Opvang na schokkende gebeurtenissen: stand van zaken in het wetenschappelijk onderzoek

Abstract

The current state of affairs in scientific study. There has recently been an increasing degree of criticism levelled against the ‘psychological debriefing’ method, and coupled to it is implicit and explicit criticism of all kinds of early–stage psychosocial help to which people have access in the wake of dramatic and disturbing events. The criticism draws on the findings of empirical studies on the effects of such interventions. The present contribution looks at these findings and the methodological shortcomings of effect studies. The authors also question the various arguments for and against help provision, on the basis of scientific insights. The themes covered in this respect are: the speed of the intervention, and one–off meeting or subsequent contacts, emphasis on expressing, or not expressing, emotion. The authors point to the disorder–perspective whereby, on the one hand, relief workers are not fully aware of the shortcomings of the ‘debriefing’ method, and on the other hand, fail to see the other less emotion– or post–traumatic stress–disorder–related results of interventions.