Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25503520›Full record

ReviewPloS one2014

A systematic literature search on psychological first aid: lack of evidence to develop guidelines.

Tessa Dieltjens, Inge Moonens, Koen Van Praet, Emmy De Buck, Philippe Vandekerckhove

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02608086 (Psychological First Aid), which is not on this map. Cited by 53 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02608086 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

Psychological First Aid: A Randomized-controlled Trial of Adults Affected by Non-intentional Trauma in the Emergency Room

TypeinterventionalSponsorPontificia Universidad Catolica de ChileRan2015 to 2016Enrolled220ConditionsPTSDArmsPsychoeducation, Psychological First Aid
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. A Rapid Realist Review of Group Psychological First Aid for Humanitarian Workers and Volunteers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Tessa DieltjensCentre for Evidence-based Practice, Belgian Red Cross-Flanders , Mechelen, Belgium.
Inge MoonensPsychosocial Intervention Service, Belgian Red Cross-Flanders, Mechelen, Belgium.
Koen Van PraetPsychosocial Intervention Service, Belgian Red Cross-Flanders, Mechelen, Belgium.
Emmy De BuckCentre for Evidence-based Practice, Belgian Red Cross-Flanders , Mechelen, Belgium.
Philippe VandekerckhoveCentre for Evidence-based Practice, Belgian Red Cross-Flanders , Mechelen, Belgium; Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProviding psychological first aid (PFA) is generally considered to be an important element in preliminary care of disaster victims. Using the best available scientific basis for courses and educational materials, the Belgian Red Cross-Flanders wants to ensure that its volunteers are trained in the best way possible.

objectiveTo identify effective PFA practices, by systematically reviewing the evidence in existing guidelines, systematic reviews and individual studies.

methodsSystematic literature searches in five bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, PILOTS and G-I-N) were conducted from inception to July 2013.

resultsFive practice guidelines were included which were found to vary in the development process (AGREE II score 20-53%) and evidence base used. None of them provides solid evidence concerning the effectiveness of PFA practices. Additionally, two systematic reviews of PFA were found, both noting a lack of studies on PFA. A complementary search for individual studies, using a more sensitive search strategy, identified 11 237 references of which 102 were included for further full-text examination, none of which ultimately provides solid evidence concerning the effectiveness of PFA practices.

conclusionThe scientific literature on psychological first aid available to date, does not provide any evidence about the effectiveness of PFA interventions. Currently it is impossible to make evidence-based guidelines about which practices in psychosocial support are most effective to help disaster and trauma victims.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicDisastersEvidence-Based MedicineFirst AidHumansMental Disorders

Identifiers

PMID25503520
PMCPMC4264843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.