Talking about trauma: A systematic review of young people's reactions to trauma-focused research

IF 13.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2025-01-10 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102549
Caitlin Haile , Emily P. Taylor , Corina Orr , Eilidh MacKinnon
{"title":"Talking about trauma: A systematic review of young people's reactions to trauma-focused research","authors":"Caitlin Haile ,&nbsp;Emily P. Taylor ,&nbsp;Corina Orr ,&nbsp;Eilidh MacKinnon","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Concerns persist about the potential negative impact of asking young people about their trauma experiences in a research context. Previous research on this ethical issue has focused on adult populations, and the limited evidence for young people has limitations. This systematic review synthesised empirical evidence of young people's reactions to trauma-focused research, and associated participant and study characteristics. Eligible studies included young people aged up to 18 years in any setting who were systematically asked about their response to participating in trauma-focused research. Seventeen studies were identified, containing a total of 40,660 participants. Risk of bias was assessed using a bespoke quality assessment tool. Findings revealed higher benefits than costs, suggesting generally positive appraisals of trauma-focused research for young people. Those with a trauma history or symptoms were more vulnerable to costs. Age and gender did not appear to influence costs, but it was unclear how these factors impacted benefits. These findings suggest that young people can safely be asked about their trauma experiences and its impact, but that consideration of trauma history and symptoms is needed. Routinely asking should become part of ethical research design and would contribute to a richer evidence base.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"116 ","pages":"Article 102549"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735825000157","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Concerns persist about the potential negative impact of asking young people about their trauma experiences in a research context. Previous research on this ethical issue has focused on adult populations, and the limited evidence for young people has limitations. This systematic review synthesised empirical evidence of young people's reactions to trauma-focused research, and associated participant and study characteristics. Eligible studies included young people aged up to 18 years in any setting who were systematically asked about their response to participating in trauma-focused research. Seventeen studies were identified, containing a total of 40,660 participants. Risk of bias was assessed using a bespoke quality assessment tool. Findings revealed higher benefits than costs, suggesting generally positive appraisals of trauma-focused research for young people. Those with a trauma history or symptoms were more vulnerable to costs. Age and gender did not appear to influence costs, but it was unclear how these factors impacted benefits. These findings suggest that young people can safely be asked about their trauma experiences and its impact, but that consideration of trauma history and symptoms is needed. Routinely asking should become part of ethical research design and would contribute to a richer evidence base.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
谈论创伤:系统回顾年轻人对创伤研究的反应
人们一直担心,在研究背景下询问年轻人的创伤经历可能会产生负面影响。先前关于这一伦理问题的研究主要集中在成年人身上,而针对年轻人的有限证据存在局限性。这一系统综述综合了年轻人对创伤研究的反应的经验证据,以及相关的参与者和研究特征。符合条件的研究包括在任何环境下年龄在18岁以下的年轻人,他们被系统地询问他们对参与以创伤为重点的研究的反应。17项研究被确定,总共包含40660名参与者。使用定制的质量评估工具评估偏倚风险。研究结果显示,收益高于成本,表明对年轻人进行创伤研究的总体评价是积极的。那些有创伤史或症状的人更容易受到成本的影响。年龄和性别似乎不影响成本,但不清楚这些因素如何影响福利。这些发现表明,可以安全地询问年轻人他们的创伤经历及其影响,但需要考虑创伤历史和症状。例行询问应该成为伦理研究设计的一部分,并有助于建立更丰富的证据基础。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Psychology Review
Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
23.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
期刊最新文献
When and how do parent-child acculturation gaps matter? A systematic review and recommendations for research and practice A synthesis of meta-analyses of immersive virtual reality interventions in pain Puberty and ADHD: A scoping review and framework for future research Ecological Momentary Assessment in psychotherapy research: A systematic review The experience and role of dissociation in psychosis following developmental trauma: A systematic review
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1