A systematic research review: How to best treat post-traumatic stress disorder in children post-natural disaster

ABSTRACT

This paper is a systematic research review examining the best treatment intervention for children experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or PTSD-like symptoms after a natural disaster event. Research articles (12) were reviewed using a checklist that assesses face, content, and criterion validity: 9 quantitative, 2 mixed-methods, and 1 qualitative, to determine best screening and intervention practices to reduce the negative symptoms resulting from trauma. Researchers in the cited studies collected data via phone interviews, face-to-face interviews, surveys, self-evaluations, observation methods, teacher and social worker assessments, and parent assessments. For the purpose of this paper, we focused on the question: What is the best way to screen for and treat PTSD in children in post-natural disaster areas? Based on these studies, we identified three major themes: 1) the treatment of PTSD is necessary in post-natural disaster children; 2) school-based screenings (with considerations) are the most viable way to screen children for PTSD; and 3) CBT is the most universal intervention for children post-disaster. We included additional findings on EMDR and parenting techniques. More research needs to be done on the impact of family dynamics in post-natural disaster treatment and the long-term effects of experiencing a natural disaster.

KEYWORDS:

• Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
• eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR)
• cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)
• natural disaster

Declaration of interest statement

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest in terms of research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

1. Downs and Black (1998) quality assessment score: separate scores are given for each section (reporting, internal validity, external validity) and the overall total score. (Good = 20–28; Fair = 15–19; Poor = <14). Papers were rated as “good,” “fair,” or “poor” depending on the numerical score assigned to the paper.

Additional information

Funding

The authors disclose that financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article was not received.