Interventions to treat post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in vulnerably housed populations and trauma-informed care: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The goals of this study are to identify and analyse interventions that aim to treat post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and complex PTSD in people who are vulnerably housed and to describe how these treatments have been delivered using trauma-informed care. DESIGN: Scoping review. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and PTSDpubs for published literature up to November 2021 for any studies that examined the treatment of PTSD in adults who were vulnerably housed. Websites of relevant organisations and other grey literature sources were searched to supplement the electronic database search. The characteristics and effect of the interventions were analysed. We also explored how the interventions were delivered and the elements of trauma-informed care that were described. RESULTS: 28 studies were included. We identified four types of interventions: (1) trauma focused psychotherapies; (2) non-trauma psychotherapies; (3) housing interventions and (4) pharmacotherapies. The trauma-informed interventions were small case series and the non-trauma focused therapies included four randomised controlled trials, were generally ineffective. Of the 10 studies which described trauma-informed care the most commonly named elements were physical and emotional safety, the experience of feeling heard and understood, and flexibility of choice. The literature also commented on the difficulty of providing care to this population including lack of private space to deliver therapy; the co-occurrence of substance use; and barriers to follow-up including limited length of stay in different shelters and high staff turnover. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review identified a lack of high-quality trials to address PTSD in people who are vulnerably housed. There is a need to conduct well designed trials that take into account the unique setting of this population and which describe those elements of trauma-informed care that are most important and necessary.
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 | 0.018 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".