Background: The Adverse Childhood Experiences International Questionnaire (ACE-IQ) collects additional data (e.g., witness community violence/terrorism) than the previous version. Despite ACE-IQ is widely used and validated in several languages, no reviews focus on this measure. Objective: The main goals are to: 1) synthesize the ACE-IQ prevalence rates and average means among community samples, both for total ACE and single dimensions (e.g., intrafamily abuse, bullying); 2) discuss these data in light of the characteristics of studies and samples; 3) identify main research lines of the field. Participants and setting: The search for studies using the ACE-IQ with community participants was conducted on seven academic databases, including retrieval of grey literature. The screening process led to include 63 documents. Methods: A systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines was performed. Results: 1) On average, 75% of community respondents experienced ACEs, with a mean of three, primarily emotional abuse and bullying. 2) Males experienced more ACEs, but they were underrepresented, as well as children and adolescents. Most studies were conducted in Asia or Africa, and different geographical areas showed different pathways of prevalence in subdimensions. 3) Most research focused on prevalence and relationships between ACE-IQ scores and respondents' mental and physical health, suicide and parenting, focusing on intrafamily ACEs more than on those outside the household. Conclusions: Several issues emerged in terms of lack of reporting prevalence or means, lack of studies in Europe, America and Oceania, and no attention to collective/community/peer violence, plus a lack of consensus toward the dimensions of the ACE-IQ.

The Adverse Childhood Experiences – International Questionnaire (ACE-IQ) in community samples around the world: A systematic review (part I)

Pace C. S.;Muzi S.;Rogier G.;
2022

Abstract

Background: The Adverse Childhood Experiences International Questionnaire (ACE-IQ) collects additional data (e.g., witness community violence/terrorism) than the previous version. Despite ACE-IQ is widely used and validated in several languages, no reviews focus on this measure. Objective: The main goals are to: 1) synthesize the ACE-IQ prevalence rates and average means among community samples, both for total ACE and single dimensions (e.g., intrafamily abuse, bullying); 2) discuss these data in light of the characteristics of studies and samples; 3) identify main research lines of the field. Participants and setting: The search for studies using the ACE-IQ with community participants was conducted on seven academic databases, including retrieval of grey literature. The screening process led to include 63 documents. Methods: A systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines was performed. Results: 1) On average, 75% of community respondents experienced ACEs, with a mean of three, primarily emotional abuse and bullying. 2) Males experienced more ACEs, but they were underrepresented, as well as children and adolescents. Most studies were conducted in Asia or Africa, and different geographical areas showed different pathways of prevalence in subdimensions. 3) Most research focused on prevalence and relationships between ACE-IQ scores and respondents' mental and physical health, suicide and parenting, focusing on intrafamily ACEs more than on those outside the household. Conclusions: Several issues emerged in terms of lack of reporting prevalence or means, lack of studies in Europe, America and Oceania, and no attention to collective/community/peer violence, plus a lack of consensus toward the dimensions of the ACE-IQ.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11567/1090391
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact