A systematic review of school‐based interventions and their outcomes for youth exposed to traumatic events

Abstract

Youth exposed to traumatic events are at higher risk for negative developmental outcomes, including low academic performance, poor social skills, and mental health concerns. To best address these risks, school-based intervention services, and trauma-informed practices can be provided. The goal of this study was to systematically review the intervention research conducted on school-based trauma interventions, with specific attention to examine intervention effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability across studies. It was found that feasibility and acceptability are not frequently examined, though the data available showed that Enhancing Resiliency Amongst Students Experiencing-Stress (ERASE-Stress) and school-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) had high rates of fidelity; and school-based CBT had high levels of acceptability. The review also examined demographic variables and found that U. S.-based research reported racially/ethnically diverse samples, and most samples were from low-income populations. Most studies examined youth exposed to warand terror-related traumas or natural disaster-related traumas.Additionally, this review provides future directions for research and reveals the need for further research on intervention feasibility and acceptability. A brief description of practice recommendations based on prior research has also been included. It also exposes the need for studies that examine various student demographic variables that are currently not examined and consistency in rating scale use in school-based trauma intervention research.

Seeing Race in the Research on Youth Trauma and Education: A Critical Review

“…A third macrolevel support refers to various intervention programs aimed at mitigating the impact of youth trauma (Ford, Steinberg, et al, 2012; Scheeringa et al, 2011). Indeed, to synthesize three recent systematic reviews of school-based intervention programs across 171 articles (with some overlapping studies), it appears that long-term programs with a codified curriculum that is co-constructed with caregivers and delivered by trained staff are most effective, although what is still needed are better frameworks for implementing and measuring effectiveness of said programs and protocols for more precise analysis of participant demographics (Rodger et al, 2019; Thomas et al, 2019; Yohannan & Carlson, 2019). Unfortunately, I found that when the primary focus is on investigating the best program intervention, studies minimize underlying racialization problems or imply that race is inconsequential to understanding and responding to students’ trauma-related experiences.…”

“…Unfortunately, I found that when the primary focus is on investigating the best program intervention, studies minimize underlying racialization problems or imply that race is inconsequential to understanding and responding to students’ trauma-related experiences. For example, using a race-centered analysis, I found that 85% of the 21 U.S. study samples ( n = 1,359) in Yohannan and Carlson’s (2019) review were composed of students of color; yet almost no intervention programs in the 98 studies Rodger et al (2019) reviewed were specifically designed for students of color.…”

“…This review builds on recent reviews of trauma (Rodger et al, 2019; Thomas et al, 2019; Yohannan & Carlson, 2019) and extends this body of scholarship by illuminating the ways in which dominant discourse on trauma prioritizes and rationalizes a structurally racist and White supremacist pathological narrative. In this section, I address three interrelated points that warrant an expanded discussion.…”

“…However, the first of these reviews stressed a critical need to understand and recognize the impact of youth trauma on school functioning (De Pedro et al, 2011; McBrien, 2005; Perfect et al, 2016; Sullivan & Simonson, 2016). Additionally, subsequent systematic reviews on youth trauma have contributed to the body of scholarship by exploring effective trauma-based interventions; in short, these reviews have recommended that trauma-based interventions (a) use codified curricula that are co-constructed with caregivers for contextual specificity, (b) be delivered by trained staff, and (c) incorporate more intersectional data points for analyses of program and student success outcomes (Rodger et al, 2019; Thomas et al, 2019; Yohannan & Carlson, 2019). Collectively, this growing body of scholarship on youth trauma in educational contexts has generated sizeable concern among school-based actors, while also underscoring a need for stronger interdisciplinary work that can advance future discoveries about equitable resources, programs, and practices for improving success outcomes among trauma-exposed youth in U.S. schools.…”

Trauma Aware and Anti-Oppressive Arts-Health and Community Arts Practice: Guiding Principles for Facilitating Healing, Health and Wellbeing

“…In their systematic review of school-based interventions for young people exposed to traumatic events, Yohannan and Carlson (2019) concluded that trauma intervention literature often does not account for diverse group experiences of trauma and related supports. They recommend that "there are eight dimensions that need to be considered when working with diverse youth and families: language, persons, metaphors, content, concepts, goals, methods, and contexts".…”