Curious about what is in the PACT/R archive and how it was created? Read all about the development and current contents of the PACT/R Data Archive in a newly published paper.
Nancy Kassam-Adams, Justin A. Kenardy, Douglas L. Delahanty, Meghan L. Marsac, Richard Meiser-Stedman, Reginald D. V. Nixon, Markus A. Landolt & Patrick A. Palmieri (2020) Development of an international data repository and research resource: the Prospective studies of Acute Child Trauma and Recovery (PACT/R) Data Archive, European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 11:1, DOI: 10.1080/20008198.2020.1729025
Background: Studies that identify children after acute trauma and prospectively track risk/protective factors and trauma responses over time are resource-intensive; small sample sizes often limit power and generalizability. The Prospective studies of Acute Child Trauma and Recovery (PACT/R) Data Archive was created to facilitate more robust integrative cross-study data analyses.
Objectives: To (a) describe creation of this research resource, including harmonization of key variables; (b) describe key study- and participant-level variables; and (c) examine retention to follow-up across studies.
Methods: For the first 30 studies in the Archive, we described study-level (design factors, retention rates) and participant-level (demographic, event, traumatic stress) variables. We used Chi square or ANOVA to examine study- and participant-level variables potentially associated with retention.
Results: These 30 prospective studies (N per study = 50 to 568; overall N = 5499) conducted by 15 research teams in 5 countries enrolled children exposed to injury (46%), disaster (24%), violence (13%), traffic accidents (10%), or other acute events. Participants were school-age or adolescent (97%), 60% were male, and approximately half were of minority ethnicity. Using harmonized data from 22 measures, 24% reported significant traumatic stress ≥1 month post-event. Other commonly assessed outcomes included depression (19 studies), internalizing/externalizing symptoms (19), and parent mental health (19). Studies involved 2 to 5 research assessments; 80% of participants were retained for ≥2 assessments. At the study level, greater retention was associated with more planned assessments. At the participant level, adolescents, minority youth, and those of lower socioeconomic status had lower retention rates.
Conclusion: This project demonstrates the feasibility and value of bringing together traumatic stress research data and making it available for re-use. As an ongoing research resource, the Archive can promote ‘FAIR’ data practices and facilitate integrated analyses to advance understanding of child traumatic stress.