Cited by 83Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceSocial Work Education and PracticeHealthcare Quality and Management

Measuring trauma- (and violence-) informed care: A scoping review.

Open access
Wathen, C. Nadine, Schmitt, Brenna, MacGregor, Jennifer C. D.·2023·Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/15248380211029399

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A recent scoping review found that a key limitation of measures to assess EOHC concepts, such as TVIC, is that they rarely include items focused on stigma, racism, and discrimination as structural or systemic influences on care experiences.

    “Indeed, as found in a recent scoping review [90], a key limitation of measures to assess EOHC concepts, such as TVIC, is that they rarely include items focused on stigma, racism, and discrimination as structural or systemic influences on care experiences.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Abdoh N. Bernardi E. McCarthy A. (2017). Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of trauma-informed practice: A survey of health care professionals and support staff at Alexander Street Community [Unpublished manuscript]. http://hdl.handle.net/2429/60785
  2. Child Welfare Committee, National Child Traumatic Stress Network. (2008). Child welfare trauma training toolkit: Comprehensive guide (2nd ed.). National Center for Child Traumatic Stress.
  3. Richardson M. M. Coryn C. L. S. Henry J. Black-Pond C. Unrau Y. (2010). Trauma informed system change instrument (TISCI) (2nd Ed.). Southwest Michigan Children’s Trauma Assessment Centre.
  4. Setti I. Argentero P. (2012). Vicarious trauma: A contribution to the Italian adaptation of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale in a sample of ambulance operators. Giunti Organizzazioni Speciali, 264(59), 58– 64.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wathen, C. N., Schmitt, B., & MacGregor, J. C. D.
Affiliations
Western University (CA)
Corresponding author
Wathen, C. Nadine
Venue
Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
Published
2021-07-08
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
261-277
ISSN
  • 1524-8380 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8324
OpenAlex
W3183033063
Cited by
83
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trauma Violence & Abuse (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Canada Research Chair (Tier 1))
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Social Work Education and Practice
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
trauma-informed care, violence-informed care, measurement instruments, vicarious trauma, implicit bias, strengths-based care, structural inequality, racism, misogyny, poverty
MeSH terms
Compassion Fatigue, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Violence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review