Suchergebnisse

A review of the literature on crisis intervention in practice settings supports the view that, when an individual or a family is in a state of crisis, this mode of treatment is often the most effective because crises, if unresolved, leave those persons involved more vulnerable to life's other problems.

This study assesses the efficacy of the treatment approach implemented in the Bern Crisis Intervention Program, where particular emphasis is placed on the remediation of suicide ideation and suicidal behavior, and depression, fear, and phobia are generally considered to be contributing factors. Four questionnaires addressing psychopathology, emotional well-being, social anxiety, and personality were administered prior to and after the treatment of 51 patients over a period of 2 to 3 weeks. The reduction of symptoms contributing to suicidal ideation and behavior was interpreted as indirect evidence of an antisuicidal effect of the program. Significant improvements were found in the psychopathology ratings, with depression and anxiety showing the largest reductions. The impact on personality and social phobia, however, was only moderate, and on average patients still exhibited symptoms after attending the program. This residual symptomatology points to the necessity of introducing a two-step therapy approach of intensive intervention targeted at the precipitating causes of the crisis, augmented by long-term therapy to treat underlying problems.

"This case book is about crises. It is not about trauma or disaster, although certainly crises occur in both. Overlap of the three areas exist, and while crisis intervention is practiced with traumatic events ranging from lethal auto wrecks to natural disasters, it is very different from long-term trauma therapy. Crisis intervention may include assisting someone who is suicidal or homicidal, but also includes non-life threatening situations such as child custody fights, school failure, drug use, and a host of other situational and transient problems (Myer & James, 2007). In contrast, trauma counseling often follows crisis intervention with people who are not able to re-establish a daily routine because the memory of the incident creates an independent schema that affects functioning over a period of time (McFarlane & Yehuda, 1996). That said, there are different types of crises and we will attempt to portray some of those and the ethical issues that may accompany them. Before going further, we want you know that while writing this book, something became clearer to us. Through our experiences, we knew that the application of ethical principles during crisis intervention is awkward at best, and nearly impossible in the worst-case scenario. How do you maintain confidentiality when working in a Red Cross shelter with a person or family whose house has been destroyed by a wildfire? People are walking around, and you are not in a comfortable private office. What does a crisis worker do when someone is unable to make a phone call to get information or much needed resources? How will the client get the assistance that will help restore a sense of control? You, as the crisis worker, may need to make that phone call to help the person. We found that applying ethical principles in crisis intervention is like putting a square peg into a round hole. Not matter what you do; there are gaps. Please don't misunderstand, we are not suggesting that ethical principles do not apply to crisis intervention work. Rather we are attempting to find a way to apply them in a way that makes sense, and we believe the concepts of Relational Cultural Theory (RCT) (Jordan 2018; Miller 1976; Duffey & Haberstroh, 2020) is a framework to fill in those gaps"--

AbstractThe investigation of causal mechanisms has the capacity to provide donors and implementing institutions with a greater understanding of people's reasoning and reactions as they work with interventions. This chapter contributes to the literature by identifying behavioral mechanisms generated through engagement with climate‐resilient agriculture interventions within a larger livelihood project in Ethiopia. It works through the steps that enabled the study to unpack the black box between the climate‐smart interventions and the outcome of crop production. The first step was a matching‐based sampling design, following households over 3 years with six biannual surveys, and setting up a quasi‐experimental evaluation setting. The second step used the data generated from the surveys in difference‐in‐difference models to assess the impact of the intervention on crop production. Third, to gain insight into the mechanisms at work, Focus Group Discussions (FGD) were conducted with smallholder farmer project beneficiaries. The FGDs revealed what the beneficiaries themselves considered the key mechanisms generated from the intervention, thus forming the bridge between the interventions and outcome. The result was an evaluation design enabling deeper insight into attribution claims. The findings offered novel insights for policymakers about how the climate‐resilient interventions worked for the people themselves and shedding light on the inner workings of the climate‐smart technologies. Finally, they provided key stakeholders (commissioning agency and implementing organizations) with a powerful means by which to learn about the last project, so to better plan for the next iteration and improve the climate resilience of smallholder farmers.