The standard adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) framework, designed primarily in high-income settings, fails to capture the full spectrum of childhood adversity prevalent in low- and middle-income countries like India, according to a commentary published in The Lancet Regional Health–Southeast Asia. Researchers argue that the ten-category ACE model—which focuses on abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction—omits contextual harms uniquely affecting rural and low-income populations in LMICs, limiting the utility of this framework for designing culturally appropriate prevention and intervention strategies in these settings.
Key takeaways
- The standard ACE framework, developed in high-income countries, inadequately captures forms of adversity prevalent in rural India and other low- and middle-income countries
- Research demonstrates that ACEs show a dose–response association with depression, suicidality, substance use disorders, and chronic diseases across populations
- A contextually adapted ACE framework for LMIC settings could improve accuracy of risk identification and design of culturally appropriate mental health interventions
- Rural and low-income childhood adversities—such as food insecurity, community violence, and economic deprivation—are underrepresented in existing ACE measurement tools
ACE Framework Coverage Gap: High-Income vs. LMIC Contexts
Proportion of childhood adversities captured by standard ten-category ACE model in different settings
Illustrative framework gap | Adapted from global mental health literature | Georgian Medical Journal News
The ACE Framework’s Origins and Its Global Reach
The Adverse Childhood Experiences framework originated from the seminal Felitti et al. study conducted in the United States during the 1990s, which documented ten categories of childhood adversity: physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; physical and emotional neglect; and five household dysfunctions (parental separation, domestic violence, substance use, mental illness, and incarceration). Since its inception, this framework has been adopted globally as a standardised tool for assessing childhood trauma and predicting later health outcomes. Global health research has consistently demonstrated that ACEs show a clear dose–response relationship with poor adult health outcomes, including depression, suicidality, substance use disorders, and chronic non-communicable diseases.
However, the framework’s widespread international use masks a fundamental limitation: it was developed to capture the specific social and economic context of high-income countries, where the primary childhood adversities were family-level dysfunction and individual abuse. When applied to low- and middle-income countries—particularly rural and resource-limited settings—the framework’s categories systematically undercount forms of adversity endemic to LMIC contexts, limiting its clinical and epidemiological utility in these populations.
The Gap: What the Standard Framework Misses in LMIC Settings
In rural India and similar LMIC contexts, the commentary published in The Lancet Regional Health–Southeast Asia identifies critical categories of childhood adversity absent from the ten-item ACE model. These include systemic poverty and food insecurity, which affect childhood nutrition, school attendance, and cognitive development; community and interpersonal violence beyond household settings; discrimination based on caste, religion, gender, or ethnic identity; limited access to healthcare and education; child labour; early marriage and other forms of gender-based violence; and environmental hazards such as unsafe water and sanitation.
The structural and contextual nature of these adversities differs fundamentally from the household-focused categories in the original ACE framework. A rural child in India may experience profound adversity through systemic poverty and caste discrimination without experiencing the specific household dysfunctions (parental incarceration, parental mental illness) that dominate the standard ACE categories. Conversely, household-level factors captured by the ACE framework may be less predictive of poor outcomes in LMIC settings where community, economic, and structural factors play a larger role in determining health trajectories. This mismatch raises a critical question: How many children in rural India and other LMICs are classified as low-ACE using the standard framework, yet experience severe, ongoing adversity that shapes their health for life?
The standard ten-category ACE framework, whilst robust for high-income populations, inadequately captures forms of adversity prevalent in low- and middle-income countries, potentially misclassifying risk in LMIC populations and limiting the design of contextually appropriate prevention measures.
— Commentary in The Lancet Regional Health–Southeast Asia (2026)
Dose–Response Relationships Across Contexts: Implications for Research and Practice
The original ACE framework’s strength lies in its demonstration of dose–response associations: the more ACEs a person experienced, the higher their risk of depression, suicidality, substance use disorders, and chronic diseases. This linear relationship has been replicated across multiple populations and age groups, making the ACE framework a valuable tool for risk stratification. However, if LMIC-specific adversities are not captured in the measurement tool, researchers may fail to detect dose–response relationships in these populations, leading to an underestimation of risk and an inadequate allocation of public health resources to the populations most in need.
Furthermore, the commentary suggests that the absence of LMIC-relevant ACE categories from standard research tools has downstream consequences for mental health intervention design. Public health programmes based on the standard ACE framework may prioritise prevention strategies targeting parental mental illness or household substance use—conditions more common in high-income settings—whilst neglecting interventions addressing caste-based discrimination, food insecurity, or community violence, which are the primary drivers of childhood adversity in rural India. This misalignment between measurement and intervention represents both a scientific and an equity gap.
See related Migration & Health and Global Health coverage on structural determinants of health in vulnerable populations.
Towards a Contextualised ACE Framework: A Path Forward
Developing and validating contextualised ACE frameworks for specific LMIC settings is a research and implementation priority. Such frameworks would require: (1) qualitative and quantitative research with community members, caregivers, and children in rural LMIC settings to identify the most salient forms of childhood adversity; (2) psychometric validation of expanded ACE measures in these populations; (3) longitudinal studies demonstrating dose–response relationships between expanded ACE categories and adult health outcomes; and (4) co-design of evidence-based interventions informed by the expanded framework, in partnership with local health systems and communities.
India, with its substantial burden of childhood malnutrition, high rates of child marriage, endemic caste-based discrimination, and limited access to mental health services in rural areas, is an ideal setting for this work. A contextualised ACE framework for rural India could serve as a template for similar adaptations in other LMIC contexts, strengthening the global applicability of ACE research and enabling more precise, equitable targeting of prevention and early intervention programmes. The standard ACE framework has proven its value in high-income countries; the next step is to ensure that children in LMICs are assessed using tools that reflect the realities of their lives.
What this means
Frequently asked questions
What are Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and why do they matter?
ACEs are stressful or traumatic events occurring before age 18, including abuse, neglect, household dysfunction, and other forms of adversity. Research published in landmark studies demonstrates that ACEs are strong predictors of depression, substance use, suicide, and chronic diseases later in life. The more ACEs a person experiences, the higher their risk of poor health outcomes—a relationship called a dose–response association.
Why doesn’t the standard ten-category ACE framework work well in India and other low-income countries?
The standard ACE framework was developed in the United States and focuses on household-level adversities (parental mental illness, domestic violence, incarceration) common in high-income settings. In rural India, the most significant childhood adversities often stem from systemic factors: extreme poverty, caste discrimination, food insecurity, limited school access, and community violence. These LMIC-specific harms are not captured in the standard ten categories, meaning children experiencing severe adversity may be classified as low-risk, leading to underestimation of need and misallocation of public health resources.
What changes need to happen to fix this problem?
Researchers, clinicians, and policymakers in India and other LMICs should collaborate to develop and validate contextualised ACE frameworks that include LMIC-relevant adversity categories (poverty, discrimination, unsafe living conditions, limited healthcare access). Once validated, these adapted frameworks can inform more accurate risk assessment, guide mental health intervention design, and improve alignment between measurement and prevention efforts in resource-limited settings.
The commentary in The Lancet Regional Health–Southeast Asia represents a critical step in this conversation—naming a gap that global mental health researchers and practitioners can no longer ignore. As mental health research and policy increasingly adopt the ACE framework to identify vulnerable children and design prevention programmes, the stakes of this framework gap grow higher. Contextualising the ACE framework for LMIC settings is not merely a methodological exercise; it is an equity imperative, ensuring that childhood adversity research and intervention serve the populations most burdened by adversity worldwide.
Source: Frameworks for adverse childhood experiences in rural India: commentary, The Lancet Regional Health–Southeast Asia (2026)
Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer. This article is health journalism intended for general information and education. It is not medical advice and is not a substitute for professional diagnosis or treatment. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider about your individual circumstances. Full disclaimer →
Related Coverage
Editorial standards. This article was produced under the GMJ News editorial process, with oversight by the GMJ Editorial Board. Our editorial process. Spotted an error? Contact the editorial team.
