IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v25y2016i19-20p2768-2777.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk of vicarious trauma in nursing research: a focused mapping review and synthesis

Author

Listed:
  • Julie Taylor
  • Caroline Bradbury‐Jones
  • Jenna P Breckenridge
  • Christine Jones
  • Oliver Rudolf Herber

Abstract

Aims and objectives To provide a snapshot of how vicarious trauma is considered within the published nursing research literature. Background Vicarious trauma (secondary traumatic stress) has been the focus of attention in nursing practice for many years. The most pertinent areas to invoke vicarious trauma in research have been suggested as abuse/violence and death/dying. What is not known is how researchers account for the risks of vicarious trauma in research. Design Focused mapping review and synthesis. Empirical studies meeting criteria for abuse/violence or death/dying in relevant Scopus ranked top nursing journals (n = 6) January 2009 to December 2014. Methods Relevant papers were scrutinised for the extent to which researchers discussed the risk of vicarious trauma. Aspects of the studies were mapped systematically to a pre‐defined template, allowing patterns and gaps in authors' reporting to be determined. These were synthesised into a coherent profile of current reporting practices and from this, a new conceptualisation seeking to anticipate and address the risk of vicarious trauma was developed. Results Two thousand five hundred and three papers were published during the review period, of which 104 met the inclusion criteria. Studies were distributed evenly by method (52 qualitative; 51 quantitative; one mixed methods) and by focus (54 abuse/violence; 50 death/dying). The majority of studies (98) were carried out in adult populations. Only two papers reported on vicarious trauma. Conclusion The conceptualisation of vicarious trauma takes account of both sensitivity of the substantive data collected, and closeness of those involved with the research. This might assist researchers in designing ethical and protective research and foreground the importance of managing risks of vicarious trauma. Relevance to clinical practice Vicarious trauma is not well considered in research into clinically important topics. Our proposed framework allows for consideration of these so that precautionary measures can be put in place to minimise harm to staff.

Suggested Citation

  • Julie Taylor & Caroline Bradbury‐Jones & Jenna P Breckenridge & Christine Jones & Oliver Rudolf Herber, 2016. "Risk of vicarious trauma in nursing research: a focused mapping review and synthesis," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(19-20), pages 2768-2777, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:19-20:p:2768-2777
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13235
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13235
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13235?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bradbury-Jones, Caroline & Taylor, Julie & Herber, Oliver, 2014. "How theory is used and articulated in qualitative research: Development of a new typology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 135-141.
    2. Soliman, Francesca & Mackay, Kirsteen & Clayton, Estelle & Gadda, Andressa & Jones, Christine & Anderson, Anna & Jones, Derek & Taylor, Julie, 2016. "The landscape of UK child protection research between 2010 and 2014: Disciplines, topics, and types of maltreatment," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 51-61.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew Shepherd & Caroline Sanders & Michael Doyle & Jenny Shaw, 2016. "Personal recovery in personality disorder: Systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative methods studies," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 62(1), pages 41-50, February.
    2. Alessandro Stievano & Laura Sabatino & Dyanne Affonso & Douglas Olsen & Isabelle Skinner & Gennaro Rocco, 2019. "Nursing’s professional dignity in palliative care: Exploration of an Italian context," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(9-10), pages 1633-1642, May.
    3. Gale, Nicola & Dowswell, George & Greenfield, Sheila & Marshall, Tom, 2017. "Street-level diplomacy? Communicative and adaptive work at the front line of implementing public health policies in primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 9-18.
    4. Andrea Nóblega Carriquiry & David Sauri & Hug March, 2020. "Community Involvement in the Implementation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDSs): The Case of Bon Pastor, Barcelona," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Talukder, Md Shamim & Shen, Liang & Hossain Talukder, Md Farid & Bao, Yukun, 2019. "Determinants of user acceptance and use of open government data (OGD): An empirical investigation in Bangladesh," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 147-156.
    6. Ilya Kuzminov & Dirk Meissner & Alina Lavrynenko & Elena Tochilina, 2018. "Technology Classification for the Purposes of Futures Studies," HSE Working papers WP BRP 78/STI/2018, National Research University Higher School of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:19-20:p:2768-2777. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.