Abstract
Objective
Robust instruments to evaluate the ability of trauma-informed care among healthcare workers need to be developed, as this would help the implementation of trauma-informed care to prevent re-traumatization of patients. This study aims to assess the reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Trauma-Informed Care (TIC) Provider Survey. A total of 794 healthcare workers were surveyed using a self-administered questionnaire, including the TIC Provider Survey, and six measures that were considered to be correlated with it. We calculated the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient to investigate the internal consistency of each category of the TIC Provider Survey (knowledge, opinions, self-rated competence, practices, and barriers). Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were used to investigate the correlation between each category of the TIC Provider Survey, and other measures of construct validity.
Results
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of each category of the TIC Provider Survey were 0.40 (Knowledge), 0.63 (Opinions), 0.92 (Self-rated competence), 0.93 (Practices), and 0.87 (Barriers). The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were small. We confirmed the reliability of the acceptable levels and examined the validity of modest or unacceptable levels of the Japanese version of the TIC provider survey among Japanese workers in a healthcare setting.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13104-023-06337-8.
Keywords: Scale, Trauma, Trauma-informed care, Reliability, Validity
Introduction
The trauma-informed care (TIC) refers to the approach that acknowledges the presence of trauma and its effects on patients and those involved in caregiving to prevent re-traumatization among these individuals in a sensitive and considerate manner [1]. Many patients in healthcare settings experience trauma. For example, 94% of inpatients in psychiatric hospitals have experienced at least one traumatic event in their lives [2]. Patients with traumatic experiences are likely to suffer from re-traumatization even with usual medical care [3–5]. Patients’ re-traumatization has been considered a problem because it increases the risk of developing psychosocial issues and poor health outcomes for both, patients and healthcare workers [6–8]. Therefore, it is important to prevent re-traumatization in healthcare settings. One approach to prevent re-traumatization among healthcare settings is TIC [1, 4, 8]. Previous research showed a decrease of 82.3% in the rate of re-traumatizing medical practices, such as seclusion and restraint with TIC [9]. It is considered that TIC reduces re-traumatization of patients and lessens stress levels of healthcare workers, increasing their job satisfaction [10, 11]. TIC is being considered useful for the safety of both patients and workers in healthcare settings in Japan [12].
However, certain barriers exist in implementing TIC in healthcare settings, one being the lack of robust instruments to evaluate its ability [13]. The original self-report scale, the Trauma-informed Care Provider Survey (TIC Provider Survey), was developed to assess Knowledge, Opinions favorable to trauma-informed care, Self-rated competence, recent Practice, and perceived Barriers to TIC; its reliability was confirmed [14, 15].
We developed a Japanese version of the TIC provider survey with the original developer’s support. This study aimed to confirm its reliability and validity in a sample of workers in a health care setting.
Methods
Participants
We recruited 1000 employees working at hospitals, clinics, and health care centers, through a pooled panels of an internet research agency in Japan (Rakuten Insight, Inc.), which had approximately 2.2 million panelists in 2019. In the pooled panels, only healthcare workers in medical institutions or health organization were asked to cooperate in the survey. Those who agreed were then invited to participate. All the participants provided web-based informed consent at registration and accessed the questionnaires on the website, and responded to the questions in November 2020. The inclusion criteria were, (1) age over 18 years, and (2) health care workers in Japan. After excluding the administrative staff (n = 206), 794 participants (response rate = 79.4%) were considered for the analysis. The study was in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.
Measurements
Trauma-informed care provider survey (TIC provider survey)
The original version of the TIC Provider Survey (version for providers caring for adult patients) was a 38-item self-administered questionnaire measuring the key elements and practices of TIC, consisting of the following five categories: 1) knowledge about trauma-informed care, with 11 items (Knowledge); 2) opinions about trauma-informed care, with 6 items (Opinions); 3) self-rated competence, with10 items (Self-rated competence); 4) recent practice, with 7 items (Practices); 5) perceived barriers to implementation of trauma-informed care, with 4 items (Barriers). Knowledge and Opinions are rated on a 4-point Likert scale; Self-rated competence and Barriers on a 3-point Likert scale. Practice is a binary variable with yes [1], and no (0). The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the original version ranged from fair to excellent (e.g., Knowledge (0.49), Opinions (0.67), Self-rated competence (0.90), Practices (0.83), and Barriers (.70)) [16]. The total scores for Knowledge, Opinions, Self-rated competence, and Practices were summed up, with each category range as follows (Knowledge, 11–44 ; Opinions, 6–24; Self-rated competence, 0–20; Practices, 0–7). Higher scores indicate greater knowledge, more favorable opinions, greater self-rated competence, and more frequent practice of TIC. With the original authors’ permission, we divided one item of Barriers, i.e., “time and practice constraints,” into two: ”time constraints,” and ” practice constraints”. The total number of items in the Japanese version was 39.
With the authors’ permission, we translated the original version of the TIC Provider Survey into Japanese. We followed the standard back-translation procedure. Two authors (D.N. and Y.M.) translated the scale into Japanese as the draft of the Japanese version. Plain Japanese was used in the translation. The draft was revised after receiving feedback from five mental health professionals in Japan. This draft of the Japanese version was translated back into English by an independent translator. The back-translated version was examined by Dr. Nancy Kassam-Adams and Dr. Therese S. Richmond, who had developed the original version. Then three authors (D.N., Y.M., and R.K.) amended the Japanese translation accordingly. The developers of the original TIC Provider Survey reviewed and approved the final back-translated version of the revised Japanese version.
Other measures
The construct validity of the TIC Provider Survey was tested against other scales assumed to be correlated with it.
Japanese version of the attitude-related trauma-informed care scale (ARTIC-10)
The ARTIC-10 is a validated self-administered questionnaire that assesses attitudes towards TIC implementation [13, 17]. We used the Japanese version of the ARTIC-10, created using back translation [12]. We hypothesized that the TIC Provider Survey would positively correlate with ARTIC-10, because favorable attitudes towards TIC are similar to Knowledge, Opinions, Self-rated competence, and Practice of the TIC Provider Survey.
The Japanese version of the moral sensitivity questionnaire 2018 (J-MSQ 2018)
The J-MSQ 2018 is a validated self-administered questionnaire measuring moral sensitivity [18, 19]. We hypothesized that the TIC Provider Survey would positively correlate with J-MSQ 2018 because moral sensitivity is defined as a genuine concern for another’s welfare, [20] and is similar to the concept of TIC, integrating knowledge about trauma into practice, to resist re-traumatization of trauma survivors [1].
Patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)
The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) is a validated self-administered questionnaire developed to assess the frequency of symptoms of depression that occurred in the prior two weeks [21].
Generalized anxiety disorder-7 (GAD-7)
The GAD-7 is a validated self-administered questionnaire developed to assess the frequency of anxiety symptoms that occurred in the previous two weeks [22].
We hypothesized that the TIC Provider Survey would negatively correlate with the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 because a previous study showed that higher scores on the ARTIC-10 (similar to the TIC Provider Survey) negatively correlated with burnout and secondary traumatic stress (STS) [17].
Stress underestimation beliefs (SUB)
The SUB is a validated self-administered questionnaire, developed to measure Japanese stress underestimation beliefs [23]. We hypothesized that the TIC Provider Survey would negatively correlate with SUB because a previous study showed that respondents with stress-related symptoms were likely to have more stress underestimation beliefs [24].
Negative acts questionnaire-revised (NAQ-R)
The NAQ-R is a validated self-administered questionnaire, developed to measure workplace bullying, and the frequency with which participants experienced it during the previous six months [25]. We hypothesized that the TIC Provider Survey would negatively correlate with NAQ-R because previous studies have shown that individuals with higher clinical abilities are less likely to experience workplace bullying [26].
Demographic variables
The assessed demographic variables included gender, age, marital status, educational level, job category, and years of work experience.
Statistical analysis
To examine internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each category of the Japanese version of the TIC Provider Survey. To assess construct validity, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were calculated between the total score of each category of the TIC Provider Survey and the following six variables: ARTIC-10, PHQ-9, GAD-7, J-MSQ2018, SUB, and NAQ-R. We selected Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients because the normality test indicated that the scores of the scales were not distributed normally. All analyses were performed using Stata 16.1 (StataCorp LLC, USA).
Results
Characteristics of the participants
Table 1 shows the participants’ characteristics, median values, and interquartile range (IQR). The median age and years of work experience were 42 (IQR, 34–52) and 16 (IQR, 9–25), respectively. Regarding demographic characteristics, 45.6% were male, 54.4% were female, 36.0% were physicians, and 64.0% were nurses (including practical nurses). Table 2 shows the scale measurement results of the participants.
Table 1.
Demographics and characteristics of the participants (n = 794)
| Variables | n | % | mean | SD | IQR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||||||
| Female | 432 | 54.4 | ||||
| Male | 362 | 45.6 | ||||
| Age | 43.1 | 11.2 | 42 (34–52) | |||
| Marital status | ||||||
| Married, Common-law marriage | 516 | 65.0 | ||||
| Never married, Widowed, Divorced | 278 | 35.0 | ||||
| Educational level | ||||||
| High school graduate | 56 | 7.1 | ||||
| Two-year college graduate | 247 | 31.1 | ||||
| Bachelor’s degree | 204 | 25.7 | ||||
| Master’s or doctoral degree | 200 | 25.1 | ||||
| Other | 87 | 11.0 | ||||
| Job category | ||||||
| Physician | 286 | 36.0 | ||||
| Nurse | 508 | 64.0 | ||||
| Years of work experience | 17.7 | 10.4 | 16 (9–25) |
Table 2.
Scale measurement results of the participants (n = 794)
| Variables | n | % | mean | SD | IQR | Not a barrier |
% | Somewhat of a barrier |
% | Significant barrier |
% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TIC provider survey | ||||||||||||
| Knowledge | 28.6 | 2.9 | 29 (27–30) | |||||||||
| Opinions | 16.4 | 2.4 | 17 (15–18) | |||||||||
| Self-rated competence | 9.3 | 4.3 | 10 (7–10) | |||||||||
| Practices | 3.2 | 2.9 | 3 (0–7) | |||||||||
| Barriers | 1. Time constraints | 129 | 16.2 | 454 | 57.2 | 211 | 26.6 | |||||
| 2. Scope of practice constraints | 153 | 19.3 | 462 | 58.2 | 179 | 22.5 | ||||||
| 3. Lack of training | 182 | 23.0 | 464 | 58.4 | 148 | 18.6 | ||||||
| 4. Confusing or unclear information on trauma informed care | 131 | 16.5 | 489 | 61.6 | 174 | 21.9 | ||||||
| 5. Worry about further upsetting or traumatizing patients | 155 | 19.5 | 498 | 62.7 | 141 | 17.8 | ||||||
| ARTIC-10 | 4.3 | 0.6 | 4.2 (4-4.7) | |||||||||
| J-MSQ2018 | 37.5 | 10.5 | 39 (32–44) | |||||||||
| PHQ-9 | 4.1 | 5.4 | 2 (0–6) | |||||||||
| GAD-7 | 3.0 | 4.5 | 1 (0–4) | |||||||||
| SUB | 27.6 | 7.7 | 27 (22–32) | |||||||||
| NAQ-R | 27.9 | 13.1 | 22 (21–27) |
Note: TIC provider survey: Japanese version of the Trauma-Informed Care Provider Survey; ARTIC-10: The short version of Attitude-related Trauma-Informed Care Scale; J-MSQ_2018: The Japanese version of the Moral Sensitivity Questionnaire 2018; PHQ-9: Patient Health Questionnaire-9; GAD-7: Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7; SUB: Stress Underestimation Beliefs; NAQ-R: Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised
ARTIC-10 consists of 10 items with a 7-point bipolar Likert scale, asking about attitudes towards TIC on their job, during the previous two months. The mean scores ranged from 1 to 7. Higher scores indicate a more favorable attitude towards TIC
The J-MSQ_2018 consists of 10 items with a 6-point scale, ranging from 1 (total disagreement) to 6 (total agreement). The total scores ranged from 10 to 60. Higher scores indicate higher moral sensitivity
The PHQ-9 consists of 9 items, rated on a 4-point scale, from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day). The total scores ranged from 0 to 27. Higher scores indicate more severe depressive symptoms
The GAD-7 consists of 7 items, rated on a 4-point scale, from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day). The total scores ranged from 0 to 21. Higher scores indicate more severe symptoms of anxiety
The SUB consists of 12 items, with a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (not applicable) to 4 (applicable). The total scores ranged from 12 to 48. Higher scores indicate greater stress underestimation beliefs
The NAQ-R consists of 23 items, with a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (daily). The total scores ranged from 23 to 115. Higher scores indicate more workplace bullying. In this study, we could not use two items that asked about violence or abuse in the workplace and perception of workplace bullying because these questions were assumed to be too sensitive for participants and the research company refused to include them. Therefore, we used 21 items of the NAQ-R and summed the total score, which could have ranged from 21 to 105 in this study
Reliability of TIC provider survey
As shown in Table 3, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each category of the TIC Provider Survey were 0.40–0.93. The reliability ranges were fair or excellent, except for knowledge.
Table 3.
Reliability of the TIC provider survey and other scales (n = 794)
| Scales | Cronbach’s α |
|---|---|
| TIC provider survey | |
| Knowledge | 0.40 |
| Opinions | 0.63 |
| Self-rated competence | 0.92 |
| Practices | 0.93 |
| Barriers | 0.87 |
| ARTIC-10 | 0.56 |
| J-MSQ2018 | 0.94 |
| PHQ-9 | 0.92 |
| GAD-7 | 0.94 |
| SUB | 0.91 |
| NAQ-R | 0.98 |
Note: TIC provider survey: Japanese version of the Trauma-Informed Care Provider Survey; ARTIC-10: The short version of Attitude-related Trauma-Informed Care Scale; J-MSQ_2018: The Japanese version of the Moral Sensitivity Questionnaire 2018; PHQ-9: Patient Health Questionnaire-9; GAD-7: Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7; SUB: Stress Underestimation Beliefs; NAQ-R: Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised
Construct validity of TIC provider survey
The construct validity of the TIC provider survey is presented in Table 4. Unexpectedly, the correlations between the TIC Provider Survey and other measures were not significant, or significant but weak, or the opposite of our hypotheses.
Table 4.
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between the TIC provider survey and other scales (n = 794)
| Scales | ARTIC-10 | J-MSQ2018 | PHQ-9 | GAD-7 | SUB | NAQ-R | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r | p-value | r | p-value | r | p-value | r | p-value | r | p-value | r | p-value | |
| Knowledge | 0.26 | < 0.01 | 0.34 | < 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.18 | -0.16 | < 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.64 |
| Opinions | 0.26 | < 0.01 | 0.32 | < 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.75 | <-0.01 | 0.99 | -0.15 | < 0.01 | -0.06 | 0.12 |
| Self-rated competence | 0.03 | 0.48 | 0.22 | < 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.16 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.12 | < 0.01 | 0.09 | < 0.01 |
| Practices | 0.03 | 0.37 | 0.17 | < 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.09 | < 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.76 | 0.15 | < 0.01 |
Note: TIC provider survey: The Japanese version of the Trauma-Informed Care Provider Survey; ARTIC-10: The short version of Attitude-related Trauma-Informed Care Scale; J-MSQ_2018: The Japanese version of the Moral Sensitivity Questionnaire 2018; PHQ-9: Patient Health Questionnaire-9; GAD-7: Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7; SUB: Stress Underestimation Beliefs; NAQ-R: Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the TIC Provider Survey among health care workers. The results showed that the reliabilities were fair or excellent, except for knowledge, as with the original version. Regarding construct validity, the results were non-significant or significant but weak.
The reliability of the knowledge was not acceptable. Item-total correlation analysis of knowledge showed that items 2, 3, and 7 were not endorsed. (Appendix1) The items 2, 3, and 7 are reverse scoring items (Agree or Strongly Agree are wrong answers). Diagnostic criteria A of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and acute stress disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth edition (DSM-5), involve exposure to life-threatening events [6]. Moreover, the diagnostic criteria and peritraumatic risk factors of PTSD or acute stress disorder in DSM-5 also involve, “the greater the magnitude of trauma, the greater the likelihood of PTSD,” and “the caused clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning” [6]. Therefore, it is not surprising for many healthcare workers to interrelate trauma experiences with developed trauma-related disorders, and it is thought that most people who experience severe trauma develop significant posttraumatic stress or PTSD. This might cause more than half of the participants to agree (choose wrong answer) with items 2, 3, and 7 (Appendix 2), which would lead to these items not endorsing the scale. However, the following are also described in the DSM-5: most people who experience trauma do not develop trauma-related disorders, and there are various factors, apart from the severity of trauma, to affect the traumatic stress reactions, as well as also some post traumatic symptoms, such as avoidance, which do not show obvious signs of distress. If participants had this knowledge, they could choose the correct answers for those items. The results demonstrate the need for greater learning about trauma among healthcare workers, apart from the education being provided in medical or nursing schools in Japan.
As for validity, moral sensitivity showed a moderate or weak correlation, as hypothesized. However, the correlations with other measures were not significant, or significant but weak, or the opposite of our hypotheses. There are several possible explanations for these results. ARTIC-10 assessed the attitude towards TIC, and might correlate with only the category considered similar to attitude towards TIC in the TIC Provider Survey, or the moderate internal consistency of ARTIC-10 might affect these weak correlations [27]. The lack of correlation between TIC Provider Survey, and PHQ-9 and GAD-7 might be due to differences in the sampling of studies. A previous study demonstrating a negative correlation between favorable attitudes towards TIC and burnout and STS, had recruited 1395 study participants from 17 settings with TIC programs [17]. Such settings have a TIC culture in their organizations. In this situation, favorable attitudes towards TIC are likely to be negatively associated with burnout and STS, because individuals could establish emotional safety by promoting self-care on a personal and organizational level through TIC training [28]. In contrast, the current study participants were not recruited on a hospital basis, so the TIC Provider Survey scores would not reflect the extent of TIC at their institutions. The negative correlation between self-rated competence and SUB might suggest consistency with the results of a previous study, showing that high competency was associated with confidence in one’s ability, which would lead to stress underestimation beliefs [24]. The positive correlation between self-rated competence and practice with NAQ-R might suggest consistency with the result of a previous study that showed that more capable workers are likely to be bullied because of jealousy [29, 30].
The present results suggested the necessity of specialized education on trauma and PTSD for the practical implementation of TIC in clinical settings. The TIC Provider Survey is anticipated to be valuable for visualizing the knowledge acquisition status of healthcare professionals necessary for TIC practice and enhancing educational content since it allows for assessing the effectiveness of corresponding education.
This study has some limitations. First, this study was conducted as an internet survey. Participants were selected from a database of people registered as monitors of the research company; those more concerned about TIC, quality of care for patients, and trauma were more likely to respond to the survey, thereby causing a sampling bias. Second, this study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Japan, the second wave of coronavirus began in July 2020, and the number of people infected with the novel coronavirus marked a record high on November 18th, 2020 (2201 per day) [31]. A previous study showed that Japan’s healthcare workers experienced considerable psychological strain owing to the COVID-19 pandemic [32]. This could have resulted in an overestimation of psychological variables among the participants.
Conclusions
We confirmed the reliability and examined the validity of the Japanese version of the TIC Provider Survey, among Japanese workers in a healthcare setting. The reliability of the scale was acceptable. Validity was modest or not acceptable.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Dr. Nancy Kassam-Adams and Dr. Therese S. Richmond, who checked the back-translation of the Japanese version of the TIC Provider Survey. We also thank Dr. Utako Sawada and Yasuko Morita for checking the Japanese version of the TIC provider survey.
Consent for publication.
Author contributions
M.K. analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. R.K. participated in the study design and conducted the investigation. H.A. conducted the data cleaning. Y.M. supervised the design of the study. D.N. managed all the parts of the study. All authors revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, and read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by a Health Labor Sciences Research Grant (20GC1021 to DN).
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Tokyo Graduate School of Medicine and the School of Medicine (2020237NI). All the participants provided informed consent to participate in the survey through questionnaires on the website. The study was in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
D.N. reports personal fees from Startia, Inc., en-power, Inc., MD.net, AIG General Insurance Company, Ltd., outside the submitted work. All other authors do not have any conflicts.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor Information
Mayumi Kataoka, Email: m-kataoka@ncnp.go.jp.
Risa Kotake, Email: risa880112@gmail.com.
Hiroki Asaoka, Email: s1010640@yahoo.co.jp.
Yuki Miyamoto, Email: yyuki@m.u-tokyo.ac.jp.
Daisuke Nishi, Email: d-nishi@m.u-tokyo.ac.jp.
References
- 1.Administration SAaMHS. SAMHSA’s Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed Approach. In: Administration SAaMHS, editor. HHS Publication No (SMA) 14-4884. Rockville, MD2014.
- 2.Frueh BC, Knapp RG, Cusack KJ, Grubaugh AL, Sauvageot JA, Cousins VC, Yim E, Robins CS, Monnier J, Hiers TG. Patients’ reports of traumatic or harmful experiences within the psychiatric setting. Psychiatric Serv. 2005;56(9):1123–33. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.56.9.1123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Grossman S, Cooper Z, Buxton H, Hendrickson S, Lewis-O’Connor A, Stevens J, et al. Trauma-informed care: recognizing and resisting re-traumatization in health care. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2021;6(1):e000815. doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2021-000815. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Sanders MR, Hall SL. Trauma-informed care in the newborn intensive care unit: promoting safety, security and connectedness. J Perinatol. 2018;38(1):3–10. doi: 10.1038/jp.2017.124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Schippert A, Grov EK, Bjornnes AK. Uncovering re-traumatization experiences of torture survivors in somatic health care: a qualitative systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(2):e0246074. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: (DSM-5®); american PsychiatricPublishing: Arlinghton. Washington, DC, USA: VA, USA; 2013. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Cleary M, West S, Kornhaber R, Visentin D, Neil A, Haik J, et al. Moving the lenses of trauma - trauma-informed care in the burns care setting. Burns. 2020;46(6):1365–72. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2020.01.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Muskett C. Trauma-informed care in inpatient mental health settings: a review of the literature. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2014;23(1):51–9. doi: 10.1111/inm.12012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Borckardt JJ, Madan A, Grubaugh AL, Danielson CK, Pelic CG, Hardesty SJ, et al. Systematic investigation of initiatives to reduce seclusion and restraint in a state psychiatric hospital. Psychiatric Serv. 2011;62(5):477–83. doi: 10.1176/ps.62.5.pss6205_0477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Kuehn BM. Trauma-informed care may ease patient fear, Clinician Burnout. JAMA. 2020;323(7):595–7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Sweeney A, Filson B, Kennedy A, Collinson L, Gillard S. A paradigm shift: relationships in trauma-informed mental health services. BJPsych Adv. 2018;24(5):319–33. doi: 10.1192/bja.2018.29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Niimura J, Nakanishi M, Okumura Y, Kawano M, Nishida A. Effectiveness of 1-day trauma-informed care training programme on attitudes in psychiatric hospitals: a pre-post study. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2019;28(4):980–8. doi: 10.1111/inm.12603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Baker CN, Brown SM, Wilcox PD, Overstreet S, Arora P. Development and psychometric evaluation of the Attitudes related to trauma-informed care (ARTIC) Scale. School Mental Health. 2015;8(1):61–76. doi: 10.1007/s12310-015-9161-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Kassam-Adams N, Rzucidlo S, Campbell M, Good G, Bonifacio E, Slouf K, et al. Nurses’ views and current practice of trauma-informed pediatric nursing care. J Pediatr Nurs. 2015;30(3):478–84. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2014.11.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Bruce MM, Kassam-Adams N, Rogers M, Anderson KM, Sluys KP, Richmond TS. Trauma providers’ knowledge, views, and practice of trauma-informed care. J Trauma Nurs. 2018;25(2):131–8. doi: 10.1097/JTN.0000000000000356. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.The Center for Pediatric Traumatic Stress,Trauma-informed Care Provider Survey. https://www.healthcaretoolbox.org/tic-provider-survey. Accessed 4 Aug 2022.
- 17.Baker CN, Brown SM, Overstreet S, Wilcox PD. New Orleans Trauma-Informed schools learning C. Validation of the Attitudes related to trauma-informed Care Scale (ARTIC) Psychol Trauma. 2021;13(5):505–13. doi: 10.1037/tra0000989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Maeda J, Konishi E. Development and validation of a japanese version of the revised Moral Sensitivity Questionnaire: a preliminary study. J Japanese Nurs Ethics. 2012;4:32–7. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Maeda J, Konishi E, Yahiro M, Fukumiya T. Reviewing the component “Moral Responsibility. J Japanese Nurs Ethics. 2019;11:100–2. The Japanese version of Moral Sensitivity Questionnaire 2018(J-MSQ 2018.
- 20.Lützén K, Dahlqvist V, Eriksson S, Norberg A. Developing the concept of moral sensitivity in health care practice. Nurs Ethics. 2006;13(2):187–96. doi: 10.1191/0969733006ne837oa. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Muramatsu K, Kamijima K, Yoshida M, Otsubo T, Miyaoka H, Muramatsu Y, et al. The patient health questionnaire, japanese version: validity according to the mini-international neuropsychiatric interview–plus. Psychol Rep. 2007;101(3):952–60. doi: 10.2466/pr0.101.3.952-960. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Muramatsu K, Muramatsu Y, Miyaoka H, Fuse K, Katagiri MYFH. A. Validation and utility of a Japanese version of the GAD-7. Panminerva Med. 2009;20th World Congr. Pyschosom(Med. Abstr.Book 51):79.
- 23.Izawa S, Nakamura-Taira N, Yamada H, Yamada KC, Haratani T. Development of a measure to assess stress underestimation beliefs. Japanese J Psychol. 2013;84:7–3. doi: 10.4992/jjpsy.84.57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Izawa S, Yamada H, Nakamura N, Yamada KC, Nagayama M. A preliminary investigation in the views of stress in patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Japanese Association Cardiac Rehabilitation. 2012;17:244–7. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Tsuno K, Kawakami N, Inoue A, Abe K. Measuring workplace bullying: reliability and validity of the Japanese Version of the negative Acts Questionnaire. J Occup Health. 2010;52:216–26. doi: 10.1539/joh.L10036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Al-Sagarat A, Qan’ir Y, Al-Azzam M, Obeidat H, Khalifeh A. Assessing the impact of workplace bullying on nursing competences among registered nurses in Jordanian public hospitals. Nurs Forum, 101111/nuf12253Advance online publication. 2018. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 27.Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. USA: Oxford University Press; 2015. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Schmid M, Ludtke J, Dolitzsch C, Fischer S, Eckert A, Fegert JM. Effect of trauma-informed care on hair cortisol concentration in youth welfare staff and client physical aggression towards staff: results of a longitudinal study. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-8077-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.da Silva Joao AL, Saldanha Portelada AF. Mobbing and its impact on Interpersonal Relationships at the Workplace. J Interpers Violence. 2019;34(13):2797–812. doi: 10.1177/0886260516662850. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Pei KY, Cochran A. Workplace bullying among Surgeons-the Perfect Crime. Ann Surg. 2019;269(1):43–4. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Outbreak of new coronavirus infection in Japan. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/covid-19/kokunainohasseijoukyou.html#h2_1. Accessed 11 May 2022.
- 32.Matsuo T, Kobayashi D, Taki F, Sakamoto F, Uehara Y, Mori N, et al. Prevalence of health care worker burnout during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Japan. JAMA Netw open. 2020;3(8):e2017271–e. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.17271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request.