Association between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and developmental milestones of preschool children in a rural area of Colombia

Objectives. To examine the association between ACEs and global development in preschool children in a poor rural area in Colombia. Methods. This is a cross sectional study conducted on children between the ages of 2 and 4... [ view full abstract ]

Objectives. To examine the association between ACEs and global development in preschool children in a poor rural area in Colombia.
Methods. This is a cross sectional study conducted on children between the ages of 2 and 4 years (n = 94) who live in Barú, Colombia. Data were collected through a spanish version of ACEs questionnaire for parents. Children were classified as having a high risk ACEs score (≥4) or low risk ACEs score (<4). Development was measured using Battelle developmental inventory and children were classified as having a normal or delayed development. The data analysis included a descriptive component and measures of association.
Results. 13.8% of the children qualified for high risk ACEs score and 93.6% of the children were exposed to at least one ACEs. The most prevalent ACEs were physical abuse (85.1%) and parental divorce (38.3%). Developmental delay was found in 43.6% of the children. Logistic regression analysis showed that there was no statistically significant association between children with high or low risk ACEs score in terms of developmental delay.
Conclusions. According to the results, there is no association between high ACEs and developmental delay in preschool children from a poor rural area of Colombia. Various factors not included in the study such as protective or resilience factors, social adverse childhood experiences such as poverty and the cultural – ecological interpretation of adversity could explain these results. In addition, the epigenetic disturbances could require more than the first 4 years of life to be expressed as developmental delay or these disturbances in early childhood could require more sensitive or specific testing tools to examine damage in brain functioning. All of these alternative theories need to be proven in further studies.