4.4 Article

Imaginal exposure exacerbation revisited: Deconstructing patient characteristics associated with worse reactions to the initiation of imaginal exposure in PTSD

期刊

BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH AND THERAPY
卷 135, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2020.103747

关键词

PTSD; Childhood abuse; Comorbidity; Prolonged exposure; Sertraline; Exacerbation

资金

  1. NIMH [R01MH066347, R01MH066348]
  2. William T. Dahms, M.D., Clinical Research Unit under the Cleveland Clinical and Translational Science Award [UL1 RR024989]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This study examines whether imaginal exposure leads to symptom exacerbation, systematically comparing individuals who received prolonged exposure (PE) to those who received pharmacotherapy. The study also examined whether common clinical features increase the likelihood of symptom exacerbation. Method: In 151 men and women with PTSD, we examined rates of reliable exacerbation of PTSD and depression symptoms after initiation of imaginal exposure and compared it to those receiving sertraline. We also examined relationships between exacerbation, treatment outcome, dropout, imaginal distress, and specific clinical features, including co-occurring MDD, multiple co-occurring disorders, childhood sexual abuse as target trauma, and a history of childhood physical or sexual abuse. Results: Symptom exacerbation was not more common in PE compared to sertraline, not associated with higher dropout, or predictive of worse outcome. Those with co-occurring depression or multiple disorders, a target trauma of child sexual abuse, or a history of child abuse reported functionally equivalent peak distress at onset of imaginal as those without these characteristics. These factors did not lead to more exacerbation or worse adherence. Conclusion: Exacerbation was not specific to PE and patients with and without symptom worsening showed comparable treatment gains, suggesting symptom exacerbation may reflect a common clinical process.

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

4.4
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