What works to reduce burnout and vicarious trauma among refugee service providers?
Evidence Database | Advanced Evidence Search | Evidence Summaries
Evidence Summary
December 2020
There is strong evidence for a variety of strategies to reduce vicarious trauma, secondary traumatic stress, compassion fatigue, and burnout among helping professionals.
- A strong body of evidence has developed in the past twenty years on reducing stress reactions among a variety of professional helpers in a wide range of settings and professions.
- Strategies to reduce stress reactions share common features across all the types of staff stress reactions: vicarious trauma, secondary traumatic stress, compassion fatigue, and burnout.
Effective strategies encompass both organizational and self-care interventions.
- The evidence suggests that self-care contributes to reduced stress, but that self-care alone is insufficient to mitigate staff stress and that organizational interventions to foster lower-stress work environments are vital.
Suggestive findings for resettlement staff mirror those for helping professionals generally.
- Three studies on resettlement staff suggest that their stressors and strategies for addressing them are similar to those of helping professionals in other settings. Furthermore, the evidence from studies of refugee service providers suggests that organizational transformation plays a vital role in staff well-being.
Refugee service providers should develop, implement, and evaluate policies and practices to mitigate staff stress reactions.
- Evidence suggests that agencies should implement broad-based staff stress reduction strategies that:
- Educate and engage senior leadership on the need to address staff stress reactions
- Decrease staff workloads
- Create comfortable, confidential workspaces and retreat spaces
- Practice proactive, trauma-informed supervision
- Enhance peer support opportunities
- Individualize stress reduction approaches for each staff member
- Refugee-serving organizations should encourage self-care among their staff, and provide opportunities for staff to use personal activities to reduce stress, but should recognize that self-care is not enough.
- Because the evidence suggests that organizational factors are vital to the well-being of refugee service providers, organizations should examine steps they can take to lower their employees’ stress, such as those listed above. These steps should be based on the work-related risk factors identified in the literature, such as unreasonable workload expectations, lack of management support, and poor communication.
Studies included in the database focused on high-income or upper middle-income countries, including but not limited to the United States. Studies included must have been published since 2000. To identify evidence, we searched the following websites and databases using the following population, methodology, and target intervention terms:
Websites and Databases | Methodology Terms | Target Intervention Terms |
Campbell Collaboration Cochrane Collaboration Evidence Aid Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees Medline CINAHL PsycInfo ASSIA Social Services Abstracts Social Work Abstracts PILOTS |
program OR intervention OR train* OR therapy OR treatment OR workshop OR review OR meta-analysis OR synthesis |
“compassion fatigue” OR “secondary trauma” OR “vicarious trauma” OR burnout |
For databases or websites that permitted only basic searches, free-text terms and limited term combinations were selected out of the lists above, and all resultant studies were reviewed for relevance. Conversely, for databases or websites with advanced search capability, we made use of relevant filters available. All search terms were searched in the title and abstract fields only in order to exclude studies that made only passing mention of the topic under consideration.
After initial screening, Switchboard evidence mapping is prioritized as follows: First priority is given to meta-analyses and systematic reviews, followed by individual impact evaluations when no meta-analyses or systematic reviews are available. Evaluations that are rated as impact evidence are considered before those rated as suggestive, with the latter only being included for outcomes where no evidence is available from the former.