ArticlePloS one2022
Assessing healthcare provider knowledge of human trafficking.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human Trafficking Among North American Indigenous Women: A Scoping Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Review
- Effects of a Cluster Randomized Educational Intervention on Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Women's Trafficking Among Undergraduate Nursing Students.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Elements of a care pathway for human trafficking victims in emergency departments: A mapping review.Worldviews on evidence-based nursing · 2025Review
- A scoping review of racism and anti-racist solutions in the health care of people who have experienced trafficking.PloS one · 2025Article
- Healthcare providers' experience of identifying and caring for women subjected to sex trafficking: a qualitative study.BMC women's health · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesHuman trafficking is a significant problem in which healthcare workers are in a unique position to intervene. This study sought to determine the self-reported knowledge levels of healthcare providers most likely to come in direct contact with victims of human trafficking.
methodsAn anonymous survey assessing self-reported knowledge of human trafficking was developed and distributed online. Demographic information and questions pertaining to training and knowledge of trafficking in a healthcare setting were asked. The primary outcomes were descriptive statistics and secondary outcomes were comparisons among demographic groups. Qualitative methodology via content analysis was implemented on an open-ended question.
resultsThe 6,603 respondents represented all regions of the country. Medical, nursing, and physician assistant students comprised 23% of the sample, while 40% were either physicians, fellows, or residents. Less than half the respondents (42%) have received formal training in human trafficking, while an overwhelming majority (93%) believe they would benefit by such training. Overall, respondents thought their level of knowledge of trafficking was average to below average (mean = 2.64 on a 5-point scale). There were significant differences in knowledge of trafficking by age group (p < .001), region (p < .001), and educational training level (p < .001). 949 respondents (14.4%) provided free-text comments that further described their opinions.
conclusionMost respondents stated they have not received training but felt they would benefit from it. There were significant differences between demographic groups. Further innovation is needed to design a universally appropriate curriculum on human trafficking that is accessible to all healthcare providers as well as mandatory training programs for healthcare institutions.
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.