ArticleBMJ open2021
Development and evaluation of guidelines for prevention of retraumatisation in torture survivors during surgical care: protocol for a multistage qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- "After torture, everything changed": the unpacking of trauma from torture with interpretative phenomenological analysis and Merleau-Ponty's theory of the lived body.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Article
- Torture survivors' experiences of receiving surgical treatment indicating re- traumatization.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealthcare professionals working in somatic departments are not trained to recognise signs of torture or provide appropriate healthcare to torture survivors, which may result in retraumatisation during surgical treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol outlines a four-stage qualitative-method strategy for the development and evaluation of guidelines for prevention of retraumatisation of torture survivors during surgical care. The systematic search for literature review in stages 1 and 2 was conducted in August 2019 and March 2021, respectively, using nine databases. The search strategies employed in stage 1, without imposing any date limits, resulted in the inclusion of eight studies that addressed inadequate healthcare strategies associated with retraumatisation. The clinical guidelines review in stage 2 will include publications from 2000 onwards, which will be appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation Version II instrument. Following multi-institutional recruitment in Norway, stage 3 will explore survivors' experiences of receiving surgical treatment using indepth interviews (n=8-12), which will be audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the interpretative phenomenological analysis approach. In stage 4a, based on the findings from stages 1, 2 and 3, a set of clinical guidelines for preventing retraumatisation during surgical treatment will be developed. Next, the feasibility and acceptability of the guidelines will be assessed in stage 4b in three interdisciplinary focus group interviews (n=5 per group) and text condensation analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Regional (South-East C) Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics approved the study in May 2021 (#227624). In stages 3 and 4, an informational letter and an informed consent form will be distributed to the participants to sign before the interview. The study results will be disseminated through publications, conference presentations, and national and local public forums to healthcare professionals, service managers, policymakers and refugee-supporting agencies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.