A scoping review of recommendations in the English language on conducting research with trauma-exposed populations since publication of the Belmont report; thematic review of existing recommendations on research with trauma-exposed populations

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 29;16(7):e0254003. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254003. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

Objective: To identify recommendations for conducting public health research with trauma-exposed populations.

Methods: Researchers searched Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Open Grey, and Google Scholar for recommendations. Trauma that causes psychological impact was our exposure of interest and we excluded clinical articles on treating physical trauma. We reviewed titles and abstracts of 8,070 articles and full text of 300 articles. We analyzed recommendations with thematic analysis, generated questions from the existing pool of recommendations, and then summarized select gaps.

Results: We abstracted recommendations from 145 articles in five categories: community benefit, participant benefit, safety, researcher well-being, and recommendations for conduct of trauma research.

Conclusions: Gold standards to guide the conduct of trauma-informed public health research do not yet exist. The literature suggests participation in trauma research is not inherently harmful, and current recommendations concern using research to benefit communities and participants, protecting participants and researchers from harm, and improving professional practice. As public health researchers increasingly analyze trauma as a determinant of health, gold standards for the conduct of trauma-informed public health research would be appropriate and timely.

Publication types

  • Scoping Review

MeSH terms

  • Humans
  • Public Health
  • Wounds and Injuries* / therapy

Grants and funding

KS, No grant number, Laney Graduate School Professional Development Support Funds, https://www.gs.emory.edu/professional-development/pds/index.html KJ’s affiliation is not a commercial affiliation and he does not receive funds in connection with it. Laney Graduate School Professional Development Support Funds providing funding for Covidence software to KS but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.