MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2804008977 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxy054.011

SECONDARY TRAUMATIC STRESS: DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING A PROGRAM TO BUILD RESILIENCE IN CHILD MALTREATMENT FELLOWS

2018· article· en· W2804008977 sur OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Smith, Romy Cho, Tanya Smith, Lana Dépatie, Sarah Schwartz, Emma Cory

Notice bibliographique

RevuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueChild Abuse and Trauma
Établissements canadiensSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologySession (web analytics)Active listeningMedical educationBlamePsychological resilienceTraumatic stressMedicineClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychotherapist

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND Fellows in child maltreatment paediatrics (CMP) are at risk of secondary traumatic stress (STS). Contributing factors include inexperience, younger age, lack of mastery, high caseloads, and longer working hours. Literature has previously focused on individual resilience; as understanding about STS evolves, it has been recognized that organizational resilience is important in supporting healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVES Our objective was to develop, implement, and evaluate an innovative program to increase resilience to STS among fellows in a child maltreatment training program. DESIGN/METHODS A trauma-informed counsellor with expertise in both secondary-traumatic stress and medical education was identified through the University Wellness Office. The counsellor was not a member of the CMP team and facilitated a targeted program that included monthly, small group session for all CMP fellows. Sessions involved low-intensity activities that encouraged self-reflection and focused attention. The counsellor facilitated discussions around difficult cases with active listening, immersion into the affective experience of others, and avoidance of judgment, blame, or criticism. Fellows were encouraged to speak about their own experiences, rather than commenting on the experiences of others. This created a safe environment in which to explore and process difficult material. Evidence-based strategies were offered at the end of each session. An important component of the program was an iterative process of feedback and reflection on the session structure and process. Written reflections were collected from fellows and staff, which were qualitatively analyzed by two reviewers to identify key themes. RESULTS Qualitative analysis of individual written reflections identified four major themes, including high satisfaction with program, strategies for prevention and management of STS, bonded fellowship peer group, and feelings of validation from one another. There was unanimous reporting of high levels of satisfaction with the program by both fellows and supervising staff. Fellows described excitedly anticipating sessions and experiencing renewed energy following group sessions. Supervising staff reported seeing fellows apply skills and strategies learned for prevention and management of STS. Between sessions, fellows reported improved STS symptoms and employing preventative self-care strategies. It was reported that the strategies learned assisted fellows in developing a reflection style that was intentional and individualized for their wellbeing. An unanticipated outcome that was unianimously reported by fellows and noted by staff was the fostering of a strongly bonded and supportive fellowship peer group, further increasing perceptions of wellbeing. Fellows reported feeling validation from one another during group sessions and utilizing approaches in real-time informal discussions with team members as difficult clinical cases arose. CONCLUSION This targeted program for fellows was developed as an innovative approach to addressing secondary traumatic stress among new learners in the challenging field of child maltreatment paediatrics. It has demonstrated acceptability among fellows and supervising staff with reported improvement in STS symptoms. Future steps will address the broader goal of optimizing organizational resilience among other members of the child maltreatment team.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,041

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0020,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,342
Écart entre enseignants0,319 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePaediatrics & Child Health→Même sujetChild Abuse and Trauma→Travaux en français237 207→