MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399606639 · doi:10.1177/15248380241255736

Vicarious Growth, Traumatization, and Event Centrality in Loved Ones Indirectly Exposed to Interpersonal Trauma: A Scoping Review

2024· review· en· W4399606639 on OpenAlexaff
Whitney Willcott-Benoit, Jorden A. Cummings

Bibliographic record

VenueTrauma Violence & Abuse · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOPsychologyInterpersonal communicationInclusion (mineral)ScopusInterpersonal relationshipPopulationClinical psychologyMental healthMEDLINEPsychotherapistMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well-known that interpersonal traumatic events can impact the physical and mental health of those indirectly exposed to the events. Less studied are populations of loved ones who have been indirectly exposed to interpersonal trauma. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize literature related to potential consequences of indirect interpersonal trauma exposure, specifically vicarious traumatization (VT) and vicarious posttraumatic growth (VPTG). We used the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Inclusion criteria included: (1) participants were indirectly exposed to the interpersonal trauma of a loved one in adulthood, (2) discussion of VT, VPTG, or related terms, (3) published peer-reviewed empirical journal articles, and (4) available in English. We used a three-step search strategy to find relevant articles. Keywords found from the first two steps were entered into PsycINFO, PsycArticles, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Reference lists of the included articles were also examined. The identified articles were then screened using the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Twenty-eight articles met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Twenty-six articles referenced VT or related terms, one referenced VPTG, and one referenced vicarious trauma keywords. Results of this scoping review are summarized by definitions, measures, key findings, and knowledge gaps. Future research should focus on vocabulary management, diverse samples, and VPTG in this population, including the identification or creation of appropriate measures.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrauma Violence & AbuseSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207