Anders Nielsen, Felix Klich, Stig Poulsen, Jessica Carlsson, Hinuga Sandahl
{"title":"针对受创伤影响的难民的意象排练疗法和米安色林:随机对照试验的后续研究。","authors":"Anders Nielsen, Felix Klich, Stig Poulsen, Jessica Carlsson, Hinuga Sandahl","doi":"10.7146/torture.v34i2.141339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In order to identify the efficacy of treatment interventions for trauma-affected refugees follow-up studies are highly warranted. Hence, the overall aim of this study was to examine the effi-cacy of sleep-enhancing treatment, IRT and mianserin, in a sample of 219 trauma-affected refugees at six-month follow-up post-treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were derived from a four-armed randomized controlled trial in a sample of trauma-affected refugees with PTSD. All four arms received Treatment as Usual (TAU), an interdisciplinary treatment approach: one group received solely TAU, serving as a control group, whereas the remaining three groups were active-treatment groups receiving add-on treatment with either IRT, mianserin, or a combination. Mixed models were used to analyze the combinations of the two treatment factors (IRT vs. non-IRT and mianserin vs non-mianserin) and time (baseline vs follow-up and post-treatment vs follow-up) for the primary outcome sleep quality and for several secondary outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 36.7% of the participants had been exposed to torture and 44% had been imprisoned. The only significant effect of IRT was on well-be-ing (measured with WHO-5), where IRT showed higher improvement in well-being six months post-treatment (p =.027). There was no significant effect of mianserin on any of the outcome mea-sures.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This follow-up study found improvements from baseline to post-treatment on sleep quality and most of the secondary outcome measures that were maintained for all treatment condi-tions at the six-month follow-up assessment. A limitation of the study was that a high proportion (53.4%) of the participants did not attend the follow-up evaluation. The results indicate that add-on IRT-treatment and add-on mianserin-treatment were not superior to TAU at six-month follow-up post-treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":75230,"journal":{"name":"Torture : quarterly journal on rehabilitation of torture victims and prevention of torture","volume":"34 2","pages":"79-94"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Imagery rehearsal therapy and mianserin for trauma-affected refugees: Follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Anders Nielsen, Felix Klich, Stig Poulsen, Jessica Carlsson, Hinuga Sandahl\",\"doi\":\"10.7146/torture.v34i2.141339\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In order to identify the efficacy of treatment interventions for trauma-affected refugees follow-up studies are highly warranted. Hence, the overall aim of this study was to examine the effi-cacy of sleep-enhancing treatment, IRT and mianserin, in a sample of 219 trauma-affected refugees at six-month follow-up post-treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were derived from a four-armed randomized controlled trial in a sample of trauma-affected refugees with PTSD. All four arms received Treatment as Usual (TAU), an interdisciplinary treatment approach: one group received solely TAU, serving as a control group, whereas the remaining three groups were active-treatment groups receiving add-on treatment with either IRT, mianserin, or a combination. Mixed models were used to analyze the combinations of the two treatment factors (IRT vs. non-IRT and mianserin vs non-mianserin) and time (baseline vs follow-up and post-treatment vs follow-up) for the primary outcome sleep quality and for several secondary outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 36.7% of the participants had been exposed to torture and 44% had been imprisoned. The only significant effect of IRT was on well-be-ing (measured with WHO-5), where IRT showed higher improvement in well-being six months post-treatment (p =.027). There was no significant effect of mianserin on any of the outcome mea-sures.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This follow-up study found improvements from baseline to post-treatment on sleep quality and most of the secondary outcome measures that were maintained for all treatment condi-tions at the six-month follow-up assessment. A limitation of the study was that a high proportion (53.4%) of the participants did not attend the follow-up evaluation. The results indicate that add-on IRT-treatment and add-on mianserin-treatment were not superior to TAU at six-month follow-up post-treatment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75230,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Torture : quarterly journal on rehabilitation of torture victims and prevention of torture\",\"volume\":\"34 2\",\"pages\":\"79-94\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Torture : quarterly journal on rehabilitation of torture victims and prevention of torture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7146/torture.v34i2.141339\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Torture : quarterly journal on rehabilitation of torture victims and prevention of torture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7146/torture.v34i2.141339","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Imagery rehearsal therapy and mianserin for trauma-affected refugees: Follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.
Introduction: In order to identify the efficacy of treatment interventions for trauma-affected refugees follow-up studies are highly warranted. Hence, the overall aim of this study was to examine the effi-cacy of sleep-enhancing treatment, IRT and mianserin, in a sample of 219 trauma-affected refugees at six-month follow-up post-treatment.
Methods: Data were derived from a four-armed randomized controlled trial in a sample of trauma-affected refugees with PTSD. All four arms received Treatment as Usual (TAU), an interdisciplinary treatment approach: one group received solely TAU, serving as a control group, whereas the remaining three groups were active-treatment groups receiving add-on treatment with either IRT, mianserin, or a combination. Mixed models were used to analyze the combinations of the two treatment factors (IRT vs. non-IRT and mianserin vs non-mianserin) and time (baseline vs follow-up and post-treatment vs follow-up) for the primary outcome sleep quality and for several secondary outcome measures.
Results: A total of 36.7% of the participants had been exposed to torture and 44% had been imprisoned. The only significant effect of IRT was on well-be-ing (measured with WHO-5), where IRT showed higher improvement in well-being six months post-treatment (p =.027). There was no significant effect of mianserin on any of the outcome mea-sures.
Discussion: This follow-up study found improvements from baseline to post-treatment on sleep quality and most of the secondary outcome measures that were maintained for all treatment condi-tions at the six-month follow-up assessment. A limitation of the study was that a high proportion (53.4%) of the participants did not attend the follow-up evaluation. The results indicate that add-on IRT-treatment and add-on mianserin-treatment were not superior to TAU at six-month follow-up post-treatment.