Exploring Care and Recovery for Individuals With Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most people experience trauma at some point in their lives. The sources of trauma can include accidents, natural disasters, physical or sexual assault, combat, torture, or the death of a loved one. Experiencing or witnessing any of these, or other terrifying events, may make one susceptible to developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a trauma- and stressor-related mental health condition. The common symptoms and consequences of PTSD include intrusive and distressing thoughts, memories, or flashbacks related to the traumatic event; avoidance of situations, people, or activities that remind one of the traumatic event; irritability, sleep difficulties, or hypervigilance; feelings of guilt, shame, or fear; substance use; strains on relationships; and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. These consequences can have devastating effects on the individual and their family members, friends, co-workers, peers, and communities. Effectively treating PTSD, therefore, is critical not only for the individual but also for the well-being of families, communities, and society at large. However, while treatments for PTSD exist, effectively treating patients with PTSD remains elusive. Further, despite the recognition that people's experiences are essential in understanding PTSD and provide valuable insights into what interventions are effective and how they impact recovery, patient perspectives and experiences of care and recovery have not been well-explored. We conducted a scoping review to address the following question: what is known about the experiences and perspectives of care and recovery for individuals with PTSD? We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Embase, American Psychological Association's (APA) PsycInfo, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PTSDPubs, and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed and grey literature that used qualitative methods to report on the recovery or care experiences of adults with lived experiences of PTSD. We extracted information about study objectives, study characteristics, and key findings; reported summary statistics; and performed content and thematic analyses. We identified 14 relevant studies that provide insight into the participants' lived experiences and perspectives of PTSD care and recovery. Though limited, the body of literature sheds light on critical themes and processes in the journey of care of PTSD, which we organized into four overarching categories: pre-treatment understanding and experiences of PTSD, the experience of care or treatment, the importance of relationships and social support, and expanding the understandings of recovery. Living with and healing from PTSD are a unique and individualized human experience of developing and redeveloping relationships with oneself, with others, and with society. The recommendations for practice include educating and establishing well-informed support networks for individuals with PTSD, training healthcare practitioners in all aspects of formal and informal PTSD treatment and care needs, ensuring a continuum of care, and understanding the human experience of PTSD.
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 | 0.009 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".