Systematic review explores trauma measurement in community violence for youth, suggesting critical structural approaches are needed.
This systematic review explores how trauma is conceptualized and measured in the context of community violence, with an emphasis on the limitations of dominant frameworks and the need for more critical, structural approaches. These approaches situate trauma within conditions of structural violence that shape chronic community violence and uniquely impact the lives of community members. While traditional trauma frameworks often focus on individual pathology, this review examined prevailing trauma models, specifically those centered around post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and highlighted the need for alternative PTSD and community violence measures that better capture chronic and systematic harm. A systematic search across multiple databases synthesized findings from peer-reviewed studies, resulting in 47 studies meeting criteria for review. Through analytic synthesis, studies were categorized into three groups: 1) Unique structural studies, which integrated both structural violence and structural trauma; 2) Semi-unique structural studies, which incorporated either structural violence or structural trauma, but not both; and 3) Classic PTSD framework studies, which conceptualize trauma as a reaction to discrete events without engaging structural explanations. Results indicated a reliance on individualized PTSD frameworks, often neglecting the broader sociopolitical and historical contexts in which trauma occurs. This review critically assesses this imbalance and highlights the value of structural analyses that account for disinvestment, poverty, and structural violence. The findings suggest that future research should begin utilizing structural analyses to more accurately capture the lived realities of trauma. Such approaches are essential for developing more responsive, equitable interventions and inform policy that addresses the root causes of community violence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Irsheid et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: