Defining secondary traumatic stress and developing targeted assessments and interventions: Lessons learned from research and leading experts.

Abstract

Secondary traumatic stress (STS) impacts many helping professionals and staff who are indirectly exposed to the graphic details of others’ traumatic experiences and to the posttraumatic stress symptoms of those persons. A nascent but growing database documents the nature and effects of STS, but no consensus definition exists for STS. As a result, there has not been a systematic program of research and development for STS preventive, and ameliorative interventions. Current STS interventions tend to focus on generic wellness, health promotion, workplace safety, worker morale, and self-care rather than addressing the specific effects of indirect exposure to others’ traumatic events or traumatic stress reactions. To address this gap, a scientific meeting of STS experts convened to consider the science regarding STS interventions and to create an agenda for advancing the field toward the development of evidence-based treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder following indirect exposure. This article reports on meeting findings, reviews the evidence supporting treatment of STS, and identifies symptom targets, best practice treatment approaches, and strategies for moving the field forward.

Secondary traumatisation, burn-out and functional impairment: findings from a study of Danish child protection workers

“…Secondary traumatization is characterized by symptoms of posttraumatic stress following indirect exposure to aversive details of trauma (Greinacher, Derezza-Greeven, Herzog, & Nikendei, 2019) and is particularly prone among professionals working with child survivors of abuse (Sprang, Craig, & Clark, 2011). While secondary traumatization is an important topic for both research and practice in psychotraumatology, there is considerable controversy surrounding its validity, measurement and importance (Elwood, Mott, Lohr, & Galovski, 2011;Molnar et al, 2017;Sprang, Ford, Kerig, & Bride, 2018). Specifically, the conceptualization and mechanism implicated in work-related secondary traumatization have been questioned (Elwood et al, 2011;Kanter, 2007;Pross, 2014;Pross & Schweitzer, 2010), inspiring researchers to rethink and reconsider the concept of secondary traumatization.…”

“…Two positions are prominent in this debate: one position argues that there is a lack of evidence supporting the existence of a unique syndrome-related first and foremost to the clinical work with trauma-survivors (Elwood et al, 2011;Kadambi & Ennis, 2004;Sabin-Farrell & Turpin, 2003). In contrast, another position recognizes issues surrounding the terminology and/or operationalizations of work-related indirect traumatization as pivotal obstacles for advancing science and practice in the field, while not calling upon these challenges to contest the reality of the syndrome itself (Horesh, 2016;Molnar et al, 2017;Sprang et al, 2018;Stamm, 1997;Walsh, Mathieu, & Hendricks, 2017). Indeed, despite a number of measures available to operationalize secondary traumatization, there are two major gaps in our current understanding: studies are lacking that investigate the severity of secondary traumatization in terms of functional impairment (PTSD Criterion G, APA, 2013), and evidence for the psychometric quality of the available measures is equivocal (Elwood et al, 2011;Sprang et al, 2018).…”

Aggression toward teachers, interaction with school shooting media, and secondary trauma: Lockdown drills as moderator

“…Therefore, individuals who suffer from intrusive thoughts, avoidance, reactivity, and changes in cognition and mood in response to secondary exposure to trauma would not qualify as having PTSD. They would instead be considered to have secondary traumatic stress, which is thought to be a parallel process to PTSD (Sprang, Ford, Kerig, & Bride, ).…”

Secondary Traumatic Stress in Teachers and School Communities Impacted by the Opioid Epidemic

“…Notably, the researchers started with a pool of 4,134 titles. Sprang et al (2019) supported this same idea by noting, "the lack of a strong evidence base to inform STS assessment and intervention" (p. 74). Sprang et al list the following, although with the caveat that there is not an evidence-base for these interventions:…”

“…Discriminating STS from other definitions. Sprang, Ford, Kerig, and Bride (2019) noted that there are still some inconsistencies in the way that STS is defined and measured. Based on the numerous definitions, it might be useful to evaluate how STS compares to similarly situated reactions (see Table 2-2).…”