Predictors of Clinician‐Reported Self‐Efficacy in Treating Trauma‐Exposed Youth. Issue 1 (28th May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Becker‐Haimes, Emily M.; Wislocki, Katherine; DiDonato, Stephen; Jensen‐Doss, Amanda
• Is Part Of: Journal of traumatic stress. Volume 35:Issue 1(2022)
• Page Start: 109
• Page End: 119
• Publication Date: 2021-05-28
• Subjects: Post-traumatic stress disorder -- Periodicals; 616.8521
• DOI: 10.1002/jts.22688
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0894-9867

Abstract

Abstract: Clinicians' self‐efficacy with regard to delivering evidence‐based interventions (EBIs) to youth is an important target for both improving EBI use in the community and mitigating the risk of clinician burnout and turnover. Examining predictors of clinician self‐efficacy to treat trauma‐exposed youth is, therefore, an important step for informing the design of implementation strategies to enhance the mental health workforce's capacity to deliver EBIs in this population. We examined predictors of clinician self‐efficacy in working with trauma‐exposed youth in a sample of practicing mental health clinicians ( N = 258, M age = 34.4 years, 85.0% female). Clinicians were recruited and surveyed as part of a larger study examining how clients' exposure to potentially traumatic events influences clinician decision‐making. Results of regression models indicated that training in any trauma treatment model, being trained via a variety of formats (e.g., in‐person training, online, supervision), and training in a variety of treatment models were all associated with higher perceived self‐efficacy regarding effectively treating trauma‐exposed youth. Of the treatment models and training formats examined, receiving in‐person training, R 2 = .10, and training in trauma‐focused cognitive behavioral therapy, R 2 = .10, were the strongest predictors of higher self‐efficacy ratings. Clinician discipline, R 2 = .04, and clinical practice factors, R 2 = .20, were also related to self‐efficacy. Collectively, the R 2 indicated a large effect, with the predictors explaining 25.4% of the variance in self‐efficacy ratings. Implications for designing implementation strategies targeting clinician self‐efficacy and future research are discussed.