SynthesisBMC psychology2026
Interventions for secondary traumatic stress among mental health professionals serving trauma-affected populations: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMental health professionals (MHPs) working with trauma-affected populations face a significant risk of developing Secondary Traumatic Stress (STS), a condition mirroring post-traumatic stress symptoms due to indirect exposure to trauma. Despite the growing awareness of STS, there remains limited systematic evidence on the effectiveness of interventions specifically targeting STS among MHPs.
objectiveThis systematic review aimed to identify and synthesize empirical studies published between 2013 and 2025 that evaluated interventions designed to reduce STS symptoms in mental health professionals, social workers, and volunteers providing direct psychological support to trauma-exposed individuals.
methodsFollowing PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs, and pilot interventions that assessed STS using validated tools such as the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale (STSS) or the STS subscale of the Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQOL). Studies were excluded unless STS was explicitly assessed. Three studies met the inclusion criteria. Only psychological or psychosocial interventions (e.g., supervision, emotion-focused training, self-efficacy training, wellness programs with psychological components) were included in the review.
resultsInterventions included internet-based self-efficacy training, emotion-focused training, and multimodal wellness programs. All studies reported post-intervention reductions in STS symptoms, with statistically significant improvements in related variables such as self-efficacy, burnout, and compassion satisfaction. Group-based and digital delivery formats were prevalent, with durations ranging from 2 weeks to 9 weeks.
conclusionThe review highlights the promising impact of targeted interventions in reducing STS among trauma-facing professionals. While findings support the effectiveness of various approaches, especially those enhancing emotional regulation and self-compassion, further large-scale, longitudinal trials with rigorous outcome assessments are warranted to inform evidence-based mental health workforce policies and practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.