A Systematic Review of Posttraumatic Growth in Survivors of Interpersonal Violence in Adulthood. (April 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Elderton, Anna; Berry, Alexis; Chan, Carmen
• Is Part Of: Trauma, violence & abuse. Volume 18:Number 2(2017)
• Page Start: 223
• Page End: 236
• Publication Date: 2017-04
• Subjects: posttraumatic growth -- interpersonal violence -- intimate partner violence -- sexual assault -- rape -- physical assault; Child abuse -- Periodicals; Post-traumatic stress disorder in children -- Periodicals; Violence -- Periodicals; Family violence -- Periodicals; Violence envers les enfants -- Périodiques; Violence familiale -- Périodiques; Névroses post-traumatiques -- Périodiques; 616.8521
• DOI: 10.1177/1524838015611672
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1524-8380

Abstract

This review critically evaluates the literature on posttraumatic growth in survivors of interpersonal violence, integrating the findings from 12 quantitative and 4 qualitative studies. The following databases were searched using predetermined terms: AMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, BNI, CINAHL, and Web of Knowledge. The review's findings suggest that the mean prevalence of growth in interpersonal violence survivors is around 71% (range 58–99%). The highest level of growth was consistently experienced in the "appreciation of life" domain. However, survivors reported growth in the four remaining domains: "personal strength, " "new possibilities, " "experience of relationships with others, " and "outlook on life." The nature of the relationship between growth and distress was inconsistent across studies. A combination of pretrauma, peritrauma, and posttrauma variables were found to be related to the degree of growth survivors experienced. Methodological weaknesses of the quantitative studies included the predominant use of retrospective, cross-sectional, correlational designs, discrepancy in the measurement of growth, insufficient sample sizes for power calculations in five studies and limited external validity. Qualitative findings were limited by sampling methods, insufficient information about interview schedules, the lack of credibility checks, and evidence of reflexivity demonstrated by some studies. Implications for practice, policy, and future research are discussed.