Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:01:27.631Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Impact of Psychological First aid Training on the Providers: A Systematic Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2022

Mitra Movahed
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, HELP University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Melika Khaleghi-Nekou
Affiliation:
Sina Trauma and Surgery Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Elahesadat Alvani
Affiliation:
University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Mahdi Sharif-Alhoseini*
Affiliation:
Sina Trauma and Surgery Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
*
Corresponding author: Mahdi Sharif-Alhoseini, Emails: [email protected], [email protected].
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

The consensus is that psychological first aid is a practical, early psychosocial intervention to mitigate the distress caused by disasters. This review aimed to investigate PFA training’s efficacy in the existing studies and evaluate these programs’ impact on trainees.

Methods:

MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD), EMBASE (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands), PsycInfo (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC), and Cochrane Library (John Wiley & Sons, Hobken, NJ, USA) were searched on August 1, 2020 without language and date limitation. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) (Cochrane, London, UK) were used to assess the quality of the studies included. SPSS (IBM Corp., Endicott, NY, USA) was used for descriptive, comparative, and correlational summaries.

Results:

From 376 articles, only 9 studies met the criteria and were included after screening. The most common outcome was knowledge improvement, followed by increased confidence, and competence. Other outcomes encompassed Attitude, preparedness, and therapeutic engagement.

Conclusion:

PFA is the most suggested early intervention aftermath and could be acquired by professionals and non-professionals in the mental health area. Nonetheless, to obtain the desired outcome, PFA training programs’ quality is vital. This review revealed that most training programs’ duration was short, without scenario-based interactions and post-training supervisions. More controlled trials are required to measure the effectiveness of PFA training on the providers.

Type
Systematic Review
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc.

Significant acceleration in psychological distress and dysfunction in both survivors and first responders, is a consequent product of every disaster. Reference Everly, McCabe, Semon, Thompson and Links1 Whether it is a great disaster causing severe injuries and disturbances to many people such as hurricanes, or a devastating event that involves individuals or a family like horrendous accidents, house fire, or domestic violence, there is an urge to attend to those affected. Reference Vernberg, Steinberg and Jacobs2 Psychological first aid (PFA) is suggested to be used as the immediate administration aftermath. Reference Uhernik and Husson3

PFA is a method used globally to assist individuals affected by crises, disasters, or catastrophic events. Reference Sijbrandij, Horn and Esliker4 It is an evidence-informed method designed to diminish the distress elicited by adverse occurrences and facilitate the process of adaptive functioning and coping. Reference Ruzek, Brymer, Jacobs, Layne, Vernberg and Watson5,Reference Brymer, Layne and Jacobs6 Unlike psychotherapy that is given by mental health professionals in specific settings where the incidents are discussed in-depth, Reference Everly, McCabe, Semon, Thompson and Links1 PFA can be acquired by anyone who is in a position to provide support in disastrous events, including disaster relief organization workforces, volunteers, health care workers, educators, and others. Having a background in mental health-related areas is not essential for PFA providers 7 ; moreover, it can be applied in the field and does not require a specific setting. Reference Uhernik and Husson3 Learning PFA skills could also benefit helpers in their everyday duties to provide support in the wake of catastrophes. 7

PFA training modules need to enable learners to gain rudimentary knowledge vital for on the spot mental health intervention, and empower providers with technical self-efficacy and self-confidence to have an optimal impact on public health. Reference Everly, McCabe, Semon, Thompson and Links1

The usefulness of PFA as an immediate intervention in disastrous events and for people affected by those occurrences is of consensus. Reference Horn, O’May and Esliker8 Nevertheless, there is still little evidence in literature regarding the optimal duration, method, and protocols used in PFA training worldwide. This paper aimed to investigate the impact of PFA training on the providers through different training methods, various training durations, and participants with dissimilar backgrounds and positions.

Methods

This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Reference Moher, Shamseer and Clarke9 We performed a search on MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine Bethesda, MD), EMBASE (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands), PsycInfo (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC), and Cochrane Library (John Wiley & Sons, Hobken, NJ, USA) by using keywords related to psychological first aid without language or date restriction on August 1, 2020. We hand-searched reference lists of relevant reviews, emailed authors of conference abstracts for further information, and 2 reviewers screened the titles, and abstracts independently. All studies assessing the efficacy of PFA training on care providers were included. Duplicate articles, editorials, commentaries, and reviews were excluded.

In order to assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (Cochrane, London, UK), Reference Higgins, Altman and Gøtzsche10 and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool (Cochrane, London, UK) for non-randomized studies of interventions. Reference Sterne, Hernán and Reeves11 The purpose of data extraction was to obtain the study design, the country in which the study was conducted, participants’ baseline information, type of training, and outcomes from each study consistently to interpret and analyze the findings. The data extraction was carried out by 2 researchers.

Any disagreements were discussed and resolved by a third reviewer if required. Descriptive, comparative, and correlational summaries were performed using SPSS (IBM Corp., Endicott, NY, USA).

Results

A PRISMA flow diagram outlining the results at each step can be found in Figure 1. Initial papers identified through literature search yielded 376 articles. No additional article was added after hand searching and checking the reference lists of relevant reviews. In total, we excluded 367 articles because they were duplicate, non-relevant, and letters.

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of literature search.

Out of the 9 included articles, 1 consisted of 2 independent studies. Reference Lee, You, Choi, Youn and Shin12 Therefore, we considered both as 2 separate studies. Out of the studies that met inclusion criteria, 2 were RCT, and 8 before-after quasi-experiments (Table 1). All studies were performed after 2009. Table 2 shows the risk of bias assessment of the included RCTs and quasi-experimental studies.

Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies

*↑: increase; ↓: decrease, **Randomized Control Trial

Table 2. Risk of bias summary for included studies

The method of training, in all studies, was face-to-face group training. A total of 3 studies used simulation-based training and role-playing too, that led to better outcomes. The training length was 4-6 hours in 80 percent of studies (Table 1). The increase in knowledge was the most common outcome reported in 70 percent of studies, followed by confidence and competence (50% and 40%, respectively). Attitude (20%), preparedness (20%), and therapeutic engagement (10%) were the other outcomes. Most of the studies were done in the United States (n = 4, 40%).

Discussion

This review’s finding indicated that PFA training improved participants’ knowledge, competence, and confidence in providing psychosocial intervention regardless of trainees’ baseline information, the place of study, duration, and method used. It was also reported that acquiring PFA skills increased providers’ confidence in working with both adults and children Reference Allen, Brymer and Steinberg19 ; therefore, it could be considered a practical framework to deliver support during a catastrophe.

Additionally, acquiring fundamental principles of PFA reminded participants of the importance of nonverbal communication and listening skills were pointed out as main components. Reference Chandra, Kim and Pieters17 It is worth mentioning that in 1 study, higher satisfaction with PFA was reported by individuals who had no previous emergency response experience when compared to experienced participants. Reference Allen, Brymer and Steinberg19

According to table 2, most of the studies were quasi-experiments (78%), and more than half of the studies (60%) had acceptable quality; however, to precisely measure the effectiveness of an intervention, controlled trials are preferred. All articles included in this review were written in the past decade, which portrays that the topic is relatively novel and demands more attention and scrutiny.

Horn et al. (2019) discussed that PFA acquisition is not as easy as it is proposed. It is expected that trainees could learn empathic psychosocial support and become equipped with the required skills to deliver it effectively in a short time. However, it is unlikely to be feasible to adapt pre-existing attitudes and lifetime learned responses, which may be aligned with one’s social and cultural norms, to a different pattern of responding in only a day. Reference Horn, O’May and Esliker8 The other controversy about 1-day PFA training is that although it might be sufficient for some people with good communication skills and high empathy levels, most non-professional trainees cannot deliver adequate, supportive, and harmless psychosocial service during the time frame. Reference Horn, O’May and Esliker8 Despite these critiques regarding 1-day PFA workshops’ efficacy, our findings revealed that most training sessions took place in a day. Reference Sijbrandij, Horn and Esliker4,Reference Lee, You, Choi, Youn and Shin12,Reference Kantaris, Radcliffe, Acott, Hughes and Chambers14,Reference Chandra, Kim and Pieters17Reference Allen, Brymer and Steinberg19

Moreover, studies suggest that for empathy training to be practical, it requires all 4 behavioral training skills, namely instruction, modelling, practice, and feedback, and it should be genuinely experiential, which means role-playing, and receiving feedback on one’s performance are essential for each of the participants in order to strengthen the acquisition and develop new concepts and skills. Reference Teding van Berkhout and Malouff20 Training effectiveness is less when participants are merely being exposed to a demonstration, observing other trainees role-play, or participating in role-playing without receiving individualized feedback, which often is the case as the time is short and the number of participants is large. Reference Teding van Berkhout and Malouff20 There were only 3 programs in which role-playing and simulation-based scenarios were used among the studies we reviewed, and those 3 had better outcomes compared to other training programs.

The other factor reported to be a prominent predictor in changing behavior is post-training supervision. Reference Bertram, Blase and Fixsen21 There is no evidence of post-training supervision in studies conducted to examine the efficacy of PFA training. Although some studies had follow-ups to measure the lasting effect of training on participants for up to 6 months, a decrease in the results over time indicated the necessity of reconducting the training program. Reference Kılıç and Şimşek13

Conclusion

It is important to note that although PFA is the most recommended immediate intervention aftermath and could be acquired by anyone willing to help disaster-affected people, the quality of PFA training is the key to obtaining the desired outcome; non-harmful, empathic, psychosocial support during emergencies. As mentioned by Horn et al. (2019), the misleading assumption that PFA is a low-cost and easy to learn approach often results in short training programs with minimum or no follow-ups. Reference Horn, O’May and Esliker8 The current review also supported this notion that most of the training programs concerning PFA have been short, with few scenario-based interactions and role-playing opportunities, and without post-training supervisions. Hence, to observe the extent of PFA training efficacy on providers, more studies with higher quality training programs are required.

Funding statement

Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran (No. 99-1-93-41971), supported this study.

Author contributions

MS and EA designed the study. MS developed the search strategy. MM and MKN performed data screening, acquisition, and appraising the quality of studies. MM wrote the manuscript. MS and EA were involved in the critical revision of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final draft.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

Everly, GS Jr, McCabe, OL, Semon, NL, Thompson, CB, Links, JM. The development of a model of psychological first aid for non–mental health trained public health personnel: the Johns Hopkins RAPID-PFA. JPHMP. 2014;20:S24-S29.Google Scholar
Vernberg, EM, Steinberg, AM, Jacobs, AK, et al. Innovations in disaster mental health: Psychological first aid. Prof Psychol Res Pract. 2008;39(4):381-388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhernik, JA, Husson, MA. Psychological first aid: An evidence informed approach for acute disaster behavioral health response. Compelling counseling interventions: VISTAS. 2009;200(9):271-280.Google Scholar
Sijbrandij, M, Horn, R, Esliker, R, et al. The effect of psychological first aid training on knowledge and understanding about psychosocial support principles: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(2):484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruzek, JI, Brymer, MJ, Jacobs, AK, Layne, CM, Vernberg, EM, Watson, PJ. Psychological first aid. J Ment Health Couns. 2007;29(1):17-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brymer, M, Layne, C, Jacobs, A, et al. Psychological first aid field operations guide. NCTSN. 2006.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. Psychological first aid: Facilitator’s manual for orienting field workers. Geneva: WHO; 2013.Google Scholar
Horn, R, O’May, F, Esliker, R, et al. The myth of the 1-day training: the effectiveness of psychosocial support capacity-building during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. GMH. 2019;6.Google ScholarPubMed
Moher, D, Shamseer, L, Clarke, M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, JP, Altman, DG, Gøtzsche, PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343.Google ScholarPubMed
Sterne, JA, Hernán, MA, Reeves, BC, et al. ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, JS, You, S, Choi, YK, Youn, HY, Shin, HS. A preliminary evaluation of the training effects of a didactic and simulation-based psychological first aid program in students and school counselors in South Korea. PloS One. 2017;12(7):e0181271. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181271 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kılıç, N, Şimşek, N. The effects of psychological first aid training on disaster preparedness perception and self-efficacy. Nurse Educ Today. 2019;83:104203. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.104203 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kantaris, X, Radcliffe, M, Acott, K, Hughes, P, Chambers, M. Training healthcare assistants working in adult acute inpatient wards in psychological first aid: an implementation and evaluation study. J Psychiatr Ment Health. 2020;27(6):742-751.Google ScholarPubMed
Ford-Paz, RE, Santiago, CD, Coyne CA, et al. You’re not alone: A public health response to immigrant/refugee distress in the current sociopolitical context. Psychol Serv. 2020;17(S1):128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akoury-Dirani, L, Sahakian, TS, Hassan, FY, Hajjar, RV, El Asmar, K. Psychological first aid training for Lebanese field workers in the emergency context of the Syrian refugees in Lebanon. Psychol Trauma. 2015;7(6):533-538. doi: 10.1037/tra0000028 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chandra, A, Kim, J, Pieters, HC, et al. Implementing psychological first-aid training for medical reserve corps volunteers. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2014;8(1):95-100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCabe, OL, Semon, NL, Lating, JM, et al. An academic-government-faith partnership to build disaster mental health preparedness and community resilience. Public Health Rep. 2014;129(6_suppl4):96-106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, B, Brymer, MJ, Steinberg, AM, et al. Perceptions of psychological first aid among providers responding to Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. J Trauma Stress. 2010;23(4):509-513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teding van Berkhout, E, Malouff, JM. The efficacy of empathy training: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Couns Psychol. 2016;63(1):32-41. doi: 10.1037/cou0000093 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertram, RM, Blase, KA, Fixsen, DL. Improving programs and outcomes: implementation frameworks and organization change. Res Soc Work Pract. 2015;25(4):477-487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of literature search.

Figure 1

Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies

Figure 2

Table 2. Risk of bias summary for included studies