37
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Systematic Literature Search on Psychological First Aid: Lack of Evidence to Develop Guidelines

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Providing psychological first aid (PFA) is generally considered to be an important element in preliminary care of disaster victims. Using the best available scientific basis for courses and educational materials, the Belgian Red Cross-Flanders wants to ensure that its volunteers are trained in the best way possible.

          Objective

          To identify effective PFA practices, by systematically reviewing the evidence in existing guidelines, systematic reviews and individual studies.

          Methods

          Systematic literature searches in five bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, PILOTS and G-I-N) were conducted from inception to July 2013.

          Results

          Five practice guidelines were included which were found to vary in the development process (AGREE II score 20–53%) and evidence base used. None of them provides solid evidence concerning the effectiveness of PFA practices. Additionally, two systematic reviews of PFA were found, both noting a lack of studies on PFA. A complementary search for individual studies, using a more sensitive search strategy, identified 11 237 references of which 102 were included for further full-text examination, none of which ultimately provides solid evidence concerning the effectiveness of PFA practices.

          Conclusion

          The scientific literature on psychological first aid available to date, does not provide any evidence about the effectiveness of PFA interventions. Currently it is impossible to make evidence-based guidelines about which practices in psychosocial support are most effective to help disaster and trauma victims.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            TENTS guidelines: development of post-disaster psychosocial care guidelines through a Delphi process.

            How best to plan and provide psychosocial care following disasters remains keenly debated. To develop evidence-informed post-disaster psychosocial management guidelines. A three-round web-based Delphi process was conducted. One hundred and six experts rated the importance of statements generated from existing evidence using a one to nine scale. Participants reassessed their original scores in the light of others' responses in the subsequent rounds. A total of 80 (72%) of 111 statements achieved consensus for inclusion. The statement 'all responses should provide access to pharmacological assessment and management' did not achieve consensus. The final guidelines recommend that every area has a multi-agency psychosocial care planning group, that responses provide general support, access to social, physical and psychological support and that specific mental health interventions are only provided if indicated by a comprehensive assessment. Trauma-focused cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is recommended for acute stress disorder or acute post-traumatic stress disorder, with other treatments with an evidence base for chronic post-traumatic stress disorder being made available if trauma-focused CBT is not tolerated. The Delphi process allowed a consensus to be achieved in an area where there are limitations to the current evidence.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The effectiveness of psychological first aid as a disaster intervention tool: research analysis of peer-reviewed literature from 1990-2010.

              The Advisory Council of the American Red Cross Disaster Services requested that an independent study determine whether first-aid providers without professional mental health training, when confronted with people who have experienced a traumatic event, offer a "safe, effective and feasible intervention." Standard databases were searched by an expert panel from 1990 to September 2010 using the keyword phrase "psychological first aid." Documents were included if the process was referred to as care provided to victims, first responders, or volunteers and excluded if it was not associated with a disaster or mass casualty event, or was used after individual nondisaster traumas such as rape and murder. This search yielded 58 citations. It was determined that adequate scientific evidence for psychological first aid is lacking but widely supported by expert opinion and rational conjecture. No controlled studies were found. There is insufficient evidence supporting a treatment standard or a treatment guideline. Sufficient evidence for psychological first aid is widely supported by available objective observations and expert opinion and best fits the category of "evidence informed" but without proof of effectiveness. An intervention provided by volunteers without professional mental health training for people who have experienced a traumatic event offers an acceptable option. Further outcome research is recommended.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2014
                12 December 2014
                : 9
                : 12
                : e114714
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Evidence-based Practice, Belgian Red Cross-Flanders , Mechelen, Belgium
                [2 ]Psychosocial Intervention Service, Belgian Red Cross-Flanders, Mechelen, Belgium
                [3 ]Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
                [4 ]Faculty of Medicine, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
                National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Japan
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: PV. Wrote the paper: TD IM. Identified relevant studies: TD IM. Revised manuscript: EDB KVP PV. Approved final version for publication: PV.

                Article
                PONE-D-14-28591
                10.1371/journal.pone.0114714
                4264843
                25503520
                960f52dd-9429-48cb-8ff9-122c0fadc855
                Copyright @ 2014

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 26 June 2014
                : 12 November 2014
                Page count
                Pages: 13
                Funding
                All authors are employees at the Belgian Red Cross-Flanders and receive no other funding. The authors have declared that no other support exist from any organization, other than the Belgian Red Cross-Flanders, for the submitted work. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Psychological Stress
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Database and Informatics Methods
                Database Searching
                Research Assessment
                Systematic Reviews
                Social Sciences
                Custom metadata
                The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article