4.7 Article

Loving-Kindness Meditation vs Cognitive Processing Therapy for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Among Veterans A Randomized Clinical Trial

期刊

JAMA NETWORK OPEN
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.6604

关键词

-

资金

  1. VA grant [1I01CX000857]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the effectiveness of group loving-kindness meditation and group cognitive processing therapy for treating PTSD among veterans. The results showed that loving-kindness meditation was noninferior to cognitive processing therapy in reducing PTSD symptoms, with modest improvements observed in both interventions. Additionally, loving-kindness meditation showed greater reduction in depressive symptoms compared to cognitive processing therapy over time.
IMPORTANCE Additional options are needed for treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among veterans. OBJECTIVE To determine whether group loving-kindness meditation is noninferior to group cognitive processing therapy for treatment of PTSD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This randomized clinical noninferiority trial assessed PTSD and depression at baseline, posttreatment, and 3- and 6-month follow-up. Veterans were recruited from September 24, 2014, to February 5, 2018, from a large Veternas Affairs medical center in Seattle, Washington. A total of 184 veteran volunteers who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) criteria for PTSD were randomized. Data collection was completed November 28, 2018, and data analyses were conducted from December 10, 2018, to November 5, 2019. INTERVENTIONS Each intervention comprised 12 weekly 90-minute group sessions. Loving-kindness meditation (n = 91) involves silent repetition of phrases intended to elicit feelings of kindness for oneself and others. Cognitive processing therapy (n = 93) combines cognitive restructuring with emotional processing of trauma-related content. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Co-primary outcomes were change in PTSD and depression scores over 6-month follow-up, assessed by the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS-5; range, 0-80; higher is worse) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS; reported as standardized T-score with mean [SD] of 50 [10] points; higher is worse) depression measures. Noninferiority margins were 5 points on the CAPS-5 and 4 points on the PROMIS depression measure. RESULTS Among the 184 veterans (mean [SD] age, 57.1 [13.1] years; 153 men [83.2%]; 107 White participants [58.2%]) included in the study, 91 (49.5%) were randomized to the loving-kindness group, and 93 (50.5%) were randomized to the cognitive processing group. The mean (SD) baseline CAPS-5 score was 35.5 (11.8) and mean (SD) PROMIS depression score was 60.9 (7.9). A total of 121 veterans (66%) completed 6-month follow-up. At 6 months posttreatment, mean CAPS-5 scores were 28.02 (95% CI, 24.72-31.32) for cognitive processing therapy and 25.92 (95% CI, 22.62-29.23) for loving-kindness meditation (difference, 2.09; 95% CI, -2.59 to 6.78), and mean PROMIS depression scores were 61.22 (95% CI, 59.21-63.23) for cognitive processing therapy and 58.88 (95% CI, 56.86-60.91) for loving-kindness meditation (difference, 2.34; 95% CI, -0.52 to 5.19). In superiority analyses, there were no significant between-group differences in CAPS-5 scores, whereas for PROMIS depression scores, greater reductions were found for loving-kindness meditation vs cognitive processing therapy (for patients attending >= 6 visits, >= 4-point improvement was noted in 24 [39.3%] veterans receiving loving-kindness meditation vs 9 (18.0%) receiving cognitive processing therapy; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among veterans with PTSD, loving-kindness meditation resulted in reductions in PTSD symptoms that were noninferior to group cognitive processing therapy. For both interventions, the magnitude of improvement in PTSD symptoms was modest. Change over time in depressive symptoms was greater for loving-kindness meditation than for cognitive processing therapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据