MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Smith, Romy Cho, Tanya Smith, Lana Dépatie, Sarah Schwartz, Emma Cory

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySession (web analytics)Active listeningMedical educationBlamePsychological resilienceTraumatic stressMedicineClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicChild Abuse and Trauma→French-language works237,207→