Objective: This two-paper dissertation aimed to explore the current literature on human re-trafficking through a series of two rapid scoping reviews. The first review (Paper 1) aimed to systematically clarify current knowledge and presumed gaps in comprehension surrounding prevalence, measurement tools, definitions, and risk factors for human re-trafficking. The second review (Paper 2) expanded upon findings of Paper 1 to examine the scope of interventions developed to prevent human re-trafficking; Paper 2 also explored suggestions for re-trafficking prevention interventions offered by providers. Methods: The information sources were retrieved from PubMed, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, Scopus, and Google Scholar. English studies eligible for inclusion were published from November 2000 through December 31, 2024. Included studies reported on human trafficking as defined by the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons (Palermo Protocol) (United Nations General Assembly [UNGA], 2000) and encompassed various terms related to re-trafficking that align with Jobe's (2010) definition. Studies for Paper 1 included at least one of the following four methodological features: (a) descriptive or inferential statistics to examine re-trafficking; (b) standardized measures to capture re-trafficking data; (c) qualitative methods to study re-trafficking; (d) samples of participants who had survived re-trafficking or were directly involved in providing services or developing policies related to re-trafficking. Studies for Paper 2 included implemented, evaluated, or suggested programs, services, or interventions addressing re-trafficking. Re-trafficking interventions mentioned in any section outside of the methods, results, and discussion portions of the publication were excluded. Exclusion criteria comprised the following: studies focused exclusively on initial instances of trafficking or trafficking types outside of sex or labor trafficking; or suggested interventions not provided explicitly by survivors or service providers; multimedia sources, newspapers, trade journals, wire feeds, blogs, conference papers, legal commentary, complete textbooks, literature/systematic reviews, books, and book chapters. For both papers, eligibility was determined through a review of the title and abstract, utilizing inclusion criteria; if these criteria were met, the full-text article was reviewed. Data were then extracted, charted, and analyzed in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis (Aromataris et al., 2024). Results Paper 1: The search strategy yielded 532 records, of which 33 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, over 20 variations in re-trafficking terminology were employed. Prevalence estimates were projected from .5% to over 33%, with limitations in generalizability due to variations in data reported by country. Risk factors were identified across all studies, demonstrating risks that spanned individual, social, and systemic levels. Gaps were shown within survivor follow-up and monitoring, legal support, and reintegration care, producing increased vulnerability to survivor re-trafficking. Results Paper 2: The search strategy yielded 563 records, with a total of 8 studies meeting eligibility criteria. Four studies (50%) reported the implementation or evaluation of re-trafficking interventions. These interventions included NGO-led support, local and government task force aid, and governmental reform initiatives operationalized through policy changes, specialty courts, and integrated care. The remaining four studies (50%) solely discussed suggested re-trafficking interventions by service providers. Suggested interventions ranged from the provision of financial, material, healthcare, and legal advocacy to integrative and systemic policy reforms. Significant gaps were evident in the lack of participatory research, geographic scope, demographic diversity, and longitudinal and outcome-driven re-trafficking interventions. Conclusion: Despite re-trafficking acknowledgment in policy and practitioners’ contexts, study findings demonstrate inadequate measurement tools, minimal prevalence data, and a lack of consistent terminology. The use of administrative data collection, chart review, a preliminary validated screening tool, and qualitative interviews were noted as means for re-trafficking measurement. Prevalence studies were fragmented and context-specific, with limited attention to demographic differences and longitudinal tracking. Findings demonstrated over 20 variations of re-trafficking terminology in the literature. Re-trafficking risk factors are multi-faceted, encompassing socio-economic, material, legal, and systemic service gaps. Findings reveal that re-trafficking interventions are sparse and lack rigorous evaluation. Only four studies have implemented or reviewed interventions for re-trafficking, despite several authors noting the importance of data-driven and evaluative re-trafficking interventions across the literature. Suggested re-trafficking interventions note the need for survivor-centered and integrative care for survivors across systems. Taken together, findings from these reviews offer implications for policy, practice, and research regarding prevalence, measurement, risk of re-trafficking, and re-trafficking interventions. Recommendations focus on the need for survivor-informed policies, a global consensus on re-trafficking terminology, long-term reintegration strategies, and proactive intervention responses.

Keywords: (re-exploitation, re-entry, re-victimization, human trafficking, re-trafficking)