous cell carcinoma.

Informed consent was obtained, and the FP numbed the area with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine using a 30 gauge needle. The area was exquisitely tender, so a small needle was used and the anesthesia was injected slowly. (It is safe and recommended to use epinephrine for biopsy on or around the nose.) The physician performed a shave biopsy. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”)

The biopsy results confirmed an infiltrative BCC. The physician recognized this as a more aggressive BCC and its location at the nasolabial fold suggested that the patient was at an increased risk for recurrence. He communicated these risk factors to the patient, and she accepted a referral for Mohs surgery.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Karnes J, Usatine R. Basal cell carcinoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:989-998.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP was concerned about a possible melanoma due to the dark pigmentation and the positive “ABDCE criteria” of melanoma. The FP used his dermatoscope to determine whether this was a melanoma or a pigmented basal cell carcinoma (BCC).

The multiple leaf-like structures and blue-gray ovoid nests seen with dermoscopy suggested that this was a pigmented BCC. (The ulceration could be seen in either melanoma or BCC.) The FP told the patient that this was most certainly a skin cancer and she needed a biopsy that day. The patient consented and anesthesia was obtained with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine. The physician used a DermaBlade to perform a deep shave (saucerization) under the pigmentation. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”)

The pathology confirmed pigmented BCC. The physician recommended an elliptical excision and scheduled it for the following week.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Karnes J, Usatine R. Basal cell carcinoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:989-998.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP was concerned about a possible melanoma due to the dark pigmentation and the positive “ABDCE criteria” of melanoma. The FP used his dermatoscope to determine whether this was a melanoma or a pigmented basal cell carcinoma (BCC).

The multiple leaf-like structures and blue-gray ovoid nests seen with dermoscopy suggested that this was a pigmented BCC. (The ulceration could be seen in either melanoma or BCC.) The FP told the patient that this was most certainly a skin cancer and she needed a biopsy that day. The patient consented and anesthesia was obtained with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine. The physician used a DermaBlade to perform a deep shave (saucerization) under the pigmentation. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”)

The pathology confirmed pigmented BCC. The physician recommended an elliptical excision and scheduled it for the following week.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Karnes J, Usatine R. Basal cell carcinoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:989-998.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP was concerned about a possible melanoma due to the dark pigmentation and the positive “ABDCE criteria” of melanoma. The FP used his dermatoscope to determine whether this was a melanoma or a pigmented basal cell carcinoma (BCC).

The multiple leaf-like structures and blue-gray ovoid nests seen with dermoscopy suggested that this was a pigmented BCC. (The ulceration could be seen in either melanoma or BCC.) The FP told the patient that this was most certainly a skin cancer and she needed a biopsy that day. The patient consented and anesthesia was obtained with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine. The physician used a DermaBlade to perform a deep shave (saucerization) under the pigmentation. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”)

The pathology confirmed pigmented BCC. The physician recommended an elliptical excision and scheduled it for the following week.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Karnes J, Usatine R. Basal cell carcinoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:989-998.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP looked closely at the so-called rash and realized that while it could be nummular eczema it could also be a superficial basal cell carcinoma (BCC).

He explained the differential diagnosis to the patient and suggested that he perform a shave biopsy that day. The patient consented to the biopsy, and the physician numbed the area with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine. He used a DermaBlade and obtained hemostasis with aluminum chloride in water. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”) The biopsy result confirmed the FP’s suspicion: The lesion was a superficial BCC.

On the follow-up visit the FP explained the options for treatment, including electrodesiccation and curettage, cryosurgery, or an elliptical excision. He told the patient that the cure rates are about the same, regardless of which of these treatments were chosen. He also explained that either of the 2 destructive methods could be performed immediately, whereas the elliptical excision would require scheduling a longer appointment.

The patient chose the cryosurgery. (See the Watch & Learn video on cryosurgery.) After numbing the area with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine, the physician froze the lesion with a 3 mm halo for 30 seconds using liquid nitrogen spray. At follow-up 3 months later, there was some hypopigmentation, but no evidence of the BCC.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Karnes J, Usatine R. Basal cell carcinoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:989-998.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP looked closely at the so-called rash and realized that while it could be nummular eczema it could also be a superficial basal cell carcinoma (BCC).

He explained the differential diagnosis to the patient and suggested that he perform a shave biopsy that day. The patient consented to the biopsy, and the physician numbed the area with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine. He used a DermaBlade and obtained hemostasis with aluminum chloride in water. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”) The biopsy result confirmed the FP’s suspicion: The lesion was a superficial BCC.

On the follow-up visit the FP explained the options for treatment, including electrodesiccation and curettage, cryosurgery, or an elliptical excision. He told the patient that the cure rates are about the same, regardless of which of these treatments were chosen. He also explained that either of the 2 destructive methods could be performed immediately, whereas the elliptical excision would require scheduling a longer appointment.

The patient chose the cryosurgery. (See the Watch & Learn video on cryosurgery.) After numbing the area with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine, the physician froze the lesion with a 3 mm halo for 30 seconds using liquid nitrogen spray. At follow-up 3 months later, there was some hypopigmentation, but no evidence of the BCC.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Karnes J, Usatine R. Basal cell carcinoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:989-998.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP looked closely at the so-called rash and realized that while it could be nummular eczema it could also be a superficial basal cell carcinoma (BCC).

He explained the differential diagnosis to the patient and suggested that he perform a shave biopsy that day. The patient consented to the biopsy, and the physician numbed the area with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine. He used a DermaBlade and obtained hemostasis with aluminum chloride in water. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”) The biopsy result confirmed the FP’s suspicion: The lesion was a superficial BCC.

On the follow-up visit the FP explained the options for treatment, including electrodesiccation and curettage, cryosurgery, or an elliptical excision. He told the patient that the cure rates are about the same, regardless of which of these treatments were chosen. He also explained that either of the 2 destructive methods could be performed immediately, whereas the elliptical excision would require scheduling a longer appointment.

The patient chose the cryosurgery. (See the Watch & Learn video on cryosurgery.) After numbing the area with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine, the physician froze the lesion with a 3 mm halo for 30 seconds using liquid nitrogen spray. At follow-up 3 months later, there was some hypopigmentation, but no evidence of the BCC.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Karnes J, Usatine R. Basal cell carcinoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:989-998.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

COPD and Asthma Update

Vidyard Video

"COPD and Asthma Update" is a clinical aid for PCPs to further understand and manage patients with COPD or asthma. Click here to read the supplement, then click the buttons below for supplementary materials to each chapter.

Supplementary Materials:

            

Audio file

Vidyard Video

 

Supplemental Materials are joint copyright © 2018 Frontline Medical Communications and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.