Measuring Trauma- (and Violence-) Informed Care: A Scoping Review
Measuring Trauma- (and Violence-) Informed Care: A Scoping Review
Trauma, Violence, &Abuse, Ahead of Print.
Trauma- (and violence-) informed care (T(V)IC) has emerged as an important practice approach across a spectrum of care settings; however how to measure its implementation and impact has not been well-examined. The purpose of this scoping review is to describe the nature and extent of available measures of T(V)IC, including the cross-cutting concepts of vicarious trauma and implicit bias. Using multiple search strategies, including searches conducted by a professional librarian from database inception to Summer 2020, 1074 articles were retrieved and independently screened for eligibility by two team members. A total of 228 were reviewed in full text, yielding 13 measures that met pre-defined inclusion criteria: 1) full-text available in English; 2) describes the initial development and validation of a measure, that 3) is intended to be used to evaluate T(V)IC. A related review of vicarious trauma measures yielded two that are predominant in this literature. Among the 13 measures identified, there was significant diversity in what aspects of T(V)IC are assessed, with a clear emphasis on “knowledge” and “safety”, and less on “collaboration/choice” and “strengths-based” concepts. The items and measures are roughly split in terms of assessing individual-level knowledge, attitudes and practices, and organizational policies and protocols. Few measures examine structural factors, including racism, misogyny, poverty and other inequities, and their impact on people’s lives. We conclude that existing measures do not generally cover the full potential range of the T(V)IC, and that those seeking such a measure would need to adapt and/or combine two or more existing tools.
Trauma- (and violence-) informed care (T(V)IC) has emerged as an important practice approach across a spectrum of care settings; however how to measure its implementation and impact has not been well-examined. The purpose of this scoping review is to describe the nature and extent of available measures of T(V)IC, including the cross-cutting concepts of vicarious trauma and implicit bias. Using multiple search strategies, including searches conducted by a professional librarian from database inception to Summer 2020, 1074 articles were retrieved and independently screened for eligibility by two team members. A total of 228 were reviewed in full text, yielding 13 measures that met pre-defined inclusion criteria: 1) full-text available in English; 2) describes the initial development and validation of a measure, that 3) is intended to be used to evaluate T(V)IC. A related review of vicarious trauma measures yielded two that are predominant in this literature. Among the 13 measures identified, there was significant diversity in what aspects of T(V)IC are assessed, with a clear emphasis on “knowledge” and “safety”, and less on “collaboration/choice” and “strengths-based” concepts. The items and measures are roughly split in terms of assessing individual-level knowledge, attitudes and practices, and organizational policies and protocols. Few measures examine structural factors, including racism, misogyny, poverty and other inequities, and their impact on people’s lives. We conclude that existing measures do not generally cover the full potential range of the T(V)IC, and that those seeking such a measure would need to adapt and/or combine two or more existing tools.
C. Nadine Wathen