4.7 Article

Bias-contingent attention bias modification and attention control training in treatment of PTSD: a randomized control trial

Journal

PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE
Volume 49, Issue 14, Pages 2432-2440

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291718003367

Keywords

Attention bias modification (ABM); attention bias; attention control training (ACT); posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); randomized control trial (RCT)

Funding

  1. Stand for the Troops foundation
  2. National Institute of Mental Health [T32-MH020004, T32-MH015144]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing attention control training (ACT) and attention bias modification (ABM) in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have shown mixed results. The current RCT extends the extant literature by comparing the efficacy of ACT and a novel bias-contingent-ABM (BC-ABM), in which direction of training is contingent upon the direction of pre-treatment attention bias (AB), in a sample of civilian patients with PTSD. Methods Fifty treatment-seeking civilian patients with PTSD were randomly assigned to either ACT or BC-ABM. Clinician and self-report measures of PTSD and depression, as well as AB and attention bias variability (ABV), were acquired pre- and post-treatment. Results ACT yielded greater reductions in PTSD and depressive symptoms on both clinician-rated and self-reported measures compared with BC-ABM. The BC-ABM condition successfully shifted ABs in the intended training direction. In the ACT group, there was no significant change in ABV or AB from pre- to post-treatment. Conclusions The current RCT extends previous results in being the first to apply ABM that is contingent upon AB at pre-treatment. This personalized BC-ABM approach is associated with significant reductions in symptoms. However, ACT produces even greater reductions, thereby emerging as a promising treatment for PTSD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available