‘Caring for the carers’: Compassion fatigue and associated factors in foster and kinship carers

Kinship Care

Assessing Quality of Care in Kinship and Foster Family Care

Recent progress in understanding the lifelong effects of early childhood adversities has clarified the need for an organized strategy to identify and intervene with children, adolescents, and families who may be at risk for maladaptive responses. Trauma-informed care (TIC) in child health care operationalizes the biological evidence of toxic stress with the insights of attachment and resilience to enhance health care delivery to mitigate the effects of trauma. The resulting pediatric health care delivery strategy promotes and restores resilience in children and adolescents, partners with families to support relational health, and reduces secondary trauma among pediatric health care clinicians. This policy statement summarizes what policy makers, legislators, and health care organizations need to consider in terms of infrastructure, resources, and financial support to facilitate the integration of TIC principles into all pediatric points of care. The accompanying clinical report describes the elements of TIC in the direct care of children, adolescents, and families and covers the spectrum from prevention to treatment. The recommendations in this statement and the clinical report build on other American Academy of Pediatrics policies that address the needs of special populations (such as children and adolescents in foster or kinship care, in immigrant and refugee families, or in poor or homeless families) and are congruent with American Academy of Pediatrics policies and technical reports concerning the role of pediatric clinicians in the promotion of lifelong health.Over the past 2 decades, basic science has explained how cumulative adverse childhood experiences in the relative absence of safe, stable, nurturing relationships (SSNRs)1 alter neurohormonal stress responses, gene expression, telomere length, brain development, and immunity, enabling researchers to elucidate how the body biologically embeds childhood trauma. Recent studies of toxic stress support assertions that the origins of lifelong health are in early childhood and that chronic stress in childhood strongly predicts adult health status.2,3 In the context of expanding evidence, pediatricians and others involved in community-based early childhood systems need strategies to mitigate the damaging effects of early childhood trauma and to promote resilience in children and families. Trauma-informed care (TIC) offers an organizing principle for pediatric practice that improves awareness of the spectrum of trauma-related symptoms, promotes an emotionally safe environment of care, and provides specific interventions to mitigate the effects of trauma exposure.4,5 This policy statement presents recommendations for policy makers, legislators, and health care organizations for implementation of TIC into pediatric health systems. The accompanying clinical report6 presents best-practice guidance for TIC in the direct care of children and adolescents.TIC is defined by the National Child Traumatic Stress Network as medical care in which all parties involved assess, recognize, and respond to the effects of traumatic stress on children, caregivers, and health care providers. TIC also includes attention to secondary traumatic stress (STS), the emotional strain that results when an individual, whether a health care worker or parent, hears about or witnesses the traumatic experiences, past or present, of children.Every pediatric encounter presents opportunities to promote family resilience and relational health.7 Informed by research in infant mental health and neurodevelopment, early relational health refers to the establishment of foundational relationships during the first 3 years of life that are central to successful physiologic, emotional, and moral development of the young child.8 Relational health, in a more general sense, is applicable to all age groups, is dyadic, and includes the capacity of both the child and caregiver to enter into a safe, secure, nurturing relationship allowing both to thrive.1,9,10 Strong foundational relationships support resilience and buffer stress in children, so they can be considered primary prevention of stress-related disturbance. Trauma-informed practices also support relational health and family resilience as important protective factors for those who have been exposed to persistent adversity or potentially traumatic events (see Fig 1).Human neuroendocrine–immune networks respond to internal and external sensors that identify danger and safety by activating in dangerous circumstances and deactivating when danger has subsided.11 Toxic stress responses occur with prolonged activation of the neuroendocrine–immune system and dysregulation of homeostasis (or allostasis if multiple systems are involved)12 in the absence of buffering by SSNRs. Toxic stress responses can result in lifelong impairments in physical, mental, and relational health.13The concept of toxic stress adds an important physiologic basis to the study of attachment and our understanding of trauma. Trauma is defined as an event, series of events, or circumstances experienced by a person as physically or emotionally harmful that can have long-lasting adverse effects on the person’s functioning and well-being (emotional, physical, or spiritual).14 Attachment theory describes the deep and enduring relationship between a child and adult caregiver that ideally provides a secure base from which the child can develop and explore the world.15Resilience is the dynamic process of adaptation to or despite significant adversity by using protective factors and learned skills to manage stressful circumstances.16 Resilience may allow a person to experience tolerable rather than toxic stress in response to adversity. Some characteristics of resilient children include strong executive functions (self-control of attention and impulses) and a strong personal identity, often related to a cultural or faith tradition.17 However, most important to both resilience and relational health is the capacity for young children to form at least one stable, caring, and supportive relationship.9,18Almost half of American children, or 34 million younger than 18 years, have faced at least one potentially traumatic early childhood experience.19 More than 1 in 7 adults report exposure during childhood to 4 or more adverse childhood experiences such as abuse, neglect, or other household adversity,20 including intimate partner violence or parental incarceration. Certain populations are at higher risk for trauma exposure, both physical and emotional. In surveys, poverty or financial stress is the most commonly reported childhood adversity, second only to loss of a parent.21,22 Exposure to divorce, child maltreatment, sexual abuse, intimate partner violence, bullying, parental mental illness, parental substance use problems, and community violence are also common.21 Specific populations at high risk for trauma include children and adolescents who identify as LGBTQ, have developmental or behavioral problems,23–25 are in foster or kinship care, are incarcerated, are living in deep poverty, or are immigrants. Potentially traumatic environmental and community-level conditions include economic stress, school or community violence, adverse experiences during and after immigration, natural disasters, pandemics, and mass-casualty events such as shootings or bombings.Racism is a common cross-cutting risk factor. Racial, ethnic, or religious bigotry magnifies the risk inherent to other special populations.26 Experiences ranging from hate crimes, police profiling, bullying, or microaggressions to covert discrimination are traumatic events and may be internalized as trauma by those who are victims, indirectly or directly, of the events.27,28 Historical trauma refers to the collective, transgenerational emotional and psychological injury of specific ethnic, racial, or cultural groups and their descendants who have experienced major events of oppression such as genocide, forced displacement, or slavery.29,30 Originally applied to children of the Holocaust, the concept is now applied to American Indian and Alaskan native people, African American people, Mexican American people, Japanese American people, and other groups of people who have experienced mass trauma.30 Investigators link historical “soul wounding” to current health and behavioral disorders including substance use disorder, domestic violence, and suicide, particularly in Indigenous communities.29,31 Children separated from families during immigration and/or detained in group facilities overseen by the Office of Refugee Resettlement are a recent special population at severe risk for long-term sequelae resulting from forced family separation.32,33In November 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reviewed the emerging literature linking early childhood adversity with adult illnesses20,34 and analyzed survey data from 25 states over 2 years.3,35 Researchers concluded that reducing exposure to early childhood trauma and mitigating posttrauma effects would generally and significantly reduce adult morbidity and mortality. Using logistic regression modeling, they estimated potential reductions in incidence from low for obesity (1.7%) to high for heavy drinking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and depression (23.9%, 27.0%, and 44.1%, respectively). Recommendations included creating healthy communities, supporting SSNRs, and developing programs that apply primary (reducing exposure to childhood adversity) and secondary prevention (mitigating the effects of exposure) on the basis of principles of TIC.The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) presents a list of trauma-related disorders ranging from mild (adjustment disorder) to severe (posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]).36 Two additional categories, reactive attachment disorder and disinhibited social engagement disorder, are specific to young children (please see the DSM-5 for complete diagnostic criteria). This nosology can be expanded to describe other presentations common in pediatric health care settings: developmental trauma disorder (DTD), pediatric medical traumatic stress (PMTS), and STS, the last being most relevant for health care workers, family members, and caregivers.The diagnosis of PTSD, as outlined in the current DSM-5, does not adequately describe the variable presentations of trauma manifestations in children across developmental stages.37 Children with complex trauma histories often exhibit heterogeneous developmental symptoms as well as difficulties with intimate relationships and with regulation of attention and impulse control.38 DTD is a proposed new diagnostic category that incorporates these differences and attempts to better describe the disturbances that occur in multiple developmental domains.39 The omission of DTD in the DSM-5 has been controversial,40 and the search for a better nosology of trauma, including DTD, is ongoing.41PMTS refers to the distress that patients and family members experience during hospitalization for a perceived life-threatening diagnosis or while living with or caring for individuals with life-altering chronic conditions.42 PMTS is underrecognized and rarely addressed despite its high prevalence.43,44 Up to 80% of ill or injured children and their families may have traumatic stress reactions after a life-threatening illness, injury, or procedure.45 In some surveys, up to 20% of parents of children admitted to a PICU develop PTSD within a few months.45 The suffering of family members and caregivers is often not addressed because of existing structural and reimbursement obstacles for multigenerational care.Although research on PMTS (and on pediatric postintensive care syndrome)46,47 is ongoing, researchers in 1 study found that approximately 10% of children developed PTSD 3 to 5 months after major surgery, and 28% developed posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) resulting in functional disability by parent report.48 PTSS can also occur after a severe injury or diagnosis of an illness such as cancer. In another family study, more than 10% of children had persistent functional impairment from PTSS at 6 weeks and 1 year after a potentially life-threatening injury or diagnosis, and 15% of mothers and 8% of fathers met criteria for PTSD at 1 year.49As described earlier, STS may occur in parents, other family members, and health care workers such as physicians, nurses, other hospital staff, first responders, and therapists. STS may have many of the same long-term effects on health that affect children exposed to trauma.50 Some health care workers may also develop disabling posttrauma symptoms that can interfere with quality of life both at work and home. Health care workers may have their own trauma histories that contribute to their reactions when exposed to the suffering of others. Nonclinical staff may also experience STS triggered by their own trauma histories, especially if the health care facility is located in an area with high adversity and nonclinical staff live in the vicinity.Preliminary evidence exists of a synergistic effect among STS, depression, and burnout in affected health care workers.51 STS in combination with burnout has been associated with a significant increase in the frequency of medical errors.52,53 Depression, anxiety, and suicide are greater risks for physicians than for the general population. In the United States, the rate of suicide among female physicians is 130% higher than among women who are not physicians; the rate for male physicians is 40% higher than for men who are not physicians.51 Burnout includes a spectrum of pathologic conditions that develop in the context of occupational stress and is almost twice as prevalent among physicians. The risk among nurses for burnout, depression, and STS is even higher. More than half of nurses reported suboptimal mental or physical health,54 approximately 35% reported a high degree of emotional exhaustion,55 and 18% reported depression in national surveys. Reports of posttraumatic stress among health care workers related to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic prompted worldwide concern for increased awareness and trauma-informed support for the mental health of all involved.56Core principles that can be helpful for policy development, outlined by the National Council on Behavioral Health (2019)57 are outlined in the following sections. Implementation of TIC at a practice level is described in detail in the accompanying clinical report.6The health care organization, workspace, and every encounter should be characterized by compassion, cultural humility, equity, collaboration, and safety for families and employees. An emotionally safe workplace includes acknowledgment of and particular attention to racial and gender discrimination, including implicit bias both in rendering care and workplace human relations. A review of health care settings from the viewpoints of patients, families, and staff can uncover practices, processes, or details in the environment that are potentially traumatizing.Hospital and health system leadership can annually review policies and procedures to ensure a safe work environment and setting to provide TIC, to reduce STS and burnout, and to promote sensitivity to the needs of trauma survivors.58 The alignment of financial and human capital resources to support an optimal health environment in all levels and locations of care is extremely important. Surveys designed to assess system readiness for implementation are available and can be adapted for pediatric health care settings.Surveillance and standardized screening to assess staff and patients for trauma exposure, symptoms, and strengths are important components of trauma-informed pediatric care. Universal screening, when implemented within the larger context of trauma-informed approaches and endorsed and supported by administrative leadership, reduces stigma and allows standardized responses such as time off or referral to an employee assistance program. Families and youth may be queried at the point of care, such as at the time of hospital admission. Formal screening should always be for the benefit of children and adolescents, avoid retraumatization, and identify protective as well as risk factors.59 More specific information about screening is included in the accompanying clinical report.6Involvement of families and youth in the development of TIC policies and practices, particularly regarding cultural, historical, and gender issues, is essential to building an environment of support and mutuality.14 Both formal and informal structures, such as Family Advisory Councils and family-centered rounds,60 create a cultural expectation of collaboration and enable the health care team to understand the strengths and vulnerabilities of individual families and of the populations served. When appropriate, tribal elders, traditional healers, and other faith community leaders can be included in developing individual care plans or institutional quality-improvement efforts. A whole-person, whole-family, whole-community perspective promotes improved awareness of how cultural backgrounds affect the perception of trauma, safety, and privacy.61,62TIC, from a public health perspective, includes primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention strategies. Primary prevention is a comprehensive approach that addresses social determinants of health (such as structural racism, poverty, and violence) that are often root causes of community trauma.63 Promotion of relational health and other resilience factors (such as strong executive function and self-efficacy) may be considered primary prevention.64 Following the fourth edition of Bright Futures: Guidelines for Health Supervision of Infants, Children, and Adolescents, promotion of early childhood relational health is a core purpose of both pediatric primary care and early childhood education.65The National Child Traumatic Stress Network includes the promotion of child and family resilience, enhancement of protective factors, awareness of parent or caregiver trauma, and involvement of families in program development and evaluation as secondary prevention.66 Trauma-informed therapies (eg, trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy) for symptomatic children and youth are considered tertiary prevention. These therapies are especially important for high-risk populations as identified earlier.67–70 Attachment-based dyadic therapies, such as parent–child interaction therapy, may serve to prevent development of persistent traumatic stress symptoms in high-risk families71 and may be considered both secondary and tertiary prevention.Recruitment and pre-employment practices may help discern the capacity for empathy among prospective employees.72 Training and education of all administrators, clinicians, and staff, both clinical and nonclinical, can promote the appreciation of the lifelong effects of trauma on child and adolescent development and family resilience and the implementation of trauma-aware practices. Continuous quality-improvement programs translate new knowledge and skills about childhood trauma into supervision, training, and patient care.Prevention of STS requires specific training of all staff to raise awareness, promote resilience, and explore the interaction among STS, burnout, depression, substance use, and professional quality of life. Supportive supervision and peer mentoring offer opportunities for all employees to reflect on their own trauma histories and to promote compassion, nonjudgmental attitudes and collaboration.73Trauma-informed health care systems establish and support collaborative, interdisciplinary relationships among community and public health agencies that serve children and adolescents to coordinate care for children, adolescents, and families exposed to trauma. Schools,74 juvenile justice programs,75 mental health professionals,76 home visiting services, child welfare systems,76 and foster care agencies77 are natural partners for pediatric health organizations in promoting community resilience. Many have established TIC programs. Community early intervention programs can help prevent and mitigate adversity and often have the advantage of caring for young children in their natural environment as home visitors.78–80Federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can continue and expand research to improve understanding of the developmental effects of trauma and the efficacy of specific interventions for historically resilient populations. Urgently needed are successful strategies to interrupt the intergenerational transfer of family violence. Strategies are also crucial to blunt the impact of historical trauma in communities of color and in American Indian and Alaskan native populations in the United States.30 It is particularly important to identify the origins of and successfully mitigate community violence, including racism, misogyny, and religious, ethnic, and cultural bias.State-level resources can be directed to implementation, dissemination, and evaluation of trauma-informed community programs, such as interagency and multigenerational strategies for opioid dependency. One example of a state interagency, multigenerational treatment program is Ohio START (Sobriety, Treatment and Reducing Trauma).81 States could develop a communication infrastructure to facilitate data sharing, improve interdisciplinary/interagency cooperation, and engage community partners including foundations and academic institutions.Federal guidelines can require that state Medicaid programs ensure comprehensive coverage for all children and adolescents and pregnant mothers without regard for legal or immigration status and mandate that coverage include mental health and substance use disorder services. Financing that increases access to high-quality, comprehensive, coordinated, culturally competent health care for high-risk populations is a high priority. Federal and state regulations can require all insurers, including Medicaid and private health insurers, to include coverage for TIC elements, including surveillance, screening, diagnosis, counseling, case management, follow-up, community collaboration, mental health care, and home visiting.In large health systems, leadership can align its mission and financing with the core elements of trauma-informed systems.82 Supporting TIC includes payment for trauma-informed, integrated mental health services, care coordination, rigorous case management, and seamless referral networks for intensive treatment. Prevention of secondary trauma, including care of affected health care workers, should be built into the mission of the health system.Academic health centers train and educate the next generation of physicians, nurses, and ancillary health personnel and can promote the transformation to TIC in all health settings through education, research, and advocacy. Children’s hospitals and health systems can model mental health integration83 and trauma-informed practices throughout all service lines.84 Because children’s hospitals embrace population health management and community advocacy, they may serve as the anchor institution collaborating with community agencies to address social adversity at the neighborhood level while promoting TIC services.85 Together with community pediatric care systems, academic health centers and children’s hospitals can integrate core elements of education into workforce training for health care workers and community partners such as first responders, child welfare workers, teachers, and juvenile justice personnel.86,87Deborah L. Shropshire, MD, FAAP

1. Sandra H. Jee, MD, MPH 1. Department of Pediatrics University of Rochester Rochester, NY 1. Mark D. Simms, MD, MPH 1. Department of Pediatrics Medical College of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Wisc Improving the Odds for the Healthy Development of Young Children in Foster Care . Dicker S, Gordon E, Knitzer J. National Center for Children in Poverty: Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. Promoting the Emotional Well-Being of Children and Families (Policy Paper No. 2). January 2002;1–28 Children and Family Services Reviews, Part V: Most States Fail to Meet the Mental Health Needs for Foster Children . Huber J, Grimm B. Youth Law News . 2004;Oct-Dec:1–36 CWLA Standards for Health Care Services for Children in Out-of-Home Care . Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America; 1988. Educational Experiences of Children in Out-of-Home Care . Smithgall C, Gladden RM, Howard E, Goerge R, Courtney M. Chicago, Ill: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago; 2004:1–77 Fostering Health: Health Care for Children and Adolescents in Foster Care . 2nd ed. Task Force on Health Care for Children in Foster Care, American Academy of Pediatrics, District II, New York State. Elk Grove Village, Ill: American Academy of Pediatrics: 2005 Healthy Foster Care America . www.aap.org/advocacy/HFCA/ On any given day, more than 500,000 children are living in state-supported foster home care. In the course of a year, more than 800,000 children experience placement in a foster home. Many of these children return home quickly, but for some, placement may extend for years and may involve care in multiple foster homes. Most of the children have experienced serious family dysfunction prior to placement, including exposure to domestic violence and to their parents’ mental health disorders, addiction, or criminal activity. Serious neglect and abuse are the most frequently stated reasons for removing children from their parents’ care. Children entering foster homes have extremely high rates of physical and mental health problems, developmental delays, and educational underachievement. As a group, children in foster care …

Internationally, there is an increasing trend toward placing children in kinship vs. foster care. Prior research suggests that children in kinship care fare better compared to children in foster care; however, the reasons for this remain unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the hypothesis that kinship care better preserves children's connectedness to caregiver, birth family, culture, and community; which, in turn, is associated with more optimal child outcomes. Thirty-one studies were reviewed that compared children aged 0-18years in kinship care vs. foster care on levels of connectedness, three of which had outcomes that permitted meta-analysis. Findings indicated that children in kinship vs. foster care were more likely to feel connected to family in general; however, there was not a clear advantage for kinship vs. foster care for caregiver, birth parent, cultural, and community connectedness. While levels of connectedness were generally associated with more adaptive child outcomes for children in both kinship and foster care, no reviewed studies examined the hypothesis that children's connectedness may mediate the relationship between placement type and child well-being and placement outcomes. Results are discussed with respect to limitations and policy implications of the current evidence-base and the need for more rigorous research to help identify how to improve child well-being in home-based care.

BACKGROUND Children may be placed in either kinship or foster care, forms of out-of-home placement (OHP), if maltreatment is suspected. The American Academy of Pediatrics has identified them as children with special health needs requiring elevated care. While North Carolina has increased support for foster care, it is unclear whether similar support exists for kinship care. Child abuse medical providers (CAMPs) were interviewed regarding their understanding and assessment of the state of the kinship care system in North Carolina, and how it can be improved.METHODS CAMPs were individually interviewed using a semi-structured, open-ended question guide to assess their perspectives on kinship versus foster care in North Carolina. Data were coded, and the analysis was conducted in an inductive manner, allowing themes and then recommendations to emerge from interviews.RESULTS The following three themes were identified: 1) providers have a foundational understanding of the kinship care system, marked by knowledge gaps; 2) children in kinship care and foster care have equivalent, elevated health needs, but children in kinship care do not receive the same level of care; 3) individual and structural changes have to be made to the interprofessional teams working within the OHP system.LIMITATIONS The study sample was small, including eight CAMPs who had relatively homogenous demographic characteristics. CAMPs typically see the worst cases of maltreatment, which may bias responses. Additionally, the majority of children in kinship care are unknown to CAMPs and may not be fully represented in responses.CONCLUSION CAMPs' responses were summarized into a set of recommendations targeting four different components of the OHP team: the general interprofessional team, policymakers and state leaders, medical providers, and social workers.

To examine the influence of kinship care on behavioral problems after 18 and 36 months in out-of-home care. Growth in placement of children with kin has occurred despite conflicting evidence regarding its benefits compared with foster care. Prospective cohort study. National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, October 1999 to March 2004. One thousand three hundred nine children entering out-of-home care following a maltreatment report. Kinship vs general foster care. Predicted probabilities of behavioral problems derived from Child Behavior Checklist scores. Fifty percent of children started in kinship care and 17% of children who started in foster care later moved to kinship care. Children in kinship care were at lower risk at baseline and less likely to have unstable placements than children in foster care. Controlling for a child's baseline risk, placement stability, and attempted reunification to birth family, the estimate of behavioral problems at 36 months was 32% (95% confidence interval, 25%-38%) if children in the cohort were assigned to early kinship care and 46% (95% confidence interval, 41%-52%) if children were assigned to foster care only (P = .003). Children who moved to kinship care after a significant time in foster care were more likely to have behavioral problems than children in kinship care from the outset. Children placed into kinship care had fewer behavioral problems 3 years after placement than children who were placed into foster care. This finding supports efforts to maximize placement of children with willing and available kin when they enter out-of-home care.

The wellbeing of foster and kin carers: A comparative study

How does kinship and foster care differ on caregiver-child relationship quality and child and caregiver mental health?

Each year more than 500 000 children enter out-of-home placement. Few outcome studies of these children specifically address high-risk sexual behavior and adolescent pregnancy. Our study investigated the relationship between living in kinship or foster care and high-risk reproductive behaviors in a nationally representative sample of women. Data from 9620 women ages 15 to 44 years in the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth were analyzed in a cross-sectional study. Three groups-foster (n = 89), kinship (n = 513), and comparison (n = 9018)-were identified on the basis of self-reported childhood living situations. Bivariate and multiple linear regression analyses were performed. The outcome variables were age at first sexual intercourse and at first conception and the number of sexual partners. After adjustment for multiple predictor variables, foster care was associated with younger age at first conception (difference: 11.3 months) and having greater than the median number of sexual partners (odds ratio: 1.7, 1.0-2.8). Kinship care was associated with younger age both at first intercourse (difference = 6 months) and at first conception (difference: 8.6 months) and having greater than the median number of sexual partners (odds ratio: 1.4, 1.1-1.8). There were no differences between the kinship and foster groups. A history of living in either foster or kinship care is a marker for high-risk sexual behaviors, and the risk is comparable in both out-of-home living arrangements. Recognition of these risks may enable health care providers to intervene with high-risk youth to prevent early initiation of sexual intercourse and early pregnancy.

What are the factors associated with educational achievement for children in kinship or foster care: A systematic review

Background: Foster carers provide care for children who have been removed from their primary caregivers due to serious adverse experiences. While considerable research focuses on trauma among foster children, little is known about the traumatic experiences and resulting (secondary) traumatic stress in foster carers themselves. Objective: To review existing literature on traumatic experiences and traumatic stress among foster carers. Methods: We conducted a scoping review following the methodological framework developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute [Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167] and reported it in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines and checklist. We searched for literature in MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO. Results: We included nine studies (2005–2024) involving over 2,200 foster carers. Results indicate that (1) many foster carers have personally experienced adverse childhood experiences; (2) carers report indirect trauma exposure through their children’s narratives and direct exposure, such as threats or violence; (3) a notable portion experience high levels of secondary traumatic stress; and (4) higher levels of trauma exposure are related to higher levels of secondary traumatic stress. Conclusions: The findings highlight the need for mental health screening, ongoing training, and systemic support for foster carers. Acknowledging carers as both caregivers and trauma-affected individuals is essential to trauma-informed care, as it contributes to the wellbeing of both foster children and foster carers, and helps ensure stable foster placements. Given the limited number of studies, future research should further explore the specific trauma foster carers encounter in their caregiving role, the nature and severity of their secondary traumatic stress symptoms, and how these factors influence their caregiving capacity and the stability of foster placements.

Understanding the distinctive features of kinship and non-kin foster care has sparked research interest aimed at developing policies and programs. This study analyses 930 cases of fostered children (35.5% in non-kin foster care and 64.5% in kinship care) based on the information provided by child care professionals and the evaluations made by 221 foster carers (34.8% in non-kin foster care and 65.2% in kinship care) using different questionnaires. Significant differences were obtained between kinship and non-kin foster care, indicating more favourable results on stability in kinship placements, although the less favourable results regarding the education and employment of kinship carers. Significant differences were observed in how foster carers perceived their role, with kinship carers reporting greater facility in raising the fostered child and higher satisfaction with the placement. However, they were less satisfied with the financial support. Cluster analysis confirmed these differences, identifying two groups based on the overall evaluation of raising foster children and satisfaction with the placement. The findings serve to provide evidence in support of kinship care and also indicate the need to re-examine the role played by the information made available to non-kin foster parents about the biological family and the impact on the foster placement.

This study examined socioemotional problems among children age 0 to 5 years in formal kinship and foster care across a northeastern state. Findings revealed that more than one third of children in both types of care showed socioemotional problems. More children were placed in kinship care when they lived in rural settings, were biracial, or spent time in the neonatal intensive care (NICU) after birth. Unique child and maltreatment characteristics predicted socioemotional problems scores for each placement type. Among children in kinship care, being biracial, spending time in the NICU, and being referred to child welfare for either caregiver substance abuse or neglect were related to socioemotional problems. When children were in foster care, spending time in the NICU, being referred to child welfare for child neglect, or being referred for intimate partner violence were all related to socioemotional problems. The results have implications for child welfare policy and practice, especially in light of increased efforts to place children with kin.

ObjectivesFostering, a professional or semi-professional role that is in increasing demand, involves potential exposure to material related to children’s trauma in a domestic setting. Yet, professional vulnerability to secondary traumatic stress (STS) is under-researched in foster carers, as is the suitability of associated intervention techniques. We therefore investigated incidence of STS and psychological predictors relevant to secondary and primary stress appraisal in UK foster carers.MethodsBritish foster carers (n = 187; 81% female; aged 23–72 years; mean length of experience 9 years) were approached through a range of organizations managing paid foster caring in the UK for a survey study. Self-report measures were obtained on STS, burnout and compassion satisfaction from the Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL) scale, as well as on primary trauma and variables previously recommended for inclusion in training targeting secondary trauma: empathy, resilience and self-care.ResultsHigh levels of STS and burnout were found among foster carers. In multivariate model testing, STS was directly and positively predicted by burnout, compassion satisfaction and primary trauma (R2 = 0.54, p < 0.001). Resilience, empathy and self-care did not show direct associations with STS, but self-care had a significant indirect effect on STS.ConclusionsFindings support the view that STS is a substantial risk factor in foster caring. While self-care is confirmed as a promising factor in intervention, the roles of empathy and resilience are more ambiguous.