Vicarious trauma and secondary traumatic stress in health care professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three-quarters of Canadians are exposed to a traumatic event sufficient to cause psychological trauma in their lifetime. In fact, post-traumatic stress disorder is a global health issue with a prevalence as high as 37%. Health care professionals trained to provide mental health treatment for these individuals are at risk of developing vicarious trauma and secondary traumatic stress, both of which result in adverse symptoms for the health care provider that often mimic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Vicarious trauma develops over time as the clinician is continually exposed to their clients’ traumatic experiences, while clinicians experiencing secondary traumatic stress begin to experience the symptoms of PTSD due to secondary exposure of the traumatic event. Both vicarious trauma and secondary traumatic stress cause mental, physical, and emotional issues for health care professionals that include burnout and decreased self-worth. Health care systems and administration should aim to develop training and professional education for health care providers. This review will emphasize what factors lead to the development of vicarious trauma and secondary traumatic stress, and what aids or supports can be implemented to treat the symptoms. The implications for policy development and training will be discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".