Search

Background: Limited research has addressed the efficacy of remote intensive trauma-focused treatment programmes. Objective: This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a remote intensive treatment programme in reducing symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), general psychiatric symptoms, symptoms of depression, and the interference of PTSD symptoms in daily life among individuals diagnosed with PTSD. Method: A cohort of 26 patients diagnosed with PTSD underwent a six-day remote treatment programme, which included prolonged exposure, Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR), physical activity, and psycho-education. PTSD symptoms, general psychiatric symptoms, symptoms of depression, and interference of PTSD symptoms in daily life were assessed at screening, pre-treatment, post-treatment, 1-week, 4-week, and at 6-month follow-up. Results: A significant decrease in PTSD symptoms, measured by the CAPS-5 and PCL-5, was observed from screening to 4-week follow-up (respectively, d  = 1.42, d  = 1.15), and sustained improvements were noted at 6-month follow-up (respectively, d  = 1.70, d  = 1.29). Additionally, a significant decrease in general psychiatric symptoms ( d  = 1.18), symptoms of depression ( d  = 0.85), and interference of PTSD symptoms in daily life ( d  = 0.92) was found from pre-treatment to 4-week follow-up. At 4-week follow-up, 56% of the participants no longer met the criteria for PTSD according to the CAPS-5, 73.1% showed improvement, and no patients worsened based on the Reliable Change Index. Discussion: The results of this study demonstrate that a remote intensive trauma-focused treatment was effective in reducing PTSD symptoms and secondary outcomes in individuals with PTSD due to multiple traumatic experiences. To enhance the robustness of these findings, future studies should incorporate controlled designs, larger sample sizes, and extended follow-up durations.

Background: Several widely studied therapies have proven to be effective in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, there is still room for improvement because not all patients benefit from trauma-focused treatments. Improvements in the treatment of PTSD can be achieved by investigating ways to enhance existing therapies, such as eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy, as well as exploring novel treatments. The purpose of the current study is to determine the differential effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability of EMDR therapy, an adaptation of EMDR therapy, referred to as EMDR 2.0, and a novel intervention for PTSD, the so-called Flash technique. The second aim is to identify the moderators of effectiveness for these interventions. This study will be conducted among individuals diagnosed with PTSD using a randomized controlled trial design., Methods: A total of 130 patients diagnosed with (complex) PTSD will be randomly allocated to either six sessions of EMDR therapy, EMDR 2.0, or the Flash technique. The primary outcomes used to determine treatment effectiveness include the presence of a PTSD diagnosis and the severity of PTSD symptoms. The secondary outcomes of effectiveness include symptoms of depression, symptoms of dissociation, general psychiatric symptoms, and experiential avoidance. All patients will be assessed at baseline, at 4-week post-treatment, and at 12-week follow-up. Questionnaires indexing symptoms of PTSD, depression, general psychopathology, and experiential avoidance will also be assessed weekly during treatment and bi-weekly after treatment, until the 12-week follow-up. Efficiency will be assessed by investigating the time it takes both to lose the diagnostic status of PTSD, and to achieve reliable change in PTSD symptoms. Treatment acceptability will be assessed after the first treatment session and after treatment termination., Discussion: This study is the first to investigate EMDR 2.0 therapy and the Flash technique in a sample of participants officially diagnosed with PTSD using a randomized controlled trial design. This study is expected to improve the available treatment options for PTSD and provide therapists with alternative ways to choose a therapy beyond its effectiveness by considering moderators, efficiency, and acceptability., Trial Registration: The trial was retrospectively registered in the ISRCTN registry at 10th November 2022 under registration number ISRCTN13100019., Competing Interests: SM and AJ earned income from presenting workshops in EMDR 2.0 and the Flash technique, and from giving training and/or consultation in EMDR therapy. AJ also earned income from book royalties on EMDR therapy. SM was also a board member for the ‘Vereniging EMDR Nederland’ (English: Dutch EMDR Association). The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Alting van Geusau, de Jongh, Nuijs, Brouwers, Moerbeek and Matthijssen.)

Background and Objectives: Attentional Bias Modification (ABM) paradigms targeting anxiety aim to reduce attentional biases for threatening stimuli and thereby reduce anxiety. Based on cognitive theories of performance and learning, elevated levels of arousal during ABM might enhance its effectiveness by making training more engaging and activating fear schemas. This study investigated whether elevated levels of arousal during ABM would increase its effectiveness in reducing attentional bias, stress reactivity, and post-event processing., Method: We randomly assigned 79 high socially anxious students to a session of ABM or control training preceded by either a social stress or control induction to manipulate arousal. Training outcomes were attentional bias, stress reactivity, and post-event processing. Subjective arousal was assessed before, during, and after training., Results: Results indicated that ABM was not successful in reducing attentional bias, stress reactivity or post-event processing, and that the effects of ABM were not moderated by subjective arousal. There was a trend towards ABM being more effective than control training in reducing attentional bias directly after training when participants were more aroused. However, this effect was not maintained one day after the training., Limitations: The arousal manipulation did not result in significant between-group differences in subjective arousal., Conclusions: This study did not provide support for the moderating role of arousal in ABM training effects. Replications with more effective mood induction procedures and more power are needed as a trend finding was observed suggesting that higher levels of arousal improved the direct ABM effects on attentional bias., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)