ABSTRACT
Groups are in many ways a Manager's dream, in that they open up the prospect of a greater throughput of clients. Further, if there is a shared adversity, then people are likely to feel more at home with fellow sufferers and are more likely to co-operate on practical matters such as rebuilding after a hurricane/earthquake. But groups may be avoided because an individual may see them as a reminder of acquired disability and/or a talking shop for something that they would very much like to forget. For any individual, a group is a ‘definite maybe’ and encouraging engagement may be a major issue. Unfortunately, the evidence that PTSD groups make a real-world difference to clients' lives is weak. But despite this, there is a proliferation of groups from preparatory groups to destabilisation groups, to birth trauma groups to an adult survivor of child abuse groups. The ease with which such groups can be formed and the camaraderie that is commonplace within them can belie a critical examination of the real-world cost-effectiveness. It is easy to cite particular examples of beneficiaries, an example of a manifestation of the availability heuristic. But when the functioning of each member recruited is tracked, there is little evidence that they fare any better than those given support within the community.
