Article type
Abstract
Background
Volunteers of the Social Intervention Service (SIS) of the Belgian Red Cross provide support to people, notably other Belgian Red Cross volunteers, who have been exposed to a shocking, (potentially) traumatic event. This support is offered either individually (often via telephone) or in groups.
Objectives
The objectives of the projects were to update 2 manuals (1 on individual and 1 on group interventions) used to train SIS volunteers in providing psychosocial support following a traumatic event.
Methods
The Centre for Evidence-Based Practice of the Belgian Red Cross systematically searched 4 databases to gather the best available evidence on the effectiveness of brief face-to-face psychological group interventions and individual support via telecommunication. The evidence was discussed during in-person meetings with a multidisciplinary expert panel composed of academic experts, professional support workers, experts from crisis helplines, psychologists, and SIS volunteers.
Results
Only low- to very low-certainty evidence was found for both projects, which did not confirm that the group interventions used by SIS volunteers were effective at reducing post-traumatic stress symptoms, depression, and anxiety or improving quality of life. No evidence was found regarding the efficacy and content of individual psychosocial support interventions delivered via telecommunication that were sufficiently comparable to the help provided by trained SIS volunteers. Studies did suggest no difference between (professional) individual psychological treatment via video or telephone compared with face-to-face delivery.
When there was insufficient evidence, the panel formulated good practice points by drawing on practical experience, leveraging the diverse backgrounds of the panelists, and considering the needs of the target audience. Based on the evidence and expert discussions, the panel recommended that the focus of the group intervention should be shifted to mapping current experiences and problems regarding the event and promoting peer support. Recommendations for providing effective individual psychosocial support via telephone were also discussed.
Conclusions
Evidence-based practice is based on the available scientific evidence, combined with the preference of the target audience and the input from experts. When developing evidence-based guidelines for interventions for which little or no direct evidence is available, the input of a multidisciplinary expert panel is especially important.
Volunteers of the Social Intervention Service (SIS) of the Belgian Red Cross provide support to people, notably other Belgian Red Cross volunteers, who have been exposed to a shocking, (potentially) traumatic event. This support is offered either individually (often via telephone) or in groups.
Objectives
The objectives of the projects were to update 2 manuals (1 on individual and 1 on group interventions) used to train SIS volunteers in providing psychosocial support following a traumatic event.
Methods
The Centre for Evidence-Based Practice of the Belgian Red Cross systematically searched 4 databases to gather the best available evidence on the effectiveness of brief face-to-face psychological group interventions and individual support via telecommunication. The evidence was discussed during in-person meetings with a multidisciplinary expert panel composed of academic experts, professional support workers, experts from crisis helplines, psychologists, and SIS volunteers.
Results
Only low- to very low-certainty evidence was found for both projects, which did not confirm that the group interventions used by SIS volunteers were effective at reducing post-traumatic stress symptoms, depression, and anxiety or improving quality of life. No evidence was found regarding the efficacy and content of individual psychosocial support interventions delivered via telecommunication that were sufficiently comparable to the help provided by trained SIS volunteers. Studies did suggest no difference between (professional) individual psychological treatment via video or telephone compared with face-to-face delivery.
When there was insufficient evidence, the panel formulated good practice points by drawing on practical experience, leveraging the diverse backgrounds of the panelists, and considering the needs of the target audience. Based on the evidence and expert discussions, the panel recommended that the focus of the group intervention should be shifted to mapping current experiences and problems regarding the event and promoting peer support. Recommendations for providing effective individual psychosocial support via telephone were also discussed.
Conclusions
Evidence-based practice is based on the available scientific evidence, combined with the preference of the target audience and the input from experts. When developing evidence-based guidelines for interventions for which little or no direct evidence is available, the input of a multidisciplinary expert panel is especially important.