M Aulagnier1, P Verger, F Rouillon. 1. Observatoire Régional de la Santé de Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur (ORS - PACA), 23, rue Stanislas-Torrents, 13006 Marseille. aulagnier@wanadoo.fr
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traumatic events are frequently followed by an acute stress reaction that may develop into a post-traumatic stress disorder. An intervention called psychological debriefing has been proposed to prevent these disorders. Although this method is widely used at present, its preventive effect is controversial. This article consist in a review of the studies which evaluated psychological debriefing efficiency in the prevention of post-traumatic stress disorder and associated disorders in adults. METHOD: We carried out a bibliographical search on MEDLINE (1966-2001), PASCAL (1987-2001), EMBASE (1988-2001), FRANCIS (1984-2001) and SCIENCEDIRECT (1967-2001). The key words were posttraumatic stress disorder, debriefing, treatment, psychological follow up, and prevention. We selected the studies with the following criteria: adults, one psychological debriefing session in the Month following the event, inclusion of a control group, more than 20 persons per group and evaluation of psychological disorders with standardized instruments more than one Month after the trauma. RESULTS: Twenty nine studies were identified and 8 selected. Four studies did not show any intervention effect, 3 suggested a negative intervention effect, and 1 suggested a positive effect on anxiety, depressive symptoms and alcohol dependence. CONCLUSION: Psychological debriefing implies re-exposure through memory processes to the trauma, which can interfere with the natural course of adjustment and recovery. Several Authors have suggested that psychological debriefing may delay the diagnosis and thus the early treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. Psychological debriefing may not be appropriate to all victims of every type of incident or trauma. We discuss the intervention and its design. This review did not show evidence for psychological debriefing efficiency, as a unique session, in the prevention of posttraumatic reactions. The design and the objectives may be re-examined. Further evaluations following rigorous methods are warranted.
BACKGROUND: Traumatic events are frequently followed by an acute stress reaction that may develop into a post-traumatic stress disorder. An intervention called psychological debriefing has been proposed to prevent these disorders. Although this method is widely used at present, its preventive effect is controversial. This article consist in a review of the studies which evaluated psychological debriefing efficiency in the prevention of post-traumatic stress disorder and associated disorders in adults. METHOD: We carried out a bibliographical search on MEDLINE (1966-2001), PASCAL (1987-2001), EMBASE (1988-2001), FRANCIS (1984-2001) and SCIENCEDIRECT (1967-2001). The key words were posttraumatic stress disorder, debriefing, treatment, psychological follow up, and prevention. We selected the studies with the following criteria: adults, one psychological debriefing session in the Month following the event, inclusion of a control group, more than 20 persons per group and evaluation of psychological disorders with standardized instruments more than one Month after the trauma. RESULTS: Twenty nine studies were identified and 8 selected. Four studies did not show any intervention effect, 3 suggested a negative intervention effect, and 1 suggested a positive effect on anxiety, depressive symptoms and alcohol dependence. CONCLUSION: Psychological debriefing implies re-exposure through memory processes to the trauma, which can interfere with the natural course of adjustment and recovery. Several Authors have suggested that psychological debriefing may delay the diagnosis and thus the early treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. Psychological debriefing may not be appropriate to all victims of every type of incident or trauma. We discuss the intervention and its design. This review did not show evidence for psychological debriefing efficiency, as a unique session, in the prevention of posttraumatic reactions. The design and the objectives may be re-examined. Further evaluations following rigorous methods are warranted.
Authors: Theresa S Betancourt; Sarah E Meyers-Ohki; Alexandra P Charrow; Wietse A Tol Journal: Harv Rev Psychiatry Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.732