An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews on Trauma Informed Approaches.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Community Mental Health Journal Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-24 DOI:10.1007/s10597-024-01317-z
Daryl Mahon
{"title":"An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews on Trauma Informed Approaches.","authors":"Daryl Mahon","doi":"10.1007/s10597-024-01317-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Trauma and adversity significantly impact on morbidity and mortality. Hence, trauma-informed care is proliferating practice and research contexts. However, the evidence base for organisational wide trauma-informed care is far from conclusive, with the extant literature providing low quality and conflicting evidence. The purpose of this umbrella review of systematic reviews, is to summarise the existing evidence on trauma-informed care implemented at the organisational level. The preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA) was used to conduct an umbrella review. Six databases were searched; Academic Search Complete, APA Psych Articles, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, and the Web of Science, supplemented with bibliography searches. Articles were included if they were peer reviewed in the English language from inception to 2024 and reported on trauma-informed care with an implementation context. The Joanne Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses was used to assess the quality of the included reviews. Findings are mapped to the 10 trauma-informed care implementation domains described by the Substance Use and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA) and reported using a narrative synthesis. The search strategy yielded 5,297 articles, of which (N = 14) systematic reviews are included. The reviews had a combined study count of (N = 311), with a total sample size of (N = 157,724). Most reviews used a narrative synthesis to report results, with no meta-analyses. Critical appraisal categorised the reviews as 28% high quality, 22% moderate quality, and 50% as low quality. Most reviews (50%), were conducted on youth populations, with school settings being the most studied context. There was a great deal of heterogeneity across the reviews, with 62 different models of trauma informed approaches discussed. The composition of the individual studies included in each systematic review were generally of low quality with mixed findings of effectiveness and implementation. Findings are discussed for moving forward with trauma-informed care implementation. Trauma-informed care is proposed as a system wide intervention to improve outcomes for service users, however the research base is still under scrutiny. Emerging research identifies the benefit of using the 10 trauma-informed implementation domains to shift cultural practices. Further research needs to be undertaken in various contexts with different populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":10654,"journal":{"name":"Community Mental Health Journal","volume":" ","pages":"1627-1651"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community Mental Health Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-024-01317-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Trauma and adversity significantly impact on morbidity and mortality. Hence, trauma-informed care is proliferating practice and research contexts. However, the evidence base for organisational wide trauma-informed care is far from conclusive, with the extant literature providing low quality and conflicting evidence. The purpose of this umbrella review of systematic reviews, is to summarise the existing evidence on trauma-informed care implemented at the organisational level. The preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA) was used to conduct an umbrella review. Six databases were searched; Academic Search Complete, APA Psych Articles, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, and the Web of Science, supplemented with bibliography searches. Articles were included if they were peer reviewed in the English language from inception to 2024 and reported on trauma-informed care with an implementation context. The Joanne Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses was used to assess the quality of the included reviews. Findings are mapped to the 10 trauma-informed care implementation domains described by the Substance Use and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA) and reported using a narrative synthesis. The search strategy yielded 5,297 articles, of which (N = 14) systematic reviews are included. The reviews had a combined study count of (N = 311), with a total sample size of (N = 157,724). Most reviews used a narrative synthesis to report results, with no meta-analyses. Critical appraisal categorised the reviews as 28% high quality, 22% moderate quality, and 50% as low quality. Most reviews (50%), were conducted on youth populations, with school settings being the most studied context. There was a great deal of heterogeneity across the reviews, with 62 different models of trauma informed approaches discussed. The composition of the individual studies included in each systematic review were generally of low quality with mixed findings of effectiveness and implementation. Findings are discussed for moving forward with trauma-informed care implementation. Trauma-informed care is proposed as a system wide intervention to improve outcomes for service users, however the research base is still under scrutiny. Emerging research identifies the benefit of using the 10 trauma-informed implementation domains to shift cultural practices. Further research needs to be undertaken in various contexts with different populations.

创伤知情方法系统综述》。
创伤和逆境对发病率和死亡率有重大影响。因此,创伤知情护理在实践和研究中不断涌现。然而,关于组织范围内的创伤知情护理的证据基础还远远没有定论,现有文献提供的证据质量不高且相互矛盾。本系统综述旨在总结在组织层面实施创伤知情护理的现有证据。本综述采用了系统综述和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)。共检索了六个数据库:Academic Search Complete、APA Psych Articles、Cochrane Library、Embase、Scopus 和 Web of Science,并辅以书目检索。从开始到 2024 年,以英语进行同行评议的文章均被收录,这些文章报告了创伤知情护理的实施情况。琼安-布里格斯研究所的系统综述和研究综述批判性评估核对表用于评估所收录综述的质量。研究结果与美国物质使用和心理健康服务管理局(SAMHSA)描述的 10 个创伤知情护理实施领域进行了映射,并使用叙述性综合方法进行了报告。搜索策略共获得 5297 篇文章,其中包括(N = 14 篇)系统性综述。这些综述的合并研究数为 (N = 311),总样本量为 (N = 157,724) 。大多数综述采用叙述性综述来报告结果,没有进行荟萃分析。批判性评价将 28% 的综述归为高质量,22% 为中等质量,50% 为低质量。大多数综述(50%)的研究对象是青少年,研究最多的是学校环境。这些综述存在很大的异质性,共讨论了 62 种不同的创伤知情方法模式。每篇系统性综述中包含的单项研究的质量普遍较低,研究结果的有效性和实施情况参差不齐。本文讨论了在实施创伤知情护理方面的研究结果。建议将创伤知情护理作为一种全系统干预措施,以改善服务使用者的结果,但研究基础仍在审查之中。新近的研究表明,利用 10 个创伤知情护理实施领域来转变文化习俗是有益的。进一步的研究需要在不同人群的不同环境中进行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
133
期刊介绍: Community Mental Health Journal focuses on the needs of people experiencing serious forms of psychological distress, as well as the structures established to address those needs. Areas of particular interest include critical examination of current paradigms of diagnosis and treatment, socio-structural determinants of mental health, social hierarchies within the public mental health systems, and the intersection of public mental health programs and social/racial justice and health equity. While this is the journal of the American Association for Community Psychiatry, we welcome manuscripts reflecting research from a range of disciplines on recovery-oriented services, public health policy, clinical delivery systems, advocacy, and emerging and innovative practices.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信