A literature search of psychological trauma related outcome measures for adult mental health services

Abstract

It is important to measure the impact of psychological trauma within mental health services designed to treat individuals after traumatic experiences. However, there are challenges in capturing the impact of trauma and the recovery from it accurately whilst also considering patient preferences and expectations. This study aims to explore the range of pre-existing outcome measures of trauma symptomatology and determine the relative prevalence of these measures within related research. This is addressed through systematically searching literature for outcome measures available in the assessment of psychological trauma symptomatology across adult mental health populations. Databases Medline, CINAHL and PsychInfo were searched to find papers that described the use of measures within psychological trauma-specific outcome research. 228 articles were found after the exclusion criteria were applied. The most prevalence trauma-specific outcome measures utilised within the evidence base were versions of the Post-Traumatic Disorder Checklist (PCL) and the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS). Non-trauma specific measures were also identified within this sample. This paper lists both trauma-specific and non-trauma specific measures found in order of prevalence. Consideration is given to the most frequent measures found. These findings provide insight into gold-standard measures for services wishing to implement outcome measures that will meaningfully capture recovery amongst trauma survivors. Practitioner points • The impact of trauma has challenges in its conceptualisation and measurement, and additional attention is needed to ensure that services are capturing helpful treatment outcomes. • Key measures used within trauma-specific research include gold standard PTSD and CPTSD measures as well as non-specific trauma measures. • Reviewing the measures most used in trauma research highlights the areas of most critical change within recovery after trauma therapy and therefore provides valuable insights into how service evaluation can capture meaningful change.