Rural‐Urban Differences in Adverse Childhood Experiences Across a National Sample of Children

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) exposure in 34 states and the District of Columbia, and whether exposure differs between rural and urban residents.Methods: This cross‐sectional study used data from the 2016 National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH), restricted to states in which rural versus urban residence was indicated in the public use data (n = 25,977 respondents). Bivariate analyses were used to estimate unadjusted associations. Multivariable regression models were run to examine the association between residence (rural or urban) and ACE counts of 4 or more.Findings: Compared to urban children, rural children had higher rates of exposure to the majority of the ACEs examined: parental separation/divorce, parental death, household incarceration, household violence, household mental illness, household substance abuse, and economic hardship. In adjusted analysis, there was no significant difference for rural children compared to urban children. The odds of 4 or more ACEs decrease as poverty levels decline, with children residing 0%‐99% below the federal poverty line more likely to have reported 4 or more ACEs, compared to children residing 400% or above the federal poverty line (aOR 4.02; CI: 2.65‐6.11).Conclusions: Our findings suggest that poverty is a key policy lever that may mitigate the burden of ACE exposure. The findings of this study may be instructive for policymakers and program planners as they develop interventions to stop, reduce, or mitigate ACE exposure and the long‐term impact of ACEs among children in rural America.

Gestión del régimen de visitas, intercambios y comunicación con los hijos e hijas durante la pandemia de la COVID-19

“…Si bien, quienes tienen custodia compartida manifiestan haber incrementado el entendimiento; lo que es acorde con que este tipo de custodia requiere que los progenitores negocien y se comprometan entre sí (Bauserman, 2012), más aún cuando la situación lo demanda, como es el caso. Por extensión, si la ruptura de pareja de los progenitores se considera una experiencia adversa de la infancia (Crouch et al, 2020), y un problema de salud pública (Salem, Sandler, & Wolchik, 2013), los resultados aquí encontrados, de forma holística, refuerzan la necesidad de implementar programas que refuercen la competencia parental para gestionar eficazmente las contingencias adversas que se les presentan. La evidencia científica avala de forma sistemática la eficacia de estos programas, tal que deberían formar parte de las políticas públicas (Martínez-Pampliega et al, 2015;Novo et al, 2019;Pruett & Cornett, 2017) Por último, una lectura de los resultados, bajo el prisma del principio de igualdad entre hombres y mujeres, posibilita concluir que, pese a lo que se ha avanzado en igualdad de género en España, todavía nos encontramos que la mujer sigue asumiendo y se le continúa asignando el rol de cuidadora de la prole.…”

Can Family and Neighborhood Cohesiveness Buffer the Association Between Family Economic Hardship and Children’s Peer Victimization?

“…Family economic hardship was measured with one item: “Family’s income—hard to cover the basics like food or housing?” Response options were on a 4-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 0 = never , 1 = rarely , 2 = somewhat often , to 3 = very often . This measure was reported by a parent or a caregiver and had been used in other studies (e.g., Cree et al, 2018; Crouch et al, 2019).…”

Designing Policy Solutions to Build a Healthier Rural America

“…Rural children have a higher rate of exposure to adverse childhood experiences, including parental separation/divorce, parental death, household incarceration, household violence, household mental illness, household substance abuse, and economic hardship. 17 An example of an adverse childhood experience that children encounter is poverty. Whereas 17.7% of urban children lived in poverty in 2017, 22.8% of rural children lived in poverty, a rate of 1.3 times greater.…”