Chapter 12 — Integration Practices · iETA Field Manual

iETA

Field Manual for Natural Medicine Facilitation

Student Textbook · Inner EDGE Travel Agency

V2.0 · Phase 4
Draft Edition

Chapter 12 Phase 4 · Post-Session Care & Professional Growth

Integration Practices

Where the experience becomes a life — supporting participants through meaning-making, practical tools, community anchors, and the group integration circle, all within a scope that makes integration safe rather than clinical.

5 Lessons + OSCE 18 Hours Total 13 hrs Sync · 5 hrs Async PC5

By the End of This Chapter You Will Be Able To

Conduct a scope-compliant 24-hour check-in and complete a post-session note and follow-up plan within 24 hours of the check-in.
Define the integration scope line precisely — name the distinction between reflective witnessing and clinical interpretation in the specific moment when the pull to cross it is strongest.
Apply integration models (narrative, values-based) to participant material — using open, meaning-inviting questions rather than interpretation or validation.
Identify safety concerns specific to the integration period and respond within scope — including delayed adverse reactions, HPPD referral, and M05 protocols active throughout.
Facilitate a group integration circle using the iETA four-phase protocol — equitable airtime, voluntary sharing, confidentiality, and scope maintenance.

§1 Post-Session Care & Scope

§2 Integration Models & Resources

§3 Meaning-Making & Safety Concerns

§4 Group Integration Circle

§§ Glossary · Knowledge Check

Chapter Introduction

"Integration is where the experience becomes a life. The facilitator's job in M12 is the same as it was in M08: hold the space. The content is different — but the scope discipline is the same."

The session has ended. The participant went home with their support person. The safety plan is in their hands. Chapter 12 begins in the 72 hours that follow — the period of highest integration-phase vulnerability — and moves through the full arc of post-session care, meaning-making, referral awareness, and collective integration.

M12 is the module where students most want to become therapists. The participant is open, tender, processing significant material, and the facilitator has a relationship with them. The pull toward clinical framing — interpretation, diagnosis, treatment planning — is at its highest here. The most important principle in this chapter applies from Section 1 through the group integration circle in Section 4: integration is not therapy. It is a structured, participant-led process of meaning-making. The facilitator brings questions, frameworks, and presence. The participant brings the experience and makes the meaning. Scope is not a limitation here — it is what makes integration safe.

Bring your M11 session note to every exercise. The session note is the source document — the starting point for every integration conversation. M05 suicide risk protocols remain active throughout the integration period; this is named in Section 1 and remains in force through the final integration session.

Section 1 · Lesson 1

Post-Session Care & Scope of Integration

0–72 hr window · 24-hour check-in · practical guidance · what integration is and isn't

3.0 hrs sync · 1.0 hr async · 4.0 hrs total

Why This Matters

The 72 hours following a session are the period of highest integration-phase vulnerability — not because something went wrong, but because the material from the session is still settling. Sleep disruption, heightened emotional sensitivity, and difficulty in ordinary social interactions are common. This is not pathology. It is the experience continuing to process. The facilitator's role in this window is specific, bounded, and important.

The 24-Hour Check-In — Assessment, Not Processing

The 24-hour check-in is a brief, warm contact per the communication protocol agreed in M10. Not a clinical assessment, not a processing conversation. Three questions that give the facilitator real information: "How are you right now? How did you sleep? Is anything feeling urgent?" These orient the facilitator to the participant's status without opening a clinical conversation the participant may not be ready for and that the facilitator is not trained to conduct. If the participant begins to process the content of the session, the scope-appropriate response is to acknowledge warmly and redirect: "I'm really glad that's coming up for you — let's give that the space it deserves in our integration session." The check-in is assessment and basic guidance, not meaning-making.

Practical Guidance for the 0–72 Hr Period

The facilitator can offer evidence-informed practical guidance as part of the follow-up plan — framed as information, not prescription. Each item is prefaced with "many people find it helpful to..." or "some people notice that...": protecting sleep quality; adequate hydration and regular nutrition; gentle movement (walking, stretching — not intense exercise); limiting high-stimulation environments (screens, social media); unstructured journaling (noticing, not analyzing); and reducing alcohol and cannabis during the integration window, as substances that alter consciousness can interfere with the natural processing underway. The participant makes their own choices. The language from M10 applies: participant autonomy is preserved throughout.

Scope of Integration — The Most Important Distinction in This Chapter

Integration is a structured, participant-led process of making meaning from the experience — incorporating insights into daily life, adjusting patterns in response to what arose, and connecting the experience to the participant's broader life context and intention. The facilitator provides structure, open questions, and regulated presence. The participant makes the meaning.

Integration is not therapy, counseling, clinical interpretation, trauma treatment, or psychological assessment. The facilitator does not diagnose what the participant experienced, interpret the symbolic content of what arose, prescribe a meaning for the experience, or provide clinical treatment for what emerged. When clinical material arises in integration — and it will — the facilitator's role is to hold the space and route toward appropriate clinical support, not to address it themselves.

✗ Clinical Drift — Outside Scope

✓ Scope-Appropriate — Inside Scope

"That sounds like unresolved grief around your father."

"What does that feeling remind you of in your own life?"

"Yes, that was definitely about your mother — that's a pattern I've been noticing."

"What do you make of that connection? Does it feel significant to you?"

"It sounds like that activated a trauma response — I've seen this before in EMDR clients."

"That sounds like it was significant and perhaps still tender. What is it like to be sitting with it now?"

"I think you need to process that relationship specifically — that seems to be the core issue."

"Something worth bringing to your therapist if you have one, or finding one if you don't. This is exactly the territory therapy is designed for."

iETA Field Manual · Portfolio Artifact Post-Session Note & Follow-Up Plan

Check-In Details

Date: _______________ · Method: ☐ Call ☐ Message · Duration: _______________ · Time since session: _______________

Participant status — in their words (factual, not interpretive):

Sleep quality: ______________ · Eating/hydration: ______________ · Any urgent concerns: ☐ No ☐ Yes →

Practical Guidance Offered

Sleep ☐ · Nutrition/hydration ☐ · Gentle movement ☐ · Screen limits ☐ · Journaling ☐ · Alcohol/cannabis ☐

Participant questions or concerns (factual):

Safety Check — M05 Protocols Active Throughout Integration

Safety plan reviewed with participant ☐ · Threshold language confirmed accessible ☐

Any threshold-level concerns: ☐ No ☐ Yes — action taken:

Support person contact: ☐ Date/time: _______________ · Support person observations:

Follow-Up Plan

First integration session: _______________ · Format: ☐ In-person ☐ Video · Duration: _______________

Subsequent session cadence: ____________________________________________

Contact threshold between sessions: ___________________________________________

Referrals or resources identified at this stage:

Self-Check — Section 1

I can describe what the 24-hour check-in is and what it is not — and I know what to do when the participant starts processing session content during it.
I can define the integration scope line in specific behavioral terms — not as a general principle but as specific sentences I can and cannot say.
I understand why "I'm just noticing that this sounds like a trauma response" is clinical drift — not scope-appropriate attunement.
I know that M05 safety protocols remain active throughout the integration period — and the threshold for routing is the same as during screening and administration.

Moving Forward

The check-in is complete and the follow-up plan is set. Section 2 builds the integration conversation itself — the models that structure exploration without directing it, the resources that extend the participant's support network, and the questions that open rather than close.

Section 2 · Lesson 2

Integration Models & Resources

Narrative model · values-based model · resource identification and referral · session structure guide

2.5 hrs sync · 1.0 hr async · 3.5 hrs total

Why This Matters

Integration models provide structure without imposing direction. A model is a set of questions the facilitator knows how to ask — not a framework the facilitator imposes on the participant's experience. The right model opens the participant toward what is most alive in their material. The wrong model — or the right model applied at the wrong time — closes it. Knowing more than one model is part of what makes integration facilitation skillful rather than formulaic.

Two Core Integration Models

Narrative model: The participant tells the story of their experience — what happened, what arose, what was present — and the facilitator helps them explore what that story means to them. The narrative opening comes first in every integration session: "Tell me what the experience was like — from arrival to when you left." This is not re-administration. It is the integration starting point. Once the story has been told and witnessed, the facilitator follows the participant's language, reflects key phrases back, and invites deeper exploration: "You mentioned [their words] — what does that mean to you?" The model's strength is that it honors the participant's own framing. Its risk is that it can become just retelling without the meaning-making move.

Values-based model: The participant connects what arose in the session to what they most deeply care about and want their life to reflect. Questions: "What did what arose tell you about what matters most to you?" "If you imagined living more fully in alignment with what the experience pointed toward — what would be different?" "What is one thing the experience is inviting you to do, let go of, or begin?" The model's strength is that it has a built-in bridge to daily life. Its risk is that it can become prescriptive if the facilitator implies there is a "correct" action the participant should take in response to the experience.

The Integration Session Structure Guide

Every integration session follows the same four-phase structure, regardless of which model is in use. The structure creates a container that allows for genuine exploration within a professional frame.

Portfolio Reference Integration Session Structure — Four Phases

Phase 1Opening & Check-In5–10 min

Re-establish the container. Genuine check-in on how the participant is arriving. Brief review of what has emerged since last contact. If significant distress is present — prioritize safety assessment before proceeding with integration work.

"How are you arriving today?" / "What has been most present for you since we last spoke?" No agenda-pushing — follow where the participant arrives from.

Scope: attunement and orientation. If significant distress arises, safety assessment first.

Phase 2Story + Exploration25–35 min

The primary work of the session. Drawing on the session note and the participant's current experience, the facilitator invites exploration of what arose and what it means.

One question at a time. Tolerate silence after asking. Reflect without interpreting. Follow the participant's material — not the model's sequence.

What do you make of what arose?

What parts of your experience feel most important to carry forward?

If that moment had a message for your daily life, what might it be?

What did what arose tell you about what you most care about?

Scope: open questions, reflection, model-informed structure held lightly. Not: interpretation, validation of a specific reading, or reassurance that removes participant agency.

Phase 3Resources + Practices10–15 min

Based on what emerged in Phase 2, the facilitator explores what tools or resources might support the participant's ongoing integration — journaling prompts, creative practices, community anchors, or referrals if indicated.

Offer options, not prescriptions. "Some people find journaling helpful with material that keeps returning — would that feel useful to you?" Let the participant choose.

Scope: offer and explore options. Do not prescribe, coordinate clinical care, or act as case manager. Referral = addition unless clinical situation requires handoff.

Phase 4Close + Next Steps5–10 min

Ground the session. Confirm next contact. Name any commitments or practices the participant has chosen. Brief safety check if the session surfaced anything that warrants it. Document within 24 hours.

"What are you leaving this conversation with?" / "What feels like a meaningful next step for you between now and our next session?" / "Is there anything I should know before we close?"

Scope: brief grounding and transition. If any threshold concern arose during the session, follow the safety plan and M05 protocol.

Resource Identification — The Referral Is an Addition, Not a Handoff

The facilitator cannot and should not be the participant's only integration resource. The referral conversation connects the participant to resources that extend beyond facilitation scope or that provide ongoing support the facilitator cannot offer. The key framing: referral is an addition to the facilitator-participant relationship, not a transfer away from it — unless the clinical situation specifically requires a handoff. A participant who needs a therapist should get one without losing their facilitator. A participant whose material requires clinical processing shouldn't be managed through facilitation instead of being connected to appropriate care.

One principle governs all resource evaluation: cultural fit and participant values alignment first. A referral to a resource the participant can't afford, can't access logistically, or doesn't align with their cultural or values context isn't a helpful referral. It's checking a box. The facilitator offers options; the participant chooses.

Psychedelic-Informed Clinical Support

Therapists with specific psychedelic-informed training · MDMA or psilocybin-assisted therapy programs (if applicable) · Psychiatrists familiar with psychedelic medicine interactions

When: complex material requiring clinical processing; ongoing mental health concerns beyond integration scope; medication questions. Scope: offer options, not coordination. Facilitator does not manage clinical care.

Peer & Community Support

Integration circles (like the iETA group circle) · Psychedelic peer support networks · Peer-led community groups aligned with participant values and experience

When: relational support need; participant benefits from others who have had similar experiences. Scope: offer the category, let the participant choose the specific community. Do not recommend specific religious or spiritual communities.

Somatic & Body-Based Practices

Yoga · somatic therapy (if clinical referral is appropriate) · dance/movement · breathwork practices · nature-based movement

When: the participant's integration material feels "stuck in the body" or primarily somatic. Scope: offer secular wellness practices within facilitator knowledge. Clinical somatic therapy is a clinical referral, not a facilitation tool.

Creative & Expressive Practices

Journaling · visual art · music · writing · creative expression as a meaning-making container

When: the participant responds to experiential rather than verbal processing; some material is not easily put into words. Scope: offer the practice, not interpretation of what is produced. The creative work belongs to the participant — not the facilitator to analyze.

Self-Check — Section 2

I can describe the narrative model and the values-based model — including the specific questions associated with each and the risk of each if misapplied.
I can facilitate all four phases of the integration session structure from memory — without using Phase 2 to impose a model rather than follow the participant's material.
I understand why referral is an addition, not a handoff — and I know when a handoff is actually required.
I know the four resource categories and can identify which would fit a specific participant based on what emerged in their session.

Moving Forward

You have the structure and the models. Section 3 builds the most nuanced skill in integration: the question quality that distinguishes opening from closing, and the safety awareness that keeps the integration period from becoming the most dangerous part of the arc.

Section 3 · Lesson 3

Meaning-Making & Safety Concerns

Question quality · cognitive patterns in scope · safety concerns in integration · session intervals

3.0 hrs sync · 1.0 hr async · 4.0 hrs total

Why This Matters

A good integration question opens the participant toward their own knowing. An answer — even a right answer, even a compassionate one — closes it. The facilitator's job in meaning-making is to be a better questioner, not a better interpreter. And the integration period carries its own specific safety risks that M11 did not fully address — the facilitator who thinks their safety work ended when the session closed has missed a significant part of their scope.

What Makes an Integration Question Work

Integration questions have three qualities: they are open (not leading toward a particular answer), meaning-inviting (they explicitly or implicitly ask the participant to make meaning, not describe facts), and participant-centered (they locate authority in the participant's own knowing, not the facilitator's interpretation). "What do you make of that?" "What felt most significant to you?" "If that moment had a message for your daily life, what might it be?" — these questions resist interpretation. They require the participant to do the meaning-making work, which is both the point and the mechanism of integration.

Cognitive Patterns Within Scope

Integration facilitators do not diagnose cognitive distortions — that is clinical territory. They can notice and gently name patterns in how the participant is framing their experience that may be limiting integration. Common ones: all-or-nothing framing ("this either changed everything or meant nothing"), self-blame framing ("if I had gone deeper it would have worked"), external attribution ("the medicine didn't work"), and dismissal framing ("it was probably just the drug, nothing real"). The scope-appropriate response to each is a reframing question — not a correction. "What if there was a version of this that was both significant and still unfolding?" "What would it mean if the experience was doing exactly what it needed to, even if it wasn't what you expected?"

Question Quality — Closed vs. Open · Study & Practice Pairs

✗ Closes — Avoid

"Did that feel like it was connected to your relationship with your father?"

Has an answer built in. The participant is guided toward a pre-existing hypothesis rather than their own exploration.

✓ Opens — Use

"What did that feel connected to?"

Genuinely open — the participant names the connection in their own words, or discovers they don't know yet.

✗ Closes — Avoid

"That makes sense — that sounds like grief."

Feels like empathy but IS interpretation. The facilitator named what the participant was experiencing before the participant did.

✓ Opens — Use

"What does that feeling remind you of in your own life?"

Returns the naming to the participant. Their language for what it is carries more meaning than the facilitator's.

✗ Closes — Avoid

"You should focus on that image — that's clearly where the important work is."

Directs the participant toward the facilitator's judgment about what matters. Removes agency from where it belongs.

✓ Opens — Use

"Is there something from the experience that keeps returning — something that feels like it wants more attention?"

Invites the participant to identify what is alive for them — without the facilitator deciding that first.

Write your own: a closed question you'd be tempted to ask → revised as an open version:

Safety Concerns Specific to the Integration Period

Delayed adverse reactions: Some participants experience significant psychological distress not during the session but in the days or weeks following — heightened anxiety, intrusive thoughts, relational disruption, or what some describe as a destabilization of previously stable psychological functioning. These are not always predictable from the session experience. The facilitator stays alert during follow-up contacts and does not assume the integration is straightforward because the session was.

HPPD (Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder): Rare but real — persistent perceptual disturbances following a session. Any participant reporting ongoing visual disturbances, trailing effects, or perceptual changes beyond 48–72 hours after the session should be referred immediately to a psychedelic-informed medical provider. This is entirely outside facilitator scope to assess or treat.

Relational disruption: Sessions that surface significant relational material can create acute disruption in the participant's relationships — with partners, family, friends. The facilitator provides integration support and may refer to relationship or family therapy. This is not the facilitator's territory to address directly in integration sessions.

Suicidal ideation returning: M05 protocols remain active. A participant who expressed no suicidal ideation during the session may experience it in the integration period — particularly if the session surfaced material related to hopelessness, loss, or fundamental self-worth questions. The safety plan threshold language applies; the facilitator does not hold this for the next integration session.

Session Intervals

Colorado NMTP L.5 requires facilitators to discuss appropriate intervals and related safety concerns. The general evidence-based guidance: a minimum of four to six weeks between administration sessions, with many practitioners recommending significantly longer. The reasoning: the integration of a psilocybin experience is not complete in the immediate weeks following — meaningful integration may take months. A second session before the first is integrated may compound rather than deepen the work. The facilitator informs this conversation when a participant requests another session before their integration work is complete — but the service center protocol governs the final determination.

Self-Check — Section 3

I can identify a closed question in my own practice and revise it into an open version — applying the three-quality standard (open, meaning-inviting, participant-centered).
I know the scope-appropriate response to all-or-nothing, self-blame, external attribution, and dismissal framing — as a reframing question, not a correction.
I know what HPPD is and what my response is if a participant reports persistent perceptual disturbances — including that it is a referral, not a facilitation matter.
I understand the evidence basis for session intervals and why recommending another session before integration is complete may harm rather than help.

Moving Forward

You can conduct individual integration sessions within scope. Section 4 addresses the integration context beyond the individual relationship — the group integration circle, community anchors, and the iETA signature protocol for collective meaning-making.

Section 4 · Lesson 5

Group Integration Circle

Community anchors · the iETA circle protocol · equitable airtime · collective witnessing · scope maintenance in groups

2.0 hrs sync · 1.0 hr async · 3.0 hrs total

Why This Matters

Integration does not happen in isolation. The meaning-making work is deepened when it has community context — when the participant can bring what arose into relationships and practices that support its ongoing lived expression. The group integration circle is an iETA-specific protocol for collective meaning-making — and it is distinct from group therapy in ways that matter for scope, structure, and the facilitator's role.

The Group Integration Circle — What It Is and What It Isn't

The group integration circle is a structured, facilitated space where participants share elements of their experience, are witnessed by peers, and make meaning in community. It is not group therapy. The distinction is not merely semantic — group therapy involves therapeutic intervention, processing, and clinical skill. The integration circle involves equitable sharing, peer witnessing, and meaning-making without interpretation or advice. The facilitator's role in the circle is to hold the container, keep time, prevent the circle from becoming either a debriefing session or a processing group, and close it in a way that grounds participants before they leave.

Four non-negotiables govern every group integration circle: equitable airtime (each participant receives equal time — enforced by timekeeping), voluntary sharing (nothing is required beyond what the participant chooses), confidentiality (what is shared stays in the circle), and scope maintenance (the facilitator does not interpret, analyze, or therapeutically process what is shared — they witness, contain, and facilitate transitions).

iETA Signature Protocol · Four Non-Negotiables · Not Group Therapy Group Integration Circle — Four-Phase Facilitation Protocol

Equitable airtime — each participant receives equal time, kept by the facilitator

Voluntary sharing — no participant required to share beyond what they choose

Confidentiality — what is shared in the circle stays in the circle

Scope maintenance — no interpretation, no advice, no therapeutic processing

OpeningContainer Setting5–10 min

Establish the circle. Name the four non-negotiables explicitly. Set the sharing prompt. Confirm confidentiality. Brief grounding if needed. Do not create expectations about the depth of sharing.

"We're here to share and witness — not to analyze or advise. What's shared in this circle stays here. Each person will have equal time. You share what feels right to share — nothing is required. The prompt is: what has been most alive for you since the session?"

Scope: set the container and name the norms. Not: create expectations about what "good" sharing looks like.

Sharing RoundEquitable Airtime3–5 min per participant

Each participant shares what they choose in their allocated time. The group listens without interruption. The facilitator keeps time and holds the space — not responding to content, not prompting deeper disclosure.

"Thank you, [name]. [Next name], whenever you're ready." Do not comment on or respond to content. The witnessing is in the silence and presence — not the facilitator's words.

Scope: timekeeping and container holding. If a participant begins to process distressing material beyond the circle's scope: acknowledge, hold, and offer individual follow-up. Do not address it in the group.

WitnessingCollective Reflection5–10 min · optional

After all participants have shared, a brief collective reflection — not discussion, but witnessing. Optional; omit if the sharing round felt emotionally heavy or if time is limited.

"Without analyzing or responding to anyone's content — what was it like to be in this circle? What did you notice?" This is noticing — not processing. If it drifts toward advice or analysis, redirect.

Scope: witnessing only. Redirect if advice-giving, analysis, or therapeutic processing begins.

CloseGrounding & Integration5 min

Ground the group before dispersal. Reaffirm confidentiality. Name a brief integrating gesture or practice. Do not process the circle's content in the close.

"Before we close — take a breath. Whatever you heard and whatever you shared stays here. One word or phrase you're leaving with?" Brief, grounded, not analytical. Then: "Thank you. This closes here."

Scope: grounding, not processing. If any individual safety concern arose during the circle, follow up privately after the group has dispersed.

⚠Common Pitfall — Responding to the Content of Sharing

The most common facilitator error in integration circles is responding to what participants share — with acknowledgment, reflection, encouragement, or a follow-up question. In the sharing round, the facilitator's job is timekeeping and container holding. Every response to content — even a warm one — subtly signals that some sharing is better or more interesting than others, creates unequal attention, and moves the circle toward a processing group dynamic. The silence after each share is the witnessing. "Thank you, [name]" is the complete transition. Nothing more.

Chapter 12 — Am I Ready?

I can conduct a 24-hour check-in, complete the post-session note, and redirect to a scheduled integration session when the participant starts processing content.
I can articulate the integration scope line in specific behavioral terms — including the sentences I can and cannot say in response to a participant's emotional disclosure.
I can facilitate all four phases of an integration session using either the narrative or values-based model — without interpreting, advising, or directing the participant's meaning-making.
I know the specific safety concerns of the integration period — delayed adverse reactions, HPPD, relational disruption, returning suicidal ideation — and my scope-appropriate response to each.
I can facilitate a group integration circle through all four phases — with scope maintenance throughout the sharing round, including not responding to content.
M05 protocols remain active through the integration period — I have not mentally filed them away.

Chapter 12 — Key Takeaways

Integration is not therapy. It is a structured, participant-led process of meaning-making. The facilitator brings structure, questions, and presence. The participant makes the meaning.
The 72 hours following a session are the period of highest integration-phase vulnerability. The 24-hour check-in is assessment and basic guidance — not a processing conversation. If the participant starts processing, redirect warmly to a scheduled integration session.
Practical guidance for the 0–72 hr period is offered as information, not prescription. Frame every item with "many people find it helpful to..." Language from M10 applies throughout integration.
The scope line is specific: reflect, witness, and invite. Do not interpret, assess, or direct. "That sounds like grief" is clinical interpretation. "What does that feeling remind you of in your own life?" is integration facilitation.
A good integration question is open, meaning-inviting, and participant-centered. "Did that feel connected to your father?" has an answer built in. "What did that feel connected to?" genuinely opens the exploration.
Cognitive patterns (all-or-nothing, self-blame, external attribution, dismissal) are responded to with reframing questions — not corrections. "What if there was a version of this that was both significant and still unfolding?"
Safety concerns specific to the integration period: delayed adverse reactions, HPPD (immediate referral to psychedelic-informed medical provider), relational disruption (therapy referral), and returning suicidal ideation (M05 protocols — not held for the next session).
Referral is an addition, not a handoff — unless the clinical situation specifically requires a transfer of care. The participant who needs a therapist should get one without losing their facilitator.
The group integration circle is not group therapy. Its four non-negotiables: equitable airtime, voluntary sharing, confidentiality, and scope maintenance. During the sharing round — the facilitator keeps time and holds the container. "Thank you, [name]" is the complete transition. Nothing more.

Chapter Glossary

Key terms from Chapter 12 — defined for reference and study.

Compassion Fatigue

Emotional depletion from sustained exposure to others' suffering — distinct from healthy empathy. A risk for facilitators who work with significant psychological material without adequate support and decompression structure.

Delayed Adverse Reaction

Significant psychological distress arising in the days or weeks after a session — not during the session itself. Includes heightened anxiety, intrusive thoughts, relational disruption, or psychological destabilization. Not always predictable from the session experience.

Group Integration Circle

The iETA-specific protocol for collective meaning-making: structured, facilitated sharing with equitable airtime, voluntary participation, confidentiality, and strict scope maintenance. Not group therapy.

HPPD (Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder)

Rare but real — persistent perceptual disturbances following a session. Any participant reporting ongoing visual disturbances or perceptual changes beyond 48–72 hours should be referred immediately to a psychedelic-informed medical provider. Entirely outside facilitator scope.

Integration Scope Line

The specific distinction between scope-appropriate facilitation (reflect, witness, invite) and clinical drift (interpret, assess, direct). The facilitator can ask "what do you make of that?" — they cannot say "that sounds like grief."

Meaning-Making

The participant-led process of connecting what arose in a session to their life, values, and ongoing experience. The facilitator provides open questions and a structured container; the participant does the meaning-making work.

Narrative Model

An integration approach in which the participant tells the story of their experience and the facilitator helps them explore what that story means — following the participant's language and reflecting key phrases without interpreting them.

Post-Session Note

A brief, factual documentation of the 24-hour check-in — how the participant reported doing, any notable responses, and the follow-up plan. Same documentation standard as the M11 session note. Completed within 24 hours of the check-in.

Session Interval

The time between administration sessions. Minimum evidence-based guidance is 4–6 weeks; many practitioners recommend longer. A second session before the first is integrated may compound rather than deepen the work.

Values-Based Model

An integration approach in which the participant connects what arose in the session to what they most deeply care about — using questions that bridge from the session experience to daily life alignment and actionable next steps.

Knowledge Check

Attempt each question before checking the Answer Key at the back of the textbook.

Q1Multiple ChoiceReflective Integration · PC5 · L1

Which facilitator approach best supports reflective integration in a post-session conversation?

Telling the participant what their visions and symbols likely mean based on the facilitator's framework
Asking open-ended questions that invite the participant to make their own meaning from the experience
Interpreting the participant's experience through a specific psychological or spiritual lens
Focusing on what the facilitator observed during the session and sharing their clinical impressions