Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are negative childhood events occurring in a child’s family or social environment, that may cause harm or distress. Children with intellectual disabilities (ID) and their families are underrepresented in international ACEs research, while current insights can also contribute to the improvement of their health and well-being. Deficiencies in intellectual and adaptive functioning and living circumstances can increase their vulnerability to adversities. In the present exploratory study 69 case-files of children referred to a Dutch national center for residential youth care for children with ID were analyzed to assess the prevalence and associations of ACEs. It was found that almost half (49.3%) of the children experienced 2 ACEs from the original ACEs framework or more (M (mean) = 2.1; SD (standard deviation) = 1.8) and that the number of ACEs in children was related to the presence of ACEs in parents. Both child and parental ACEs were also related to attachment- and trauma- and stressor-related disorders. Finally, living circumstances and multiple ACEs from the expanded ACEs framework, especially related to parental characteristics, were found to be related to ACEs in children with ID. This implicates the importance of a transgenerational approach when further investigating the impact of ACEs on mental and physical health in children with ID (intellectual disabilities).

During COVID-19 measures face-to-face contact is limited and professional carers have to find other ways to support people with intellectual disabilities. COVID-19 measures can increase stress in people with intellectual disabilities, although some people may adapt to or grow from these uncertain situations. Resilience is the process of effectively negotiating, adapting to, or managing significant sources of stress and trauma. The current study aims to provide professional carers with new insights into how they can support people with intellectual disabilities. An online survey was shared through the social media and organizational newsletters of MEE ZHN (a non-governmental organization for people with disabilities). The resilience framework by Ungar (2019) was adapted to fit to people with intellectual disabilities during COVID-19 measures. Statistical analyses were performed in SPSS statistics version 26. Results show that professional carers applied diverse and distal methods to maintain contact with people with intellectual disabilities during the COVID-19 measures. Professional carers reported a significant decrease in the quality of contact with clients with intellectual disabilities, but overall high levels of resilience in the same clients. Online methods of communication are possibly insufficient for professionals to cover all needs of people with intellectual disabilities. During this pandemic professionals should be aware of stress but also of resilience in people with intellectual disabilities.

In this opinion article, we want to inspire readers by highlighting recent Dutch developments about two important health related issues regarding the quality of life of children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities. Firstly we focus on the prevention, treatment and reduction of (disability-related) somatic and psychological problems by specialized physicians for people with intellectual disabilities. Secondly, we emphasize the importance of the prevention of adverse childhood experiences and the promotion of protective and compensatory experiences. Subsequently, we stress the need for trauma informed care to support children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities who encounter adverse events. A specialized and multidisciplinary approach is advised as is the need for promoting healthy (family) relations with a focus on (co)regulation and connection as a basis for recovery.

Language for all is a method developed in the Netherlands for providing information in such a way that as many intended readers as possible both comprehend and accept this information. Readers include people with a large variety of reading abilities including people with low literacy skills. Language for all can be characterized as a more accessible variant of plain language with some characteristics of easy language.In three studies the comprehension and acceptance of and preference for texts written in Language for all was evaluated, comparing original texts with a version in Language for all.Information written in Language for all was significantly better understood and accepted, and was preferable to the original version.In conclusion, Language for all is a promising effective, inclusive, and comprehensive method to provide information to people with and without low literacy skills. Further research is recommended.

Children with intellectual disabilities experience unique developmental, social, and environmental challenges that intersect with adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and positive childhood experiences (PCEs), shaping their psychosocial outcomes. While prior research has mainly examined single adversities or protective elements, the frameworks of ACEs and PCEs provide a broader understanding of their cumulative and interactive effects. However, these constructs remain underexplored in children with intellectual disabilities. This scoping review maps the range, conceptualization, and impact of ACEs, PCEs, and related concepts on psychosocial outcomes. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology, a search of PsycInfo, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar identified studies until October 2024. Two reviewers screened and extracted data using standardized criteria. Findings reveal variability in how ACEs and PCEs are defined and measured. ACE exposure, particularly the cumulative impact of multiple ACEs (polyvictimization), links to adverse psychosocial outcomes, including emotional (e.g., anxiety, depression, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), behavioral (e.g., aggression, conduct problems), and developmental (e.g., social and adaptive skill deficits) difficulties. PCEs—such as positive parent–child relationships, teacher–student support, and peer acceptance—mitigate risks, though impact varies by context. Intellectual disabilities severity and socioeconomic adversity shape associations. Further research is needed to inform the adaptation of ACE–PCE frameworks for children with intellectual disabilities.