ReviewOccupational medicine (Oxford, England)2026
Effectiveness of psychological interventions for remote workplace trauma: an evidence review.
Review in Occupational medicine (Oxford, England), 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWorkers 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.
aimsTo evaluate the effectiveness of mental health screening, training and psychological interventions in reducing psychological harm for employees exposed to potentially traumatic material.
methodsFive 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.
resultsQuantitative 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.
conclusionsOverall, efficacy evidence is limited and inconsistent across approaches. However, the strongest evidence suggests that organisations should avoid mandating psychological debriefing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42593087What 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.