A meta-analysis of 36 crisis intervention studies

Albert R. Roberts, George Everly

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article is designed to increase our knowledge base about effective and contraindicated types of crisis intervention. A number of crisis intervention studies focus on the extent to which psychiatric morbidity (e.g., depressive disorders, suicide ideation, and posttraumatic stress disorder) was reduced as a result of individual or group crisis interventions or multicomponent critical incident stress management (CISM). In addition, family preservation, also known as in-home intensive crisis intervention, focused on the extent to which out-of-home placement of abused children was reduced at follow-up. There are a small number of evidence-based crisis intervention programs with documented effectiveness. This exploratory meta-analysis of the crisis intervention research literature assessed the results of the most commonly used crisis intervention treatment modalities. This exploratory meta-analysis documented high average effect sizes that demonstrated that both adults in acute crisis or with trauma symptoms and abusive families in acute crisis can be helped with intensive crisis intervention and multicomponent CISM in a large number of cases. We conclude that intensive home-based crisis intervention with families as well as multicomponent CISM are effective interventions. Crisis intervention is not a panacea, and booster sessions are often necessary several months to 1 year after completion of the initial intensive crisis intervention program. Good diagnostic criteria are necessary in using this modality because not all situations are appropriate for it.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)10-21
Number of pages12
JournalBrief Treatment and Crisis Intervention
Volume6
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2006

Fingerprint

Crisis Intervention
Meta-Analysis
Knowledge Bases
Depressive Disorder
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders
Suicide
Psychiatry

Keywords

  • Crisis intervention
  • Critical incident stress management
  • Effect size
  • Evidence-based practice
  • Family preservation
  • Meta-analysis
  • Outcome measures

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Applied Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Phychiatric Mental Health

Cite this

A meta-analysis of 36 crisis intervention studies. / Roberts, Albert R.; Everly, George.

In: Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, Vol. 6, No. 1, 01.2006, p. 10-21.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{03a8d09f65f84d9cb3c78faa938cfdb7,
title = "A meta-analysis of 36 crisis intervention studies",
abstract = "This article is designed to increase our knowledge base about effective and contraindicated types of crisis intervention. A number of crisis intervention studies focus on the extent to which psychiatric morbidity (e.g., depressive disorders, suicide ideation, and posttraumatic stress disorder) was reduced as a result of individual or group crisis interventions or multicomponent critical incident stress management (CISM). In addition, family preservation, also known as in-home intensive crisis intervention, focused on the extent to which out-of-home placement of abused children was reduced at follow-up. There are a small number of evidence-based crisis intervention programs with documented effectiveness. This exploratory meta-analysis of the crisis intervention research literature assessed the results of the most commonly used crisis intervention treatment modalities. This exploratory meta-analysis documented high average effect sizes that demonstrated that both adults in acute crisis or with trauma symptoms and abusive families in acute crisis can be helped with intensive crisis intervention and multicomponent CISM in a large number of cases. We conclude that intensive home-based crisis intervention with families as well as multicomponent CISM are effective interventions. Crisis intervention is not a panacea, and booster sessions are often necessary several months to 1 year after completion of the initial intensive crisis intervention program. Good diagnostic criteria are necessary in using this modality because not all situations are appropriate for it.",
keywords = "Crisis intervention, Critical incident stress management, Effect size, Evidence-based practice, Family preservation, Meta-analysis, Outcome measures",
author = "Roberts, {Albert R.} and George Everly",
year = "2006",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1093/brief-treatment/mhj006",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "10--21",
journal = "Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention",
issn = "1474-3310",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A meta-analysis of 36 crisis intervention studies

AU - Roberts, Albert R.

AU - Everly, George

PY - 2006/1

Y1 - 2006/1

N2 - This article is designed to increase our knowledge base about effective and contraindicated types of crisis intervention. A number of crisis intervention studies focus on the extent to which psychiatric morbidity (e.g., depressive disorders, suicide ideation, and posttraumatic stress disorder) was reduced as a result of individual or group crisis interventions or multicomponent critical incident stress management (CISM). In addition, family preservation, also known as in-home intensive crisis intervention, focused on the extent to which out-of-home placement of abused children was reduced at follow-up. There are a small number of evidence-based crisis intervention programs with documented effectiveness. This exploratory meta-analysis of the crisis intervention research literature assessed the results of the most commonly used crisis intervention treatment modalities. This exploratory meta-analysis documented high average effect sizes that demonstrated that both adults in acute crisis or with trauma symptoms and abusive families in acute crisis can be helped with intensive crisis intervention and multicomponent CISM in a large number of cases. We conclude that intensive home-based crisis intervention with families as well as multicomponent CISM are effective interventions. Crisis intervention is not a panacea, and booster sessions are often necessary several months to 1 year after completion of the initial intensive crisis intervention program. Good diagnostic criteria are necessary in using this modality because not all situations are appropriate for it.

AB - This article is designed to increase our knowledge base about effective and contraindicated types of crisis intervention. A number of crisis intervention studies focus on the extent to which psychiatric morbidity (e.g., depressive disorders, suicide ideation, and posttraumatic stress disorder) was reduced as a result of individual or group crisis interventions or multicomponent critical incident stress management (CISM). In addition, family preservation, also known as in-home intensive crisis intervention, focused on the extent to which out-of-home placement of abused children was reduced at follow-up. There are a small number of evidence-based crisis intervention programs with documented effectiveness. This exploratory meta-analysis of the crisis intervention research literature assessed the results of the most commonly used crisis intervention treatment modalities. This exploratory meta-analysis documented high average effect sizes that demonstrated that both adults in acute crisis or with trauma symptoms and abusive families in acute crisis can be helped with intensive crisis intervention and multicomponent CISM in a large number of cases. We conclude that intensive home-based crisis intervention with families as well as multicomponent CISM are effective interventions. Crisis intervention is not a panacea, and booster sessions are often necessary several months to 1 year after completion of the initial intensive crisis intervention program. Good diagnostic criteria are necessary in using this modality because not all situations are appropriate for it.

KW - Crisis intervention

KW - Critical incident stress management

KW - Effect size

KW - Evidence-based practice

KW - Family preservation

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Outcome measures

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=31744441629&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=31744441629&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/brief-treatment/mhj006

DO - 10.1093/brief-treatment/mhj006

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:31744441629

VL - 6

SP - 10

EP - 21

JO - Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention

JF - Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention

SN - 1474-3310

IS - 1

ER -