29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Childhood Polyvictimization and Associated Health Outcomes: A Systematic Scoping Review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Polyvictimization, the experience of multiple types of victimization, is associated with detrimental health outcomes. Despite extensive research on the health consequences of polyvictimization, one challenge in understanding this literature lies in the varied operationalized definitions of polyvictimization and health outcomes. This scoping review provides the volume of the current literature on this topic, documents the varied constructs of polyvictimization and associated health outcomes, identifies knowledge gaps, and guides future research directions. Method: A systematic search of English-language original articles that presented quantitative associations of childhood polyvictimization and health outcomes was performed through six-database searches, a gray literature search, and citation mining from June 2020 to January 2021. The varied constructs of polyvictimization, health outcomes, and other study characteristics were extracted. Results: A total of 96 studies were included. Two ways of creating continuous variables (30.21%) and four ways of constructing categorical variables (72.92%) were identified for operationalizing polyvictimization. The majority of health outcomes were mental, behavioral, or social (96.88%), while slightly more than 10% of studies examined physical health (11.46%) or general health conditions (10.42%), respectively. More than half of studies used U.S. samples (56.25%). Conclusions: The varied constructs of polyvictimization suggests that there is a need to establish a valid polyvictimization construct that is consistently agreed upon in the research community. Findings summarize the specific health outcomes that can be targeted for further investigation and prevention efforts. Findings also suggest that the study of resilience and coping education for childhood polyvictims is sorely needed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references98

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

            Background Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. In 2005, Arksey and O'Malley published the first methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. While this framework provides an excellent foundation for scoping study methodology, further clarifying and enhancing this framework will help support the consistency with which authors undertake and report scoping studies and may encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process. Discussion We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework. Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (stage one); balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process (stage two); using an iterative team approach to selecting studies (stage three) and extracting data (stage four); incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results, and considering the implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research (stage five); and incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a required knowledge translation component of scoping study methodology (stage six). Lastly, we propose additional considerations for scoping study methodology in order to support the advancement, application and relevance of scoping studies in health research. Summary Specific recommendations to clarify and enhance this methodology are outlined for each stage of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Continued debate and development about scoping study methodology will help to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings within healthcare research and practice.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

              Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
                Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
                SAGE Publications
                1524-8380
                1552-8324
                February 26 2022
                : 152483802110738
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA
                [2 ]Center for Research on Interpersonal Violence, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA
                [3 ]College of Education & Human Development, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA
                Article
                10.1177/15248380211073847
                35220817
                ba2065f1-4f29-4884-aa8c-c035981e0e1e
                © 2022

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log