RESUMEN
Addressing adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in primary care pediatric practice is riddled with potential pitfalls that prevent most providers from implementing ACE or toxic stress screening in their practices. However, the growing body of literature and clinician experience about ACE screening shows how this practice is also ripe with possibilities beyond just the treatment of trauma-related diagnoses and for the prevention of intergenerational transmission of toxic stress. This article reviews the current state of screening for ACEs and toxic stress in practice, describes how pediatricians and clinics have overcome pitfalls during implementation of practice-based screening initiatives, and discusses possibilities for the future of primary care-based screening. [Pediatr Ann. 2019;48(7):e257-e261.].
Asunto(s)
Experiencias Adversas de la Infancia , Pediatría/métodos , Atención Primaria de Salud/métodos , Trastornos de Estrés Traumático/diagnóstico , Cuidadores/psicología , Niño , Trauma Histórico/diagnóstico , Trauma Histórico/prevención & control , Humanos , Responsabilidad Parental/psicología , Padres/psicología , Relaciones Profesional-Familia , Derivación y Consulta , Trastornos de Estrés Traumático/psicología , Trastornos de Estrés Traumático/terapiaRESUMEN
The American Indian historical trauma (HT) concept is an important precursor to racial trauma (RT) theory that reflects the distinct interests of sovereign Indigenous nations but shares much of the same promise and challenge. Here, that promise and challenge is explored by tracing HT's theoretical development in terms of its anticolonial ambitions and organizing ideas. Three predominant modes of engaging HT were distilled form the literature (HT as a clinical condition, life stressor, and critical discourse), each informing a research program pursuing a different anticolonial ambition (healing trauma, promoting resilience, practicing survivance) organized by distinct ideas about colonization, wellness, and Indigeneity. Through critical reflection on these different ambitions and dialogue of their organizing ideas, conflict between research programs can be mitigated and a more productive anticolonialism realized in psychology and related health fields. Key recommendations emphasized clarifying clinical concepts (e.g., clinical syndrome vs. idiom of distress), disentangling clinical narratives of individual pathology (e.g., trauma) from social narratives of population adversity (e.g., survivance stories), attending to features of settler-colonialism not easily captured by heath indices (e.g., structural violence), and encouraging alignment of anticolonial efforts with constructive critiques establishing conceptual bridges to disciplines that can help to advance psychological understandings of colonization and Indigenous wellness (e.g., postcolonial studies). This conceptual framework was applied to the RT literature to elaborate similar recommendations for advancing RT theory and the interests of ethnic/racial minority populations through engagement with psychology and related health fields. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).