Psychological Debriefing

Abstract

Psychological debriefing, particularly the critical incident stress debriefing ( CISD ) rubric, grew exponentially to become one of the most popularized approaches to psychological intervention. Despite its seemingly intuitive underpinnings and its facile training and application, controlled research has consistently demonstrated the approach to be inert at best and to present the possibility of paradoxical inhibition to the natural processes of recovery in at least some recipients. Authoritative guidelines now caution against or even contraindicate its routine application, although it remains in relatively common usage. New and more refined approaches are beginning to emerge but systematic study of their efficacy and impact has yet to be reported. Practitioners are offered recommendations for more responsible approaches to evidence‐informed intervention.

Potentially harmful therapies: A meta-scientific review of evidential value.

“…Implicit to the theoretical basis of CISD and other forms of debriefing is that nearly all individuals exposed to a severe stressor can benefit from an intervention shortly thereafter. CISD proponents contend that all of the research demonstrating harm (for reviews, see Gist, 2015; Lohr, Gist, Deacon, Devilly, & Varker, 2015; Rose, Bisson, Churchill, & Wessely, 2002) is due to poor clinician training, erroneous application of the intervention to populations other than emergency responders, and using the intervention with individuals rather than small groups (Everly & Mitchell, 2000; Mitchell, n.d.). CISD continues to be an active and available intervention option with a training organization and professional meetings (e.g., see https://icisf.org/).…”