FILES



Summary PDF: What is the evidence for strengths-based and trauma-informed approaches?

M&E | Track Resource Download
   Case Management, Child and Family Services, Health, Mental Health and Wellness

SHARE

What is the evidence for strengths-based and trauma-informed approaches?

Evaluations of strengths-based and trauma-informed approaches with refugees are limited, but they provide moderately strong positive evidence for a variety of outcomes.

  • Five studies were identified that have examined the outcomes of strengths-based approaches with refugee clients. These studies have addressed diverse outcomes including health, mental health, social support, English proficiency, and cultural and community connections. Two of these studies are impact evaluations providing moderate evidence supporting strengths-based approaches; the remainder provide positive suggestive evidence.
  • One study was found that evaluated the impact of the trauma-informed approach. This study examined early childhood development and maternal well-being, and yielded positive moderate evidence.
  • The interventions evaluated in these studies have included a variety of individual, group, and community services, including case advocacy, mutual learning, stress and coping education, peer support, home visiting, and community health.

 

Strengths-based approaches are flexible and appropriate for diverse refugee clients.

  • Strengths-based approaches can take many forms and have shown promising results with refugee clients of diverse genders, ages, national origins, and ethnicities.

 

Research is needed on the trauma-informed approach with refugees and on the joint effects of strengths-based and trauma-informed approaches.

  • Additionally, strengths-based and trauma-informed approaches share some commonalities. In practice, they are often used together. Further research is needed on how the two approaches interact and on their joint impact on client outcomes.

Studies included in the database focused on high-income or upper middle-income countries, including but not limited to the United States. Studies included must have been published since 2000. To identify evidence, we searched the following websites and databases using the following population, methodology, and target intervention terms:

Websites and Databases Population Terms Methodology Terms Target Intervention Terms
Campbell Collaboration
Cochrane Collaboration
Mathematica Policy Research
Evidence Aid
Urban Institute
Migration Policy Institute
HHS OPRE
ASSIA
Social Services Abstracts
Social Work Abstracts
PsycInfo
CINAHL
PILOTS
refugee
OR
immigrant
OR
“unaccompanied minor”
OR
asylee
OR
“temporary protected status”
OR
“victims of traffick*”
OR
“traffick* victims”
OR
T-Visa
OR
U-Visa
OR
Cuban
OR
Haitian
OR
Amerasian
evaluation
OR
impact
OR
program
OR
intervention
OR
policy
OR
project
OR
train*
OR
therapy
OR
treatment
OR
counseling
OR
workshop
OR
review
OR
meta-analysis
OR
synthesis
“strengths-based”

OR

“trauma-informed”

For databases or websites that permitted only basic searches, free-text terms and limited term combinations were selected out of the lists above, and all resultant studies were reviewed for relevance. Conversely, for databases or websites with advanced search capability, we made use of relevant filters available. All search terms were searched in the title and abstract fields only in order to exclude studies that made only passing mention of the topic under consideration.

After initial screening, Switchboard evidence mapping is prioritized as follows: First priority is given to meta-analyses and systematic reviews, followed by individual impact evaluations when no meta-analyses or systematic reviews are available. Evaluations that are rated as impact evidence are considered before those rated as suggestive, with the latter only being included for outcomes where no evidence is available from the former.