Trauma Informed Care (TIC) Interventions for Populations Experiencing Addiction and/or Homelessness: A Scoping Review of Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Trauma-informed care (TIC) is an expansive healthcare approach that recognizes and responds to a person’s trauma exposure. Many people experiencing a substance use disorder (SUD) and/or homelessness have trauma histories. There has not been a review of TIC intervention outcomes among these populations. Methods: A scoping review of literature (2008 to October 2023) on TIC intervention outcomes among populations experiencing SUD and/or homelessness was conducted. The search yielded 1139 texts, of which 58 met full-text extraction criteria. The final review included 32 texts that were systematically analysed. Results: TIC interventions show generally positive results for eight outcomes categories: 1) Psychological Well-being; 2) Substance Use; 3) Parenting; 4) Victimization; 5); Health; 6) Social Stability; 7) Criminal Justice; 8) and Retention/Adherence. However, these results do not consider study quality. Conclusions: TIC care approaches for populations experiencing SUD and/or homelessness have promising outcomes. Further outcome research with rigorous methodologies is needed.
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 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".