How important are Phase 1 interventions for complex interpersonal trauma? A pilot randomized control trial of a group psychoeducational intervention.
Saved in:
| Title: | How important are Phase 1 interventions for complex interpersonal trauma? A pilot randomized control trial of a group psychoeducational intervention. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Mahoney, Adam (AUTHOR), Karatzias, Thanos (AUTHOR), Halliday, Kirsty (AUTHOR), Dougal, Nadine (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy. Jul2020, Vol. 27 Issue 4, p597-610. 14p. 1 Diagram, 6 Charts. |
| Subjects: | Treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, Confidence intervals, Group psychotherapy, Interpersonal relations, Prison psychology, Psychological tests, Statistics, Data analysis, Treatment effectiveness, Psychoeducation, Odds ratio |
| Abstract: | Although psychoeducational interventions are recommended as Phase 1 interventions for complex trauma, there is limited evidence on their efficacy. This pilot randomized control trial (RCT) investigated the efficacy of a pure psychoeducational intervention for complex trauma. A brief 10‐session intervention was delivered to n = 44 female prisoners in a compressed format to accommodate short sentence lengths and was compared with usual care (n = 42). Results from an intent‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between the two arms across the three assessment time points (including 1‐month postintervention) for the main outcomes (Behavioural Assessment Checklist‐Revised, β = 4.60, 95% CI [−1.60, 10.88], p =.148; posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD] Checklist, β = −1.47, 95% CI [−4.30, 1.36], p =.303). Post hoc reliable change analyses suggested twice the number of adequate dose participants made progress in addressing PTSD symptoms compared with usual care (30.3% vs. 17.6%, OR 2.03, 95% CI [.64, 6.43]). Although further work in this area is required, initial results, overall, suggest that psychoeducational group‐based treatment modalities achieve only small effect sizes in comparison with usual care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Although psychoeducational interventions are recommended as Phase 1 interventions for complex trauma, there is limited evidence on their efficacy. This pilot randomized control trial (RCT) investigated the efficacy of a pure psychoeducational intervention for complex trauma. A brief 10‐session intervention was delivered to n = 44 female prisoners in a compressed format to accommodate short sentence lengths and was compared with usual care (n = 42). Results from an intent‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between the two arms across the three assessment time points (including 1‐month postintervention) for the main outcomes (Behavioural Assessment Checklist‐Revised, β = 4.60, 95% CI [−1.60, 10.88], p =.148; posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD] Checklist, β = −1.47, 95% CI [−4.30, 1.36], p =.303). Post hoc reliable change analyses suggested twice the number of adequate dose participants made progress in addressing PTSD symptoms compared with usual care (30.3% vs. 17.6%, OR 2.03, 95% CI [.64, 6.43]). Although further work in this area is required, initial results, overall, suggest that psychoeducational group‐based treatment modalities achieve only small effect sizes in comparison with usual care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10633995 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/cpp.2447 |
