Cited by 196Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health

A Systematic Review of Single-Session Psychological Interventions (‘Debriefing’) following Trauma

Rose, Suzanna, Bisson, Jonathan, Wessely, Simon·2003·Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics

Abstract

Background: Single-session psychological interventions such as psychological debriefing have become widely used following traumatic events. The evidence for their effectiveness has been widely debated. This review aimed to consider the evidence for the effectiveness of one-off early interventions within 1 month of a traumatic event. Methods: A systematic review using the standard Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Literature searches of various databases were performed to identify randomised controlled trials. The methodological quality of the studies identified was determined using standard measures, and the results were pooled to consider the overall evidence for effectiveness. Results: Eleven randomised controlled trials were found, all of individual or couple interventions. Three studies associated the intervention with a positive outcome, 6 demonstrated no difference in outcome between intervention and non-intervention groups and 2 showed some negative outcomes in the intervention group (these studies had the longest follow-up periods). The methodological quality of the studies varied widely, but was generally poor. This review suggests that early optimism for brief early psychological interventions including debriefing was misplaced and that it should not be advocated for routine use. There remains an urgent need for randomised controlled trials of group debriefing and other early interventions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000070781

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rose, S., Bisson, J., & Wessely, S.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital of Wales (GB)
  • King's College Hospital (GB)
Venue
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2003
Volume
72
Issue
4
Pages
176-184
ISSN
  • 0033-3190 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0348
OpenAlex
W2133577113
Cited by
196
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 7
FWCI
2.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Keywords
psychological debriefing, trauma, early psychological intervention, brief intervention, post-traumatic stress, intervention effectiveness, methodological quality of trials, group debriefing
MeSH terms
Counseling, Crisis Intervention, Humans, Psychotherapy, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review