Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35094164›Full record

ArticleCommunity mental health journal2022

Adequacy of Inquiry About, Documentation of, and Treatment of Trauma and Adversities: A Study of Mental Health Professionals in England.

Caitlin Neill, John Read

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Community mental health journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Caitlin NeillSchool of Psychology, University of East London, Water Lane, London, E15 4LZ, UK.
John ReadSchool of Psychology, University of East London, Water Lane, London, E15 4LZ, UK. j.read2@uel.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5159-1192
University of East London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to ascertain how often staff in community mental health services (CMHSs) in England ask about adverse experiences in childhood and adulthood, including abuse and neglect, how often those experiences are known about and documented by staff, and how staff respond when such experiences are known about and documented. The files of 400 people using four CMHSs in England were reviewed. Only 13% of clinical records contained documentation of any adverse experiences. One percent showed clear evidence that clients had been asked about adversities. People with psychosis diagnoses were less likely to have adverse experiences documented in their file. Rates of responses to adversities of which staff were aware were high, with 90% of records indicating some appropriate support following disclosure. Future research endeavours are recommended, including on reasons for not routinely asking and on type of training needed. Recommendations are made in relation to policy change, staff training and guidelines to improve routine enquiry about adversities. Ultimately, a move to 'trauma-informed' services, already underway in some areas, is required for all mental health services.

Indexed as

Child AbuseMental Health ServicesAdultChildDocumentationHealth PersonnelHumansMental HealthAbuseAdverse experiencesAssessmentDisclosuresInquiryLoss

Identifiers

PMID35094164
OpenAlexW4210471187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.