MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409962283 · doi:10.1089/jchc.24.07.0056

Understanding Trauma-Informed Care in Correctional Facilities: A Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4409962283 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Gaber, Eilish Scallan, Fiona G. Kouyoumdjian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Correctional Health Care · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNursingTrauma careFamily medicineMedical educationMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People who are incarcerated are significantly more likely to have experienced traumatic events than others in the general population. Trauma-informed care (TIC) is an approach that recognizes and responds to the lasting effects of trauma on peoples' lives and health, going beyond individually focused, trauma-specific care and into broader change in policy and practice. Our objectives were to describe how TIC is implemented in correctional facilities, and evidence on the impacts of TIC in correctional facilities. We conducted a scoping review of academic and gray literature. Two team members screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full texts for eligibility. We included articles in English focused on TIC in any adult correctional facility and extracted relevant data. We categorized information on how TIC is implemented into structural, organizational, and individual levels, and organized evidence on the impacts of TIC into the Quintuple Aim for Health Care Improvement framework. We identified 45 relevant articles, including 14 studies that reported evidence on impacts of TIC across the Quintuple Aim components. While the correctional facility environment challenges TIC implementation, TIC interventions at the individual, structural, and organizational levels could improve health outcomes in correctional facilities.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.264
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Correctional Health CareSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207