Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Psychological debriefing in schools

Magdalena Szumilas, Yifeng Wei and Stan Kutcher
CMAJ June 15, 2010 182 (9) 883-884; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.091621
Magdalena Szumilas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yifeng Wei
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stan Kutcher
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

School staff, administrators and health care providers are often called upon to deal with suicides, violent incidents and emergencies affecting students. Critical incident stress debriefing and management are techniques of psychological debriefing commonly applied following traumatic events (Box 1). 1,2 The widespread acceptance of these techniques was based on the assumption that they were effective and safe and would substantially reduce acute symptoms of distress associated with exposure to traumatic events, thereby decreasing the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder. However, recent research suggests that these interventions are ineffective and may be harmful. 1,3–7

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Box 1: Psychotherapeutic techniques

Cochrane reviews of single-session and multiple-session interventions for psychological debriefing indicated that they neither prevent post-traumatic stress disorder nor significantly reduce acute psychological distress when compared with control treatments in adults. 1,3 Further, the reviews recommended against routine use of psychological debriefing to prevent post-traumatic stress disorder. Other analyses showed that people who received psychological debriefing exhibited more severe symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder than controls; 7 that the intervention increased the risk of the stress disorder; 5 and that critical incident stress debriefing, in particular, was potentially harmful. 4 These findings are in stark contrast to the positive results noted in earlier studies by the creators and marketers of critical incident stress debriefing and management. 2,8

Research on the effectiveness and safety of such interventions in schools is very limited. 9 Authors in one Cochrane review noted that they were “unaware of the evidence base surrounding debriefing in children” (16 years or younger). 1 Despite evidence of ineffective and indeed harmful effects in adults and the absence of evidence in children, some schools use these interventions following suicide, accidental death or other traumatic events among their students. Several provinces recommend these interventions in school policy documents, and some school boards employ crisis or grief counsellors. In this light, perhaps we should consider McNally and colleagues’ comments about companies and employees: “Given the absence of data showing that debriefing works, and given some studies suggesting that debriefing may impede natural recovery from trauma, companies may be at heightened risk [for liability] if they do debrief their employees, especially if they fail to provide informed consent.” 6

The evidence clearly points to the ineffectiveness of these interventions in preventing post-traumatic stress disorder or any other psychiatric disorder in adults. Further, with the lack of controlled studies in schools, it is not possible to endorse the use of psychological debriefing in schools on scientific, ethical or legal grounds.

So what should mental health professionals and policy-makers consider as appropriate crisis intervention in schools? Given our current knowledge, it is prudent to develop interventions that promote the following empirically supported principles: a sense of safety; calmness; a sense of self and community efficacy; connectedness; and hope. 10 Preliminary analyses of two programs developed according to these principles show promise of effectiveness: Psychological First Aid 11 could be applied immediately after an incident, and Cognitive Behavioural Intervention for Trauma in Schools 12 could be provided to students who experience psychological distress weeks after a trauma has passed. These interventions could also form part of screening strategies or training of school personnel to help them identify students most at risk. 7

Mental health interventions should be based on best scientific evidence. Our analysis shows no evidence to support the use of psychological debriefing in schools. There is an urgent need to conduct methodologically sound evaluations of psychological debriefing and other mental health interventions in schools before they are widely implemented and to make the results easily available to both educators and health professionals.

    Key points

  • Critical incident stress debriefing and management are interventions for psychological debriefing often used in schools for students affected by suicide, accidental death and trauma.

  • There is a lack of controlled studies that prove the effectiveness or safety of these interventions in schools.

  • Given evidence that these interventions are ineffective and potentially harmful in adults, there is no compelling reason to implement them in schools.

  • Psychological first aid and cognitive behavioural intervention for trauma in schools are showing promising results.

Footnotes

  • Previously published at www.cmaj.ca

    Competing interests: None declared.

    Contributors: Magdalena Szumilas and Yifeng Wei conducted the literature review and analysis and wrote the manuscript. Stan Kutcher conceptualized the commentary and made substantial contributions and revisions to the manuscript. All of the authors approved the final version submitted for publication.

    Acknowledgement: The authors thank Alan McLuckie for his help with the organization of the manuscript.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Rose S, Bisson J, Churchill R, et al. Psychological debriefing for preventing post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) [review]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002;(2): CD000560.
  2. 2.↵
    Everly GS Jr, Flannery RB Jr, Eyler VA. Critical incident stress management (CISM): a statistical review of the literature. Psychiatr Q 2002;73:171–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Roberts NP, Kitchiner NJ, Kenardy J, et al. Multiple session early psychological interventions for the prevention of post-traumatic stress disorder [review]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;(3):CD006869.
  4. 4.↵
    Lilienfeld SO. Psychological treatments that cause harm. Perspect Psychol Sci 2007;2:53–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Cuijpers P, Van Straten A, Smit F. Preventing the incidence of new cases of mental disorders: a meta-analytic review. J Nerv Ment Dis 2005;193:119–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    McNally RJ, Bryant RA, Ehlers A. Does early psychological intervention promote recovery from posttraumatic stress?Psychol Sci Public Interest 2003;4:45–79.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Litz BT, Gray MJ, Bryant RA, et al. Early intervention for trauma: current status and future directions. Clin Psychol Sci Pract 2002;9:112–34.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    Everly GS Jr, Boyle SH. Critical incident stress debriefing (CISD): a meta-analysis. Int J Emerg Ment Health 1999;1:165–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Wethington HR, Hahn RA, Fuqua-Whitley DS, et al. The effectiveness of interventions to reduce psychological harm from traumatic events among children and adolescents: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2008;35:287–313.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Hobfoll SE, Watson P, Bell CC, et al. Five essential elements of immediate and mid-term mass trauma intervention: empirical evidence. Psychiatry 2007;70:283–315
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Ruzek JI, Brymer MJ, Jacobes AK, et al. Psychological first aid. J Ment Health Counsel 2007;29:17–49.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    Ngo V, Langley A, Kataoka SH, et al. Providing evidence-based practice to ethnically diverse youths: examples from the Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS) program. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2008;47:858–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 182 (9)
CMAJ
Vol. 182, Issue 9
15 Jun 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Psychological debriefing in schools
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Psychological debriefing in schools
Magdalena Szumilas, Yifeng Wei, Stan Kutcher
CMAJ Jun 2010, 182 (9) 883-884; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.091621

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Psychological debriefing in schools
Magdalena Szumilas, Yifeng Wei, Stan Kutcher
CMAJ Jun 2010, 182 (9) 883-884; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.091621
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Time for a regulatory framework for pediatric medications in Canada
  • Optimizing timing of completion of the Surgical Safety Checklist to account for emergence from anesthesia
  • Shifting from cytology to HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in Canada
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Pediatrics
    • Psychiatry & mental health: adult

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire