S K Brooks, R Guruswamy, N Greenberg
Overall, efficacy evidence is limited and inconsistent across approaches. However, the strongest evidence suggests that organisations should avoid mandating psychological debriefing.
BACKGROUND: Workers in specialist and other high-risk roles can experience secondary traumatic stress and related symptoms through routine exposure to distressing material, yet organisational responses vary widely. Evidence for the effectiveness of commonly used approaches (e.g. screening, training, counselling/debriefing, mindfulness/resilience) remains uncertain and fragmented.
AIMS: To evaluate the effectiveness of mental health screening, training and psychological interventions in reducing psychological harm for employees exposed to potentially traumatic material.
METHODS: Five databases (Web of Science, Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, Scopus) were searched in March 2025, using a rapid review approach. A total of 9581 citations were screened for relevance; 28 studies were included in the final review.
RESULTS: Quantitative findings showed no benefit of mental health screening, routine counselling, monitoring/periodic assessment, mindfulness or resilience programs; mixed effects for training and neutral-to-adverse findings for debriefing. Qualitative findings favoured supervision and access to informal support; debriefing/counselling results were mixed. Cross-sectional studies suggested associations between better organisational support and fewer psychological stress symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, efficacy evidence is limited and inconsistent across approaches. However, the strongest evidence suggests that organisations should avoid mandating psychological debriefing.