EDITORIAL COMMENTS

Multiple stressor debriefing has evolved as an adaptation of debriefing processes to a framework for dealing with the multiple and often prolonged stresses involved in disaster relief work, for instance in the weeks and months following an earthquake in a devastated community. As Armstrong points out the stresses in these circumstances are multiple and not so clearly identifiable as those in the acute rescue phase. Workers may come from multiple settings, may not have been trained to work together, and may not have been adequately briefed or prepared for their contribution.

The author describes the model he and his group have evolved and provides examples of its implementation. The model is reported to be flexible and able to be used in individual, family or group situations according to specific need. It is of interest to see the potential of family-based interventions in this context and their possible normalizing roles. The intervention or debriefing model proposed is more positive and involves four phases: disclosure of events; feelings and reactions to these; coping strategies; and a termination phase that focusses on learning and integration. This more positive model may in and of itself have benefits as it appears not to pathologize the experience. Furthermore, as described, the model appears to provide for implementation in frameworks linked to need and also for opportunities for a screening approach to identify those in need of more ongoing clinical services.