ArticleJournal of child & adolescent trauma2025
What Next for Trauma-Informed Education Research? A Research Prioritisation Exercise with Young People as Informants.
Article in Journal of child & adolescent trauma, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Children and young people (henceforth referred to as children) who experience severe childhood adversity are at risk of mental health and developmental challenges that mean standard approaches to education are not able to support their needs, resulting in high levels of exclusion and alternate provision. Evidence of the best education models to support positive outcomes is needed. This exercise aimed to identify research priorities of children impacted by severe adversity and the people who surround/support them to be used to inform future work surrounding the education of children with a history of trauma. Research prioritisation methods were used. The views of adult stakeholders with lived or professional experience, and children with histories of trauma who attend a specialist school were collected. Two surveys were circulated in each group collecting: 1. Respondents' questions (priorities) about education for children with trauma; 2. Rankings of these priorities. The first children's survey was carried out within a school. The resulting 25 questions were presented to eight students who each chose three questions which they deemed most important. In the adult survey, 114 respondents suggested 196 questions. The children's questions were combined with the adult questions which resulted in 221 questions in total. These were categorised into six themes (Child Centred, Home, Interventions and Alternate Provisions, Policy & Wider, School, and Teachers & Learning). Questions were re-circulated under these categories, and 48 individuals ranked their top 5 or 10 questions (dependent on the number of questions in the category), and the top five questions overall were labelled as priorities. The top priorities generally reflected well-researched areas in the field of trauma, namely how trauma-informed learning and care can be implemented in mainstream schools. This suggests a lack of evidence communication. Future research should aim to improve knowledge dissemination. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40653-025-00711-3.
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.