Ad­ven­ture The­ra­py for Com­plex Trau­ma; Th­ree Pha­sed, Eco­lo­gi­cal­ly Dy­na­mic and Hu­man Rights Ba­sed


Authors: Graham Pringle


Back­ground: Ad­ven­ture the­ra­py (AT) ex­pe­ri­en­ces may be res­to­ra­ti­ve for com­plex trau­ma (CT) ho­we­ver no theo­ry or prac­ti­ce frame­work yet exists. Pur­po­se: This re­se­arch re­view­ed best prac­ti­ce from both CT and AT fields to cri­ti­cal­ly re­view theo­ry and prac­ti­ce. Me­tho­do­lo­gy: I sco­ped and cri­ti­cal­ly ana­ly­sed both the AT and CT li­te­ra­tu­re and in­ter­view­ed aca­de­mics, prac­ti­tio­ners and young AT par­ti­ci­pan­ts. I also cri­ti­cal­ly re­flec­ted on pu­blic posts about wil­der­ness the­ra­py (WT). Findings/Conclusions: A tri-pha­sic ap­proach in­clu­ding safe­ty, pro­ces­sing and in­te­gra­ti­on leads to im­pro­ve­ments in at­tach­ment, skills, sche­mas and stress ma­nage­ment. Eco­lo­gi­cal dy­na­mics (ED) and some well-in­ten­ded but harmful prac­ti­ces were evi­dent, yet not of­ten de­scri­bed. Im­pli­ca­ti­ons: A hu­man rights-ba­sed prac­ti­ce ED frame­work may help avo­id the­se harmful prac­ti­ces. Such a CT in­for­med AT prac­ti­ce may enhan­ce pro­gram ef­fec­ti­ve­ness for young peo­p­le with CT and should ap­p­ly to all forms of AT. More re­se­arch is nee­ded due to dif­fe­ren­ces in on­to­lo­gy and epis­te­mo­lo­gy.


Go to Top