↓ Skip to main content

What are effective strategies for implementing trauma-informed care in youth inpatient psychiatric and residential treatment settings? A realist systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Mental Health Systems, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#50 of 744)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
17 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
116 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
385 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What are effective strategies for implementing trauma-informed care in youth inpatient psychiatric and residential treatment settings? A realist systematic review
Published in
International Journal of Mental Health Systems, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13033-017-0137-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie A. Bryson, Emma Gauvin, Ally Jamieson, Melanie Rathgeber, Lorelei Faulkner-Gibson, Sarah Bell, Jana Davidson, Jennifer Russel, Sharlynne Burke

Abstract

Many young people who receive psychiatric care in inpatient or residential settings in North America have experienced various forms of emotional trauma. Moreover, these settings can exacerbate trauma sequelae. Common practices, such as seclusion and restraint, put young people at risk of retraumatization, development of comorbid psychopathology, injury, and even death. In response, psychiatric and residential facilities have embraced trauma-informed care (TIC), an organizational change strategy which aligns service delivery with treatment principles and discrete interventions designed to reduce rates of retraumatization through responsive and non-coercive staff-client interactions. After more than two decades, a number of TIC frameworks and approaches have shown favorable results. Largely unexamined, however, are the features that lead to successful implementation of TIC, especially in child and adolescent inpatient psychiatric and residential settings. Using methods proposed by Pawson et al. (J Health Serv Res Policy 10:21-34, 2005), we conducted a modified five-stage realist systematic review of peer-reviewed TIC literature. We rigorously searched ten electronic databases for peer reviewed publications appearing between 2000 and 2015 linking terms "trauma-informed" and "child*" or "youth," plus "inpatient" or "residential" plus "psych*" or "mental." After screening 693 unique abstracts, we selected 13 articles which described TIC interventions in youth psychiatric or residential settings. We designed a theoretically-based evaluative framework using the active implementation cycles of the National Implementation Research Network (NIRN) to discern which foci were associated with effective TIC implementation. Excluded were statewide mental health initiatives and TIC implementations in outpatient mental health, child welfare, and education settings. Interventions examined included: Attachment, Self-Regulation, and Competency Framework; Six Core Strategies; Collaborative Problem Solving; Sanctuary Model; Risking Connection; and the Fairy Tale Model. Five factors were instrumental in implementing trauma informed care across a spectrum of initiatives: senior leadership commitment, sufficient staff support, amplifying the voices of patients and families, aligning policy and programming with trauma informed principles, and using data to help motivate change. Reduction or elimination of coercive measures may be achieved by explicitly targeting specific coercive measures or by implementing broader therapeutic models. Additional research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of both approaches.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 385 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 384 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 54 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 34 9%
Researcher 33 9%
Student > Bachelor 32 8%
Other 57 15%
Unknown 131 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 83 22%
Social Sciences 50 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 7%
Arts and Humanities 6 2%
Other 31 8%
Unknown 147 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,421,970
of 24,717,692 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#50
of 744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,762
of 315,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,717,692 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,660 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.