2 - (IOP 4) Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Public Education Tool Designed to Increase Knowledge of Evidence-based Trauma-informed Care

Over 66% of youth in the U.S. experience at least one traumatic event by age 16 (SAMHSA, 2024), with 10-33% developing trauma-related mental health problems (Abraham et al., 2022). There are well-established evidence-based interventions (EBIs) that reduce trauma-related symptoms [National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN), 2025]. Despite the prevalence of trauma, associated mental health difficulties, and available treatments, less than 20% of traumatized children receive EBIs (NCTSN, 2017). Contributing factors include a lack of workforce training, insufficient public education, and failure to connect patients to trauma-specific providers (Cook et al., 2017; Gervasio et al., 2025). Also, misinformation on social media platforms (e.g., TikTok) about trauma interventions may mislead potential clients to seek treatments that are not empirically supported (Starvaggi et al., 2024).

To address gaps in knowledge about trauma-focused care and counter misinformation, we developed a webpage and information sheet that defines evidence-based and trauma-informed care, explains effective treatments for trauma-related emotions and behaviors, provides questions to assess a therapist’s trauma qualifications, and offers resources on where to find certified child trauma therapists. In an ongoing study, we are examining whether the information provided is enough to improve laypeople’s and mental health professionals’ knowledge. Shobharani (2013) found that an information sheet nearly doubled students' knowledge about the health impacts of cell phone use. In contrast, Killip et al. (2020) assessed 75 trauma websites and found that most were difficult to read, lacked proper sourcing, and contained inconsistent or incomplete treatment recommendations. To our knowledge, no study has evaluated an information sheet or webpage for childhood trauma.

Participants are laypeople (i.e., adults without mental health training) and mental health professionals. They are recruited via snowball sampling through the researchers’ networks. Before (pre) and after (post) reading the information sheet, participants are given a vignette about a child who disclosed trauma, followed by three questions: (1) What are the appropriate next steps? (2) What are questions to ask to identify the right therapist? (3) What might get in the way of you taking these steps? Questions 1 and 2 are coded for accuracy using structured rubrics (Wurtele et al., 1998), rated from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating greater accuracy. Two coders independently code responses and discuss discrepancies (Kurasaki, 2000). Participants also provide demographic information, including gender, age, race/ethnicity, and current profession.
 
To date, we have piloted the procedures. Laypeople (N = 6) averaged 44% on Question 1 and 37% on Question 2, whereas mental health professionals (N = 7) averaged 71% on Question 1 and 79% on Question 2. Data collection is ongoing, and we expect 100 participants in each group. Planned analyses are repeated measures ANOVAs with Time as the independent variable, Group as the moderator, and Accuracy as the dependent variable. Clinical implications and future directions will be discussed.