Abstract

Stressful life situations can generate chronic symptomatology, so it is of great concern to analyze preventive strategies. Psychological debriefing is an intervention for acute trauma, which verbalizes perceptions, thoughts, and emotions experienced during a recent traumatic event. The evidence surrounding its efficacy is controversial. This article discusses the efficacy of psychological debriefing based on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. In all, nine systematic reviews were included. Only one of them found that psychological debriefing effectively decreased psychological stress, while the remaining eight found no significant effects for outcomes such stress, depressive and anxious symptoms, or development and severity of post-traumatic stress disorder. Moreover, two clinical trials found that the intervention had a significantly deleterious effect. Another study found a worsening in the symptomatology associated with the event. Of the eight clinical practice guidelines incorporated, none recommended psychological debriefing as an intervention for acute trauma. Some phenomena could explain the lack of success of the intervention in the scientific evidence. The bioethical conditions related to the traumatic scenario hinder its research, and its lack of standardization makes its evaluation in clinical trials problematic. Other variables such as ethnicity, personality, culture, gender, and history of traumatic experiences have been little considered in research. Nevertheless, the intervention may hinder the adequate processing of traumatic memory and emotions. Current evidence is consistent in not recommending psychological debriefing as an intervention for acute trauma, so its management should avoid it. It is suggested to promote research on preventive interventions to develop chronic traumatic symptomatology.