4.6 Article

Long-term treatment gains of a brief exposure-based treatment for PTSD

期刊

DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY
卷 35, 期 10, 页码 985-991

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/da.22825

关键词

clinical trials; PTSD; therapy; trauma

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs [IK2 CX001589]
  2. National Institute of Mental Health [5T32MH019836-16, R01 MH095737]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundWritten exposure therapy (WET) is a 5-session PTSD treatment that may address barriers in treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) given its brevity and tolerability. A recent study found outcomes for WET were non-inferior to outcomes from Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT) through 36weeks from first treatment session (Sloan, Marx, Lee, & Resick, 2018); the current study examined whether treatment gains were maintained through 60weeks from first session, and also evaluated both treatments' effect on depressive symptoms. MethodsThe study enrolled 126 individuals with PTSD randomized to WET or CPT. Assessments were conducted at baseline and 6, 12, 24, 36, and 60 weeks following the first treatment session. PTSD diagnosis and symptom severity were determined via the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5), and depression symptoms were assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory-2. ResultsWET remained non-inferior to CPT through the 60week assessment; the groups had a difference of less than 3 points in their total CAPS-5 scores, and within-condition effects on PTSD were large (WET d=1.23; CPT d=1.38). Both treatments significantly reduced depressive symptoms over the 60week study, with the CPT group experiencing a more rapid decrease. The between-condition effect of treatment on depression was small (d=.19). ConclusionsWET is a treatment that is non-inferior to CPT with regard to PTSD symptoms, with treatment effects that are long-lasting. Additionally, both WET and CPT demonstrated substantial effects on depressive symptoms. WET should be considered a good option for PTSD treatment.

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

4.6
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