SynthesisBMJ open2025
Exploring the trauma experiences of people working in homelessness: mixed-methods systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesHomelessness is a global public health concern which extends to the health and well-being of people working in homelessness, and this mixed-methods systematic review aims to explore their experiences of trauma.
designThe review protocol followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance and a mixed-methods convergent segregated approach, a systematic search for qualitative and quantitative research across seven databases. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Psychology Database, Public Health Database, Web of Science and PubMed, searched from inception until May 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: A total of 22 articles met the eligibility criteria and were retained for inclusion (12 quantitative, 13 qualitative and 3 mixed methods). The methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and confidence in the findings was assessed via GRADE-CERQual. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Peer-reviewed empirical research and relevant grey literature, available in English, were considered for inclusion. Data were synthesised per the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance on mixed-methods systematic review synthesis, drawing upon the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) definition of trauma.
resultsThe methodological quality of studies varied due to unclear reporting on sample representativeness and confounder control, particularly in quantitative studies. Despite this, a high prevalence of trauma experiences was evidenced, with a significant number of participants across this sector encountering traumatic 'events', 'experiences' and 'effects', as conceptualised by SAMHSA, stressing the urgent need for systemic-level change.
conclusionsThis review provides an important evidence base for future research, policy and practice, and discusses the need for psychologically informed practice, to prevent and alleviate trauma experiences across homelessness, along with nuanced, inclusive and consistent measurements of trauma.
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.