Talk:Trauma-informed care

Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice
— Assignment last updated by Safabsr (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Trauma and Violence Informed Care (TVIC) Wikipedia article
Hopefully this article can help better connect all the many related Wikipedia articles and potential contributors. I am laying out an initial structure with the hope of bringing some organization to a topic which is simple on one hand, yet complex on another. I look forward to your ideas about how to better organize the article, and your help filling in details, and contributing graphics and images.

The TVIC concept seems to be just one way of capturing the elements relevant to the general topic. Other models such as Interpersonal Neurobiology and the Dynamic Maturational Model have been working on the same, or at least similar issues and applying a transdisciplinary, or biopsychosocial approach. Those models are heavily science dependent and can take a while to learn. I am curious to see if the TVIC framing offers a simple yet robust framework. One which is easy for anyone to begin their journey of understanding, regardless of training and experience, which provides a framework for people to expand their awareness over time, and one which helps connect disciplines which might not otherwise communicate.

I think that whatever your work and/or experience involves, or if you have experienced war, loss, physical injury, domestic violence, or a difficult childhood, understanding the nature and impact of intense or chronic exposure to danger changes your life and view point. Hopefully for the better, if not painfully so. The hope is that understanding supports compassion, and compassion helps us help others better.ConflictScience (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Article name change to Trauma-informed care
When I created this article last year, I named it Trauma- and violence-informed care. I was impressed with the work of researchers who have incorporated the violence component, and the extra focus resonated with my own work. For several reasons, it felt better to simplify article title. For people new to a trauma perspective, it may be easier to start with "trauma-informed care." Regardless of the title, there is no doubt that trauma comes from many sources. ConflictScience (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Prior to a review
User:ConflictScience was asking (in email) for an assessment of this article. My feeling is that the first thing it needs is a good copyedit for soggy language. E.g.
 * "Trauma-informed care (TIC) describes a framework for working with and relating to…". This is soggy, and I can imagine several things this could mean. "Describes" is probably the big problem here. This is presumably an article about trauma-informed care, not about the term "trauma-informed care". Wikipedia has a strong presumption in favor of starting with "'Trauma-informed care is…". And presumably it is care, not a framework''.
 * And I'd also get the alternate name right up front. "Trauma-informed care (TIC) or Trauma- and violence-Informed Care (TVIC) is…".
 * "working with" is comparably vague. Presumably not "having them as your co-workers". Maybe "providing psychological services and other related care to"? I'm actually not sure, even after a skim of the article. If the straightforward sentence can't tell the whole story of what the article might cover, you might follow up with, "It can also include…".
 * "Most TIC principles emphasize the need…": does this mean anything other than "TIC emphasizes the need…"?
 * "Exposure to life-altering danger necessitates a need for…" => "People who have been exposed to life-altering danger need…"

Etc., throughout.

"Harris and Fallot first articulated trauma-informed care (TIC) in 2001." But surely there are precedents, and surely the literature makes some mention of precedents, of what school of psychology they were rooted in, etc. This is an encyclopedia article: it is important to place something in its historical/cultural context.

The section Trauma-informed care contains something of a laundry-list of items, most not clearly cited. It looks to me like the list is a series of imperatives directed to practitioners, but it doesn't say so, nor does it indicate whether this list would be generally accepted or is your synthesis of what various sources say, and whether those sources might at all disagree with each other. Also there: "It's best" for whom and according to whom? "[B]rief normalizing statements" is very vague. "Pace the discussion according to the person's needs and abilities": as against some other branch of psychology where you don't?? This is presumably a given, no? In any case, that whole thing is awfully how-to, probably more suited for a manual than an encyclopedia.

This was all on a quick skim. I'm sure there is a lot more, but I hope this suggests what direction you might want to take the article before asking for a formal assessment. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 17:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Jmabel, Very helpful comments, thank you! ConflictScience (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)