All Studies · Trauma & PTSD · Perez Vallejos (2016)

Perez Vallejos (2016)

Low · Pilot RCT · Promising (Pilot RCT) · n = 8
Quality Index (Adjusted QI) 0.622
0 Low < 0.56 Moderate 0.56–0.77 High ≥ 0.78 1
Study Details
ConditionTrauma (residential care)
Clinical domainTrauma & PTSD
PopulationChildren in residential care
Sample sizen = 8
Country / SettingUK - residential children's care facility
Protocol clusterTrauma-Sensitive KY
Duration20 weeks; 44-60 min sessions; avg attendance 4 sessions/participant (SD=3.7, range 0-13)
Control typeActive Control
ComparatorActive control (see methods)
Outcomes & Effect Sizes
Primary outcomeTrauma/PTSD symptoms
Scales usedWellbeing scales; behavior observations; interviews
Key resultFeasibility confirmed; wellbeing increased in both children and staff
Effect sizeFeasibility confirmed; wellbeing improvement in both children and staff
Retention96% (23/24 completed)
SafetyNo adverse events; enhanced sense of safety
View PDF
Methodological Summary

Feasibility study; mixed-methods; small sample

KY Protocol Components

Kundalini Yoga in Residential Children's Home: Feasibility Study DESIGN: Mixed methods feasibility study. SETTING: Residential home for children in care (CIC). DURATION: 20-week Kundalini yoga programme. PARTICIPANTS: Children in care + youth practitioners + management (mutual recovery approach — all participated together). ENROLLMENT: 100% of CIC and 97% (29/30) of eligible staff initially enrolled. ATTENDANCE: Low — average 4 sessions per participant (SD=3.7, range 0-13). OUTCOMES: • Self-reported: All participants reported study was personally meaningful; experienced individual benefits (feeling more relaxed) and social benefits (feeling more open and positive). • Pre/post questionnaires: No significant effects (likely due to low attendance). • Low attendance associated with challenges faced by children's workforce. NOTE: The "mutual recovery" model (CIC and staff practicing together) is distinctive. Despite low attendance, qualitative reports were positive. Published in Journal of Child Services.

Quality Item Scores — 1 fail · 2 partial · 3 pass · ★ critical
★A1
3
A2
3
★B1
2
★B2
2
B3
3
B4
1
★B5
1
B6
2
★B7
2
★B8
1
B9
2
★C1
1
C2
1
C3
1
JP1
3
Critical fails3
Raw QI0.622
SAF1
Adjusted QI0.622
Final ratingLow