Citation

Forbes D, Fletcher S, Wolfgang B, Varker T, Creamer MC, Brymer MJ, Ruzek JI, Watson P, Bryant RA. Aust. N. Zeal. J. Psychiatry 2010; 44(12): 1105-1111.

Affiliation

Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Level 1, 340 Albert St, East Melbourne, Victoria 3081, Australia.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2010, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.3109/00048674.2010.513674

PMID

21070106

Abstract

Objective: Following the February 2009 Victorian bushfires, Australia's worst natural disaster, the Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, in collaboration with key trauma experts, developed a three-tiered approach to psychological recovery initiatives for survivors with training specifically designed for each level. The middle level intervention, designed for delivery by allied health and primary care practitioners for survivors with ongoing mild-moderate distress, involved a protocol still in draft form called Skills for Psychological Recovery (SPR). SPR was developed by the US National Center for PTSD and US National Child Traumatic Stress Network. This study examined health practitioner perceptions of the training in, and usefulness of, SPR. Methods: From a range of disciplines 342 health practitioners attended one of 25 one-day workshops on the delivery of SPR. Perceptions of evidence-based care and attitudes to manualized interventions were assessed at the commencement of the workshop. Following the workshop, participants' perceptions of their confidence in applying, and perceived usefulness of, each module were assessed. A subset of 20 participants recorded their ongoing use of SPR recording 61 cases. Results: The vast majority of participants rated the SPR modules as useful for survivors of disasters and expressed confidence in implementing the intervention following the training. Participants' pre-workshop attitudes towards evidence-based care and manualized interventions affected their perceptions of the usefulness of the protocol. The 'Promoting positive activities' and 'Rebuilding healthy social connections' modules were least influenced by variations in these perceptions. Conclusions: This study provides preliminary evidence that SPR is perceived by health providers from varying disciplines and paradigms as an acceptable and useful intervention for disaster survivors with moderate levels of mental health difficulties. Future SPR dissemination efforts may benefit from focusing on modules with the strongest evidence base and which are most amenable to practitioner acceptance and uptake.

Language: en