有和没有书面记录的认知加工疗法的荟萃分析综述

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Julia C. Sager , Christopher R. DeJesus , Jaclyn C. Kearns , Johanna Thompson-Hollands , Stephanie L. Trendel , Brian P. Marx , Denise M. Sloan
{"title":"有和没有书面记录的认知加工疗法的荟萃分析综述","authors":"Julia C. Sager ,&nbsp;Christopher R. DeJesus ,&nbsp;Jaclyn C. Kearns ,&nbsp;Johanna Thompson-Hollands ,&nbsp;Stephanie L. Trendel ,&nbsp;Brian P. Marx ,&nbsp;Denise M. Sloan","doi":"10.1016/j.janxdis.2025.102976","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>There are two versions of the Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT) protocol: one that includes a trauma narrative and one that does not. Despite both versions being used in clinical practice, to date, there has not been a comprehensive comparison of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment outcomes associated with these two protocols. The current study is a meta-analytic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of CPT+A (<em>k</em> = 13) and CPT-C (<em>k</em> = 16) in which we investigated whether there are differences in treatment outcome effect sizes and treatment dropout between the two protocol versions. Sample type (military/veteran versus non-military/non-veteran) as a moderator was examined, given that less robust PTSD treatment outcomes have been typically observed in military and veteran samples. Meta-regression analyses revealed that there were no significant differences between the two CPT protocol versions in pre-post PTSD treatment effect sizes, <em>t</em>(26) = -0.743, <em>p</em> = .463. As expected, studies that enrolled a military or veteran sample reported an average smaller symptom reduction (<em>g</em> = 0.95) than studies that enrolled a non-military or non-veteran sample (<em>g</em> = 1.41), <em>t</em>(26) = 2.48, <em>p</em> = .019. There were also no significant differences between the two CPT protocols for treatment dropout, <em>t</em>(26) = 1.69, <em>p</em> = .104, or between studies enrolling military/veteran and non-military/non-veteran samples <em>t</em>(26) <em>=</em> -1.10, <em>p</em> = .282. The findings support the use of either CPT protocol in practice, but also demonstrate that veterans and service members may be less responsive to either CPT protocol than other trauma samples.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48390,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anxiety Disorders","volume":"110 ","pages":"Article 102976"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A meta-analytic review of cognitive processing therapy with and without the written account\",\"authors\":\"Julia C. Sager ,&nbsp;Christopher R. DeJesus ,&nbsp;Jaclyn C. Kearns ,&nbsp;Johanna Thompson-Hollands ,&nbsp;Stephanie L. Trendel ,&nbsp;Brian P. Marx ,&nbsp;Denise M. Sloan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.janxdis.2025.102976\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>There are two versions of the Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT) protocol: one that includes a trauma narrative and one that does not. Despite both versions being used in clinical practice, to date, there has not been a comprehensive comparison of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment outcomes associated with these two protocols. The current study is a meta-analytic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of CPT+A (<em>k</em> = 13) and CPT-C (<em>k</em> = 16) in which we investigated whether there are differences in treatment outcome effect sizes and treatment dropout between the two protocol versions. Sample type (military/veteran versus non-military/non-veteran) as a moderator was examined, given that less robust PTSD treatment outcomes have been typically observed in military and veteran samples. Meta-regression analyses revealed that there were no significant differences between the two CPT protocol versions in pre-post PTSD treatment effect sizes, <em>t</em>(26) = -0.743, <em>p</em> = .463. As expected, studies that enrolled a military or veteran sample reported an average smaller symptom reduction (<em>g</em> = 0.95) than studies that enrolled a non-military or non-veteran sample (<em>g</em> = 1.41), <em>t</em>(26) = 2.48, <em>p</em> = .019. There were also no significant differences between the two CPT protocols for treatment dropout, <em>t</em>(26) = 1.69, <em>p</em> = .104, or between studies enrolling military/veteran and non-military/non-veteran samples <em>t</em>(26) <em>=</em> -1.10, <em>p</em> = .282. The findings support the use of either CPT protocol in practice, but also demonstrate that veterans and service members may be less responsive to either CPT protocol than other trauma samples.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48390,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Anxiety Disorders\",\"volume\":\"110 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102976\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Anxiety Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088761852500012X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anxiety Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088761852500012X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

认知处理疗法(CPT)有两种版本:一种包含创伤叙述,另一种不包含。尽管在临床实践中使用了这两种版本,但迄今为止,还没有对这两种方案相关的创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)治疗结果进行全面比较。目前的研究是对29项CPT+ a (k = 13)和CPT- c (k = 16)的随机对照试验的荟萃分析,我们调查了两种方案版本在治疗结局效应大小和治疗退出方面是否存在差异。考虑到在军人和退伍军人样本中通常观察到的创伤后应激障碍治疗效果较差,研究了样本类型(军人/退伍军人与非军事/非退伍军人)作为调节因子。meta回归分析显示,两种CPT方案在PTSD前-后治疗效应量上无显著差异,t(26) = -0.743,p = .463。正如预期的那样,招募军人或退伍军人样本的研究报告的平均症状减轻程度(g = 0.95)小于招募非军人或非退伍军人样本的研究(g = 1.41), t(26) = 2.48,p = 0.019。两种CPT方案在治疗退出方面也无显著差异,t(26) = 1.69,p = 。104,或在招募军人/退伍军人和非军人/非退伍军人样本的研究之间t(26) = -1.10,p = .282。研究结果支持在实践中使用CPT方案中的任何一种,但也表明退伍军人和服务人员可能对CPT方案中的任何一种反应都不如其他创伤样本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A meta-analytic review of cognitive processing therapy with and without the written account
There are two versions of the Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT) protocol: one that includes a trauma narrative and one that does not. Despite both versions being used in clinical practice, to date, there has not been a comprehensive comparison of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment outcomes associated with these two protocols. The current study is a meta-analytic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of CPT+A (k = 13) and CPT-C (k = 16) in which we investigated whether there are differences in treatment outcome effect sizes and treatment dropout between the two protocol versions. Sample type (military/veteran versus non-military/non-veteran) as a moderator was examined, given that less robust PTSD treatment outcomes have been typically observed in military and veteran samples. Meta-regression analyses revealed that there were no significant differences between the two CPT protocol versions in pre-post PTSD treatment effect sizes, t(26) = -0.743, p = .463. As expected, studies that enrolled a military or veteran sample reported an average smaller symptom reduction (g = 0.95) than studies that enrolled a non-military or non-veteran sample (g = 1.41), t(26) = 2.48, p = .019. There were also no significant differences between the two CPT protocols for treatment dropout, t(26) = 1.69, p = .104, or between studies enrolling military/veteran and non-military/non-veteran samples t(26) = -1.10, p = .282. The findings support the use of either CPT protocol in practice, but also demonstrate that veterans and service members may be less responsive to either CPT protocol than other trauma samples.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
16.60
自引率
2.90%
发文量
95
期刊介绍: The Journal of Anxiety Disorders is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes research papers on all aspects of anxiety disorders for individuals of all age groups, including children, adolescents, adults, and the elderly. Manuscripts that focus on disorders previously classified as anxiety disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as the new category of illness anxiety disorder, are also within the scope of the journal. The research areas of focus include traditional, behavioral, cognitive, and biological assessment; diagnosis and classification; psychosocial and psychopharmacological treatment; genetics; epidemiology; and prevention. The journal welcomes theoretical and review articles that significantly contribute to current knowledge in the field. It is abstracted and indexed in various databases such as Elsevier, BIOBASE, PubMed/Medline, PsycINFO, BIOSIS Citation Index, BRS Data, Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences, Pascal Francis, Scopus, and Google Scholar.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信