ScienceGuardians

ScienceGuardians

Did You Know?

ScienceGuardians hosts academic institutions too

Strengths for Helping Professionals Exposed to Secondary Trauma: A Scoping Review

Authors: Kate Whittenbury,Shelby L. Clark,Matthew Brooks,Tessa Murphy,Martin J. Turner,Hannah Fawcett
Journal: Trauma, Violence,
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Publish date: 2025-3-1
ISSN: 1524-8380 DOI: 10.1177/15248380241309371
View on Publisher's Website
Up
0
Down
::

1. In Table 1, you list “mixed findings” for supervision, organizational support, problem-focused coping, empathy, and open-plan working environments. But the way it’s presented feels a bit vague. For example, when you say “mixed,” does that mean some studies found a positive effect and others found a negative effect, or that the relationship wasn’t statistically significant? It might be helpful to clarify what “mixed” actually means here, because right now, it’s hard to tell if these are still worth pursuing as protective factors or if they’re kind of a wash.

2. I noticed that 44% of the studies were from North America and 26% from Europe. Given that, how confident are you that the findings apply globally? You mention in the discussion that professionals in Asia report higher STS, but there’s very little representation from Asia, Africa, or South America in your sample. Could the strengths identified here actually be culturally specific, like individualistic vs. collectivist coping styles, and if so, shouldn’t that be a bigger caveat in your conclusions?

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.