ABSTRACT

We conducted a systematic review of the empirical literature examining the effectiveness of psychological interventions for post-traumatic symptomatology in police, firefighters, and paramedic personnel. The review process was guided by the PRISMA statement (Moher et al. [2009]. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097) and Institute of Medicine’s Standards for Systematic Reviews (IOM [2011]. Finding what works in health care: Standards for systematic reviews. nihlibrary.nih.gov/sites/default/files/Finding_What_Works_in_Health_Care_StandardsforSystematic_Reviews_IOM_2011.pdf). An inter-disciplinary, multi-national research team with expertise in mental health trauma and occupational stress in high risk professions was engaged at each stage of the review. Two team members rated each study in terms of quality and contribution to the research question. Twenty-one studies were identified: 9 case studies, 2 single-group studies, 8 randomised controlled trials, and 2 studies examining work leave. Most of the studies were limited by small sample sizes and absence of active control conditions. Research limitations reduce the ability to draw definitive best practices recommendations; however, the increase in randomised controlled trials provides encouraging signs that trauma-focused psychotherapies can be effective for first responders.

摘要

我们对经验文献进行了系统的回顾，以检验心理干预对警察，消防员和护理人员的创伤后症状的有效性。审查过程是由PRISMA声明引导（莫赫等人[2009]首选的报告系统评价和荟萃分析项目：。在PRISMA声明PLoS医学，6（7），e1000097 https://doi.org /10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097）和医学研究所的系统评价标准（IOM [2011]。寻找在医疗保健领域行之有效的方法：系统评价的标准。nihlibrary.nih.gov/sites/default/files/Finding_What_Works_in_Health_Care_StandardsforSystematic_Reviews_IOM_2011.pdf）。在审查的每个阶段，都组建了一个跨学科的跨国研究团队，该团队在精神健康创伤和高风险职业中的职业压力方面具有专业知识。两名团队成员根据质量和对研究问题的贡献对每个研究进行了评分。确定了21项研究：9项案例研究，2项单组研究，8项随机对照试验和2项检查工作假的研究。大多数研究受到样本量小和缺乏有效对照条件的限制。研究的局限性降低了制定明确的最佳实践建议的能力；然而，