Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36161340›Full record

ReviewThe Milbank quarterly2022

Understanding the Conceptualization and Operationalization of Trauma-Informed Care Within and Across Systems: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis.

Maria Bargeman, Julia Abelson, Gillian Mulvale, Anne Niec, Ania Theuer, Sandra Moll

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Milbank quarterly, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Facilitators and Barriers to Pediatric Nurse Practitioner Practice in the United States: A Systematic Review.Journal of pediatric health care : official publication of National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Trauma, Mental Health Workforce Shortages, and Health Equity: A Crisis in Public Health.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Maria BargemanSchool of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University.
Julia AbelsonCentre for Health Economics & Policy Analysis, McMaster University.
Gillian MulvaleHealth Policy and Management, DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University.
Anne NiecDepartment of Psychiatry & Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University.
Ania TheuerHealth Policy PhD Program, McMaster University.
Sandra MollSchool of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Policy Points In order to achieve successful operationalization of trauma-informed care (TIC), TIC policies must include conceptual clarity regarding the definition of both trauma and TIC. Furthermore, TIC requires clear and cohesive policies that address operational factors such as clearly delineated roles of service providers, protocol for positive trauma screens, necessary financial infrastructure, and mechanisms of intersectoral collaboration. Additionally, policy procedures need to be considered for how TIC is provided at the program and service level as well as what TIC means at the organizational, system, and intersectoral level. CONTEXT: Increased recognition of the epidemiology of trauma and its impact on individuals within and across human service delivery systems has contributed to the development of trauma-informed care (TIC). How TIC can be conceptualized and implemented, however, remains unclear. This study seeks to review and analyze the TIC literature from within and across systems of care and to generate a conceptual framework regarding TIC.

methodsOur study followed a critical interpretive synthesis methodology. We searched multiple databases (Campbell Collaboration, Econlit, Health Systems Evidence, Embase, ERIC, HealthSTAR, IPSA, JSTOR, Medline, PsychINFO, Social Sciences Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts and Web of Science),as well as relevant gray literature and information-rich websites. We used a coding tool, adapted to the TIC literature, for data extraction.

findingsElectronic database searches yielded 2,439 results and after inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied, a purposive sample of 98 information-rich articles was generated. Conceptual clarity and definitional understanding of TIC is lacking in the literature, which has led to poor operationalization of TIC. Additionally, infrastructural and ideological barriers, such as insufficient funding and service provider "buy-in," have hindered TIC implementation. The resulting conceptual framework defines trauma and depicts critical elements of vertical TIC, including the bidirectional relationship between the trauma-affected individual and the system, and horizontal TIC, which requires intersectoral collaboration, an established referral network, and standardized TIC language.

conclusionsSuccessful operationalization of TIC requires policies that address current gaps in systems arrangements, such as the lack of funding structures for TIC, and political factors, such as the role of policy legacies. The emergent conceptual framework acknowledges critical factors affecting operationalization.

Indexed as

Concept FormationReferral and ConsultationHumansResearch DesignSurveys and Questionnaireschild welfareeducationhealthjusticesocial servicestraumatrauma-informed care

Identifiers

PMID36161340
PMCPMC9576242

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.