4.1 Article

Examining Trauma and Readiness to Change among Women in a Community Re-Entry Program

Journal

SUBSTANCE USE & MISUSE
Volume 53, Issue 4, Pages 648-653

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10826084.2017.1355387

Keywords

Substance abuse; trauma; community re-entry; recidivism; posttraumatic growth

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and co-occurring substance use disorders (SUDs) are common among women who are incarcerated. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between trauma and readiness to change substance use behaviors. Methods: This study used data from 103 participants enrolled in a residential re-entry program for women with SUDs and trauma history. Women reporting clinically elevated Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI) subscale scores were compared to those without elevated scores on the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA) readiness to change instrument. Primary analyses included t-tests and ANCOVA to control for age and ethnicity. Results: In general, women with clinically elevated trauma scores also reported greater readiness to change. The analyses revealed significant differences on the URICA Readiness to Change scores between women who had elevated Defensive Avoidance and Impaired Self-Reference according to the TSI. Results approached significance for women who had elevated TSI subscale scores for Sexual Concerns and Dissociation. Conclusions: These results point to a need to further understand links between trauma and readiness to change, particularly, the role of posttraumatic growth and psychological distress. This study has implications for social workers and clinicians delivering evidence-based treatment. Women who had high trauma symptoms were more willing to address change. Findings also suggest a need to tailor interventions to include motivational components that are also trauma-informed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available