Research Reactivity and Distress Protocols for Youth Trauma-related Research: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To explore literature regarding youth with Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), their potential reactivity to research, and research trauma mitigation protocols. Methods: A systematic scoping review was conducted in APA PsychInfo, CINAHL, Embase, and OVID Medline. 2 reviewers screened each article for 12 eligible studies. Quantitative and qualitative studies measuring maltreatment and trauma research responses were eligible. Youth were defined as individuals aged 10-19. Results: No study utilized the ACEs questionnaire with research-related stress measures. Among those that included research reactivity measures, various forms of childhood and youth victimization were considered. The majority of participants did not report feeling upset, with many reporting benefits to participation. Information on protocols for managing distress was available for 11 studies, the most common being the provision of a resource helpsheet and/or referral system. Implications: There is no indication of distress following ACEs-related research, with few studies measuring across the research experience. One study measured follow-up for distress and further action. Additional research may be indicated to assess the effectiveness of these protocols in this population with a follow-up assessment.
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 | 0.119 | 0.258 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.038 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".