Sensemaking is rooted in identity construction and it is a particularly interpersonal process. Moreover, traumatic experiences are known to cause people to engage in sensemaking processes and identity construction. However, knowledge of how this works in an interpersonal, community setting, is lacking. The aim of this study is to assess how peer support contributes to the sensemaking processes and identity construction in the aftermath of trauma. Data from an observational study of organised peer support groups for (co)victims of serious crimes and survivors of traumatic loss were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results show how participants of peer support groups move through several phases of sensemaking and identity construction in a fluid, dynamic, way. Identity work is collectively done. Through coconstruction of their identities, participants are able to make sense of a traumatic experience and progress towards a more self‐aware and self‐centred identity.

No abstract

Voor nabestaanden van zware verkeersdelicten bestaat er al enkele jaren begeleiding in de vorm van lotgenotencontact. Er is tot op heden nog geen onderzoek gedaan naar de betekenis van lotgenotencontact voor deze nabestaanden. Negentien narratieve interviews met nabestaanden van zware verkeersdelicten zijn afgenomen. Uit deze interviews is gebleken dat lotgenoten door middel van een gezamenlijke dialoog en het delen van ervaringen, alsook de zorg voor en ondersteuning van elkaar, samen werken aan de zin-en betekenisgeving van het verkeersdelict en de ervaringen gedurende de nasleep. Het artikel eindigt met beleidsimplicaties en stappen voor vervolgonderzoek.

Topic: Currently, research into the key elements and role of peer support in the aftermath of victimization is limited. This study reviews the types of evidence available, clarifying key concepts in the literature, examining how research is conducted and identifying key characteristics or factors related to peer support in the aftermath of a victimization experience. Method: A scoping review was performed for peer-reviewed papers using predefined search terms. Studies addressing peer support among victims and survivors of crime, traffic accidents, calamities, suicide, and veterans were included. Selection was based on title and abstract and resulted in 16 papers eligible for review. An inductive thematic analysis was used to synthesize data and findings. Findings: Empirical studies into the key elements and role of peer support in the aftermath of victimization are limited in availability and scattered in terms of approach to research (e.g., methodology, type of respondents, type of peer support) and focus (such as focus on effects on mental health and well-being, on key elements or an evaluation of a support program). Studies mainly have an explorative and interpretative character. Key elements, operationalizations, positive outcomes and negative outcomes of peer support are discussed. Conclusion and discussion: The currently available knowledge on peer support in the aftermath of victimization lacks four points: cross-cultural studies, lived experiences as empirical findings, a variety of victimization events and longitudinal studies. Moreover, it is argued that future research should be improved by adopting a contextual and narrative approach.

Aims Victims of violence, accidents, theft, and serious threat (hereafter abbreviated as victims) are more than nonvictims at risk for problems in different domains, varying from mental health to legal problems. However, the extent to which victims with these problems compared to nonvictims with similar problems receive problem-related professional or formal help is unclear. It is unknown if predictors of unmet needs differ between victims and nonvictims. Aim of the present study is to fill this gap of knowledge. Methods Data was extracted from surveys of the VICTIMS-study (2018, 2019 and 2020), conducted with the Dutch population-based longitudinal LISS panel. Each survey assessed 1.) experiences with physical violence, accidents, theft, and serious threat and other traumatic or stressful events in the past 12 months and 2.) various problems and use of professional help, e.g. do receive help, do not need help, could use help but do not use it, cannot find or afford help for these problems. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess differences in problems, in the use of problem-related professional help, and in predictors of unmet needs between victims (N = 1,756) and nonvictims (N = 5,000). Results Victims more often had assessed problems than nonvictims. Victims compared to nonvictims with similar problems had 1.5 to 2 times more often unmet needs: they could not find or afford professional help for their mental, physical, partner/family, financial and legal problems. In addition, victims less often received help for legal and administrative problems. Most predictors of unmet needs, e.g. could use help but do not use it, cannot find or afford help, were not significant and hardly differed between both groups. Conclusions The findings that victims compared to nonvictims more often have various problems and more often cannot find or afford problem-related professional help, suggest that there is room for improvement for victims services.