Stabilization Groups in Context: The Missing Link Between First Aid and Specialist Care

By Matthias Behrends

Review & Opinion

TL;DR

• The question: Between the first aid a volunteer gives in the first hours and the specialist a district may not have, there is a stretch of weeks. What stands there, for the person who is safe but not steady?
• The architecture: The humanitarian field agrees on a layered model of support. The middle layer, focused support delivered by trained non-specialists, is where most people wait.
• What already stands there: Problem Management Plus, Group Problem Management Plus, Self-Help Plus, and Skills for Psychological Recovery are real, tested answers. Each needs screening or a course structure, trained and supervised helpers, and materials that many districts do not have.
• The missing link is a function, not a programme on paper: a repeatable, emotional-level stabilization practice that the helpers already present can run, in a group, without personal disclosure, with a stop right in every participant's hands and a referral route out.
• The candidate: Deep Emotional Stabilization Groups are built for exactly that place. The complete format has not been evaluated as a whole intervention, and this article states the size of the evidence exactly.
• Conclusion: A bridge is not a gate. Keep first aid first, keep referral open, and put a stabilization practice where the people are.

Most people who are still not sleeping three weeks after a flood, a bombing, or a displacement will never see a psychiatrist. Many will not see a counsellor either. They will see the teacher, the nurse, the volunteer, the community worker, and the neighbour who trained in first aid. Those helpers are the only trained support layer most districts can count on in the weeks after. What they have been taught to do in those weeks is the subject of this article.

This is a placement question, not a contest between methods. The Academy's earlier articles read Psychological First Aid in context and analysed the World Health Organization's Problem Management Plus on its own terms. This article asks where a stabilization practice belongs in the support system as a whole, and whether anything of that shape already stands where the helpers work.

The missing link is not a programme on paper. It is a stabilization practice where the people are.

1. The architecture everyone agrees on

The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) published its Guidelines on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings in 2007. Their best-known figure is a pyramid with four layers of support: basic services and security; community and family supports; focused, non-specialised supports; and specialised services. The picture has been reproduced in almost every mental health and psychosocial support training since. It is the shared map.

The pyramid tells the truth about scale. Most people affected by a crisis need the two lower layers. The third layer is for the smaller number who need focused individual, family, or group support from trained and supervised workers who are not specialists. The layers are meant to stand at the same time, so that a person can move between them as their needs change.

The guidelines place Psychological First Aid (PFA) inside that third layer, next to basic mental health care by primary health-care workers. Specialised services sit above it. So the bridge this article is about runs through the third layer and out of it: from a one-time first contact to sustained individual or specialist care. The third layer is where the model expects most persisting distress to be met.

2. What first aid gives, and where it ends

The World Health Organization (WHO) published Psychological First Aid: Guide for Field Workers in 2011, and the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement published its own guide in 2018. Both teach Look, Listen, and Link: check for safety and urgent needs, listen and help the person feel calm, and connect them with practical help, social support, and services.

The Academy's reading of the two guides found them humane, restrained, and right about the essentials. Do not force the story out. Do help the person feel calm. Both guides also say what PFA is not: not something only professionals do, not counselling or therapy, not pressing for details. The WHO guide adds that PFA is "often a one-time intervention". Their calming toolkit is a calm voice, reassurance, grounding, and slow breathing. Neither guide offers an extended, repeatable skills course, and neither set out to. Link then points onward to services.

That is the end of first aid's reach by design. A helper at a collapsed house does not need a stabilization curriculum. The problem begins when Link points to a service that has a waiting list measured in months, or does not exist, and the same helper meets the same person again next week. The Skill Gap position paper put it in one line: Link often points to a layer that does not exist.

3. What waits on the far side

The far bank of the bridge is individual psychological support and psychiatric care: assessment, counselling, psychotherapy, medication where indicated, and protection routes for people at risk. WHO and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) built the Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP) Humanitarian Intervention Guide in 2015 so that non-specialist health-care providers can assess and manage priority conditions in emergencies. It is a serious answer to the top of the pyramid, and it presupposes a health worker, a clinic, and a supply chain.

The far bank is real. It is also narrow. WHO's Mental Health Atlas 2024 puts the global median at 13 mental health workers for every 100,000 people, with extreme shortages in low- and middle-income countries. The previous Atlas counted more than forty times as many workers per head of population in high-income countries as in low-income ones, and reported that the global median had increased only slightly, from nine to thirteen, between 2014 and 2020. In populations that have lived through conflict, WHO's own prevalence estimate is that about one person in five has a mental disorder at any point in time, and about one in eleven a moderate or severe one. The specialised layer cannot be the first layer for everyone, and it cannot be the second either.

4. What already stands in the middle

The middle layer is not empty, and any honest placement has to start by crediting what is there.

• Problem Management Plus (PM+) is WHO's individual intervention for adults impaired by distress: five sessions of slow breathing, problem management, behavioural activation, social support, and staying well, delivered by non-specialists with substantial classroom training and supervised practice cases, after screening for distress and impaired functioning. It has direct randomized-trial evidence from screened, trained, and supervised implementations.
• Group Problem Management Plus delivers the same content to groups. In Nepal, a cluster-randomized trial found a moderate reduction in distress at the end of treatment and a small one three months later.
• Self-Help Plus (SH+) is WHO's five-session stress-management course for groups of up to thirty adults, delivered by trained and supervised facilitators using pre-recorded audio and an illustrated guide that participants keep, so the course does not end when the facilitator leaves. It is the closest existing format to the one this article proposes, and unlike that one it has been tested: a cluster-randomized trial with South Sudanese refugee women in Uganda found reduced distress after the course and a smaller effect three months later; a multinational trial in Western Europe found fewer new mental disorders immediately after the course and no difference at six months; and a pooled analysis of the individual participant data found small and inconsistent effects, some of them appearing only at later follow-up. It is not simply a format that fades.
• Skills for Psychological Recovery (SPR) is the United States follow-on to PFA, built by the same institutions for the weeks and months after disasters and mass violence, with managing reactions as one of its five skills.

Each of these is a real bridge in the settings where it has been built. Where one of them is running, with its screening, supervision, and materials in place, use it.

The PFA in Context article left one question open: whether an additional approach would meet a need these programmes leave unresolved. The next section answers it.

5. The need they leave unresolved

Four features of the existing middle layer define the gap.

Entry. PM+ and Group PM+ are for adults impaired by distress who pass a screening. SH+ was trialled with people already reporting distress. Somebody who is not impaired enough to qualify, or too unsteady to sit through a course, or simply never enrolled, receives nothing structured.

Form. All three are courses: five sessions with a start, an end, and a cohort. Distress after a flood does not arrive in cohorts. A helper needs something that can run this Tuesday and again next Tuesday, with a standing group rather than a closed cohort, and without a clinical intake interview as the price of entry.

Skill. The stress-management content of these programmes is slow breathing, problem solving, activity scheduling, and acceptance-based coping. Those are useful, and they do influence distress. They are not the whole emotional task. My professional position, set out in the Academy's commentary on Problem Management Plus, is this: "An emotional problem has to be addressed on the emotional level. There is almost no other way." By the emotional level I mean the person's felt emotional experience when distress persists. The question is whether that experience receives direct work of its own, not whether these programmes bring any emotional benefit. Self-Help Plus comes closest: its acceptance exercises make room for difficult feelings. None of them teaches a sequenced, paced stabilization repertoire: resource orientation, guided imagery, containment, a safe inner place, and closure. The Academy's own review of the standard curricula in August 2026 found none that does.

Readiness. Nothing in the middle layer is designed to hold a person steady while they wait for the far bank, or to bring them there oriented and with a practice they can use during assessment and treatment.

Put those four together and the missing link has a definite shape. It is not another course. It is a function: a repeatable, emotional-level stabilization practice that the helpers already present can run, in a group, without personal disclosure, with a stop right in every participant's hands and a referral route out. To be safe it has to meet the five conditions set out in the PFA article, from teachability to evaluation.

That description is drawn from what the existing programmes do not do, so it is open to the charge of describing the candidate rather than the need. The test is in section 9: a competency-assessed stabilization layer of any provenance should show the benefit, or the function is not what I say it is.

6. Why stabilization is the bridging function

Three reasons make stabilization, rather than another skill, the right material for the bridge.

First, it is the consensus principle that the field already endorses for the weeks after. The 2007 paper by Hobfoll and colleagues, the empirical spine under both PFA guides, names five principles for the early and mid-term stages, and the second of them is promote calming. A stabilization practice is that principle carried past one conversation, and the step from endorsing the principle to endorsing any particular practice has to be earned by evaluation.

Second, stabilization is where one influential reading of the far bank begins. In a 2011 survey of fifty expert clinicians, 84% endorsed phase-based treatment of complex post-traumatic stress, with stabilization before any processing of traumatic memory. That position is disputed: twenty-one trauma researchers have argued that a mandatory stabilization phase is poorly evidenced and delays effective treatment, and I take the dispute seriously. It is a dispute about treating post-traumatic stress in clinics. It says nothing about whether a person waiting months for that clinic should be left with nothing, and the steadiness a person brings to a first appointment is useful on either reading. A person who arrives at specialised care already able to steady themselves has not been treated. They have been prepared, for referral, for follow-up, and for the deeper work they may need.

Third, it is aimed directly at the emotional level, and it can be taught to present helpers without moving them anywhere near trauma processing. A 2017 review of trials in low- and middle-income countries found that psychological treatments delivered by non-specialist providers, given training and supervision, had moderate to strong effects on common mental disorders. Stabilization is not automatically safe: guided imagery can unsettle people, which is why the format described below excludes severe dissociation and psychosis, puts a stop right in the participant's hands, and gives the guide a fixed distress response. It is bounded in a way processing is not, because it aims in one direction and the guide never asks for the story. Exposure and processing stay with qualified professionals inside governed teams.

The intended effect is simple: people are held steady while they wait, and those who need more arrive oriented, with a practice, referred by the helper who saw them every week.

7. Deep Emotional Stabilization Groups: built for that place

The Academy's Deep Emotional Stabilization Groups (DESG) are a repeatable 60-minute group session for adults who can consent and can decide for themselves whether to pause, stop, or leave. After arrival, a short frame, and an explicit stop-right reminder, the session runs two guided exercise blocks of about twenty minutes each: Emotional Resource Work, in which participants find and note their own sources of steadiness, and, where the group and the support arrangements make it suitable, the Inner Safe Place, a guided imagery exercise. A pause for orientation and a quick check-in sits between them. Nobody tells their story in the room. Consent happens before sign-up, not in the group.

The format was built for the conditions in section 5. It runs on a fixed day and repeats. Entry is a local suitability decision and a consent document provided before sign-up, not a clinical intake interview: people who need urgent psychiatric, medical, or crisis support, who have active self-harm or suicide risk, who are acutely psychotic or severely dissociated, or who have very recent trauma exposure with no local support pathway are referred elsewhere or reviewed first. So are people who cannot consent freely: anyone intoxicated, anyone pressured to attend, and anyone in a residential, workplace, legal, or dependency setting where saying no could affect their care, benefits, shelter, or status. The default is a group of up to sixteen adults, with a second responsible person wherever feasible. That is smaller than a Self-Help Plus course, and it needs a present, prepared guide rather than a recording. What it does not need is a cohort that starts and finishes.

It is run by a locally responsible person or organization that prepares a referral list before the first session and follows an eight-step distress response if anyone signals distress: stop or slow, orient to the room, ask for no details, support the person outside the group flow, and use the local emergency, safeguarding, or referral pathway when needed.

The implementation kit is free under a Creative Commons licence. Facilitator preparation runs from reading the kit, through experiencing the exercises under supervision or in peer practice, to practising with individuals before guiding a group. The kit is explicit that it is not enough on its own for an unsupervised lay facilitator in a high-risk setting.

8. A bridge is not a gate

The word bridge carries the right meaning only if one reading of it is closed off.

The Academy's commentary on PM+ drew the same boundary: the stabilization layer is separate and bounded, it is no substitute for needed individual assessment and treatment, it must not become a mandatory gateway to PM+, and no combined pathway with PM+ has been validated.

The groups are not psychotherapy, medical care, diagnosis, treatment, crisis intervention, or trauma processing, and they are not a substitute for professional mental health care. Where there is doubt about a participant group, the kit's instruction is qualified local review before inclusion.

9. The size of the evidence

The evidence for the complete format is small, and this article states it exactly. In a 2024 internal evaluation, psychology students with no prior exposure to Deep Emotional Work reported a 28% reduction in immediate self-reported stress after a single brief self-experience (n=17 participants, p=0.0098, where p is the probability of a result this size arising by chance). That is an internal evaluation, not a published peer-reviewed study. The complete Deep Emotional Stabilization Groups format has not been evaluated as a whole intervention. Nothing in the evidence for PFA, PM+, or SH+ transfers to it, and the placement argued here is a programme-design position, not a finding.

The evidence for the gap is stronger than the evidence for the candidate. PFA remains evidence-informed rather than outcome-proven: a 2012 review found no controlled trials, a 2023 systematic review found twelve outcome studies with generally high risk of bias, and the 2024 reviews and trials show encouraging but uneven results. The scalable middle-layer programmes have real trials and modest, often short-lived effects, and a 2023 synthesis across PM+, Group PM+, and Step-by-Step rated the certainty of that evidence very low. The far bank's scarcity is documented by WHO itself. The gap is not in dispute. What is untested is whether this candidate fills it.

Three findings would prove the thesis wrong. The first is a district-level test: if a district's existing middle-layer programmes are in fact reachable by present helpers within weeks, and adding a stabilization layer changes nothing measurable, the link was not missing there. The second is general: if a trial adds a competency-assessed stabilization layer to PFA or PM+ and finds no benefit at the end of the waiting period and at six and twelve months, against an equal-time active comparator, the function is not what this article says it is. The third is the one that matters most: if participants in stabilization groups reach individual or specialist care later or less often than matched people who did not attend, without a matching improvement in their symptoms and functioning, then attendance is displacing care rather than preparing people for it. The bridge has become a gate, and it should be taken down.

10. What to do with this

For anyone designing the weeks after a crisis, the placement question becomes two practical ones. Which middle-layer programme is actually running within reach of your helpers, with its screening, supervision, and materials in place? And how long is the wait for the far bank, measured from the day distress persists rather than from the day of the event?

Where the honest answer is nothing and months, the missing link is the one this article describes. The implementation kit is free to read and adapt under local responsibility. Organizations that want to think through their own placement can use the Academy's free 45-minute humanitarian consultation, which is organizational and non-emergency and asks for no case-identifying information. Research partners who want to test the thesis rather than take it on trust will find the format described as a manualized intervention at the Research Hub.

Conclusion

Between first aid and specialist care, most people with persisting distress wait, with helpers who were taught to orient and refer, and not to stabilize.

The missing link is a stabilization practice where the people are: repeatable, teachable, run in a group without disclosure, with a stop right and a referral route. Deep Emotional Stabilization Groups are built for that place and remain to be tested in it. Keep first aid first, keep referral open, and put the bridge where the people are waiting. Then measure whether it holds.

Evidence and scope note

This is a focused educational Review & Opinion article, not a systematic review, clinical guideline, treatment recommendation, or evaluation of any programme. It reads the IASC 2007 guidelines, the WHO 2011 and Movement 2018 PFA guides, the WHO PM+, Group PM+, SH+, and mhGAP Humanitarian Intervention Guide materials, the SPR field guide, selected reviews and trials, and the current Deep Emotional Stabilization Groups implementation kit. The emotional-level position in sections 5 and 6 is the author's professional judgment, not a research finding. Nothing here transfers evidence from any of those programmes to the Deep Emotional Stabilization Groups format or establishes its effectiveness. The groups can accompany an appropriate crisis response; they do not replace emergency, medical, psychiatric, or protection services. Any person at risk of harm needs the appropriate urgent route first. Local clinical, safeguarding, legal, privacy, and institutional decisions remain with appropriately qualified and responsible authorities.

Selected sources

1. Inter-Agency Standing Committee. IASC Guidelines on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings (2007).
2. World Health Organization, War Trauma Foundation, World Vision International. Psychological First Aid: Guide for Field Workers (2011).
3. IFRC Reference Centre for Psychosocial Support. A Guide to Psychological First Aid for Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2018).
4. World Health Organization, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. mhGAP Humanitarian Intervention Guide (mhGAP-HIG): Clinical Management of Mental, Neurological and Substance Use Conditions in Humanitarian Emergencies (2015).
5. World Health Organization. Mental Health Atlas 2024 (2025) and Mental Health Atlas 2020 (2021).
6. Charlson, F., van Ommeren, M., Flaxman, A., Cornett, J., Whiteford, H., Saxena, S. New WHO prevalence estimates of mental disorders in conflict settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet 394(10194), 240-248 (2019).
7. World Health Organization. Problem Management Plus (PM+): Individual Psychological Help for Adults Impaired by Distress in Communities Exposed to Adversity (2018).
8. World Health Organization. Group Problem Management Plus (Group PM+): Group Psychological Help for Adults Impaired by Distress in Communities Exposed to Adversity (2020).
9. Jordans, M. J. D., Kohrt, B. A., Sangraula, M., et al. Effectiveness of Group Problem Management Plus, a brief psychological intervention for adults affected by humanitarian disasters in Nepal: a cluster randomized controlled trial. PLOS Medicine 18(6), e1003621 (2021).
10. World Health Organization. Self-Help Plus (SH+): A Group-Based Stress Management Course for Adults (2021).
11. Tol, W. A., Leku, M. R., Lakin, D. P., et al. Guided self-help to reduce psychological distress in South Sudanese female refugees in Uganda: a cluster randomised trial. The Lancet Global Health 8(2), e254-e263 (2020).
12. Purgato, M., Carswell, K., Tedeschi, F., et al. Effectiveness of Self-Help Plus in Preventing Mental Disorders in Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Western Europe: A Multinational Randomized Controlled Trial. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 90(6), 403-414 (2021).
13. Karyotaki, E., Sijbrandij, M., Purgato, M., et al. Self-Help Plus for refugees and asylum seekers: an individual participant data meta-analysis. BMJ Mental Health 26(1), e300672 (2023).
14. Berkowitz, S., et al. Skills for Psychological Recovery: Field Operations Guide. National Center for PTSD and National Child Traumatic Stress Network (2010).
15. Hobfoll, S. E., et al. Five Essential Elements of Immediate and Mid-Term Mass Trauma Intervention: Empirical Evidence. Psychiatry 70(4), 283-315 (2007).
16. Cloitre, M., Courtois, C. A., Charuvastra, A., Carapezza, R., Stolbach, B. C., Green, B. L. Treatment of complex PTSD: results of the ISTSS expert clinician survey on best practices. Journal of Traumatic Stress 24(6), 615-627 (2011).
17. de Jongh, A., Resick, P. A., Zoellner, L. A., et al. Critical analysis of the current treatment guidelines for complex PTSD in adults. Depression and Anxiety 33(5), 359-369 (2016).
18. Singla, D. R., Kohrt, B. A., Murray, L. K., Anand, A., Chorpita, B. F., Patel, V. Psychological treatments for the world: lessons from low- and middle-income countries. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 13, 149-181 (2017).
19. Fox, J. H., et al. The Effectiveness of Psychological First Aid as a Disaster Intervention Tool: Research Analysis of Peer-Reviewed Literature From 1990-2010. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 6(3), 247-252 (2012).
20. Hermosilla, S., et al. We need to build the evidence: A systematic review of psychological first aid on mental health and well-being. Journal of Traumatic Stress 36(1), 5-16 (2023).
21. Wang, L., Norman, I., Edleston, V., Oyo, C., Leamy, M. The Effectiveness and Implementation of Psychological First Aid as a Therapeutic Intervention After Trauma: An Integrative Review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse (2024).
22. Schäfer, S. K., et al. World Health Organization's low-intensity psychosocial interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of Problem Management Plus and Step-by-Step. World Psychiatry 22(3) (2023).
23. Deep Emotional Work Academy. Deep Emotional Stabilization Groups and Implementation Kit Archive.
24. Deep Emotional Work Academy. Psychological First Aid in Context: Initial Help Is Not a Recovery Pathway, WHO Problem Management Plus: When Coping Help Is Mistaken for Enough, and Mental Health Is in the Headline. The Skill Has Not Reached the Room. (2026).