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 , Christopher R. DeJesus , Jaclyn C. Kearns , Johanna Thompson-Hollands , Stephanie L. Trendel , Brian P. Marx , 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 , Christopher R. DeJesus , Jaclyn C. Kearns , Johanna Thompson-Hollands , Stephanie L. Trendel , Brian P. Marx , 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}
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.
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.