Just to clarify, I referred to debriefing, and not to decompression. I also mentioned that there was a consensus—in other words, a significant number of researchers agree that debriefing is not effective.
The clear consensus that has emerged is that debriefing does not prevent post-traumatic stress disorder. Perhaps I could begin by explaining what is meant by debriefing, before talking about what is paradoxical about all of these studies.
Debriefing is a form of intervention that generally occurs between 24 and 48 hours after a traumatic event—for example, a bank robbery. Within 24 to 48 hours of the event occurring, a psychologist or other mental health worker comes to speak with victims and, for about an hour, he gives people an opportunity to ventilate about the event by helping them through a number of different steps. He or she begins by getting them to talk about the facts, their emotions, and so on. So, that is a debriefing, as designed and generally applied in the business setting, but also in relation to different types of victims.
That is what I was referring to when I said it is not effective. Is “decompression” a process whereby soldiers have an opportunity to decompress somewhere for a week or so before coming back to Canada?