The development of a clinician‐administered PTSD scale

Background: There is room for improvement regarding the treatment of severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Intensifying treatment to increase patient retention is a promising development. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of an intensive trauma-focused treatment programme over 8 days for individuals suffering from severe PTSD. Method: Treatment was provided for 347 PTSD patients (70% women; mean age = 38.32 years, SD = 11.69) and consisted of daily sessions of prolonged exposure and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy (16 sessions in total), physical activity, and psycho-education. All participants had experienced multiple traumas, including sexual abuse (74.4%), and suffered from multiple comorbidities (e.g. 87.5% had a mood disorder). Suicidal ideation was frequent (73.9%). PTSD symptom severity was assessed by both clinician-rated [Clinician Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS)] and self-report [PTSD Symptom Scale Self Report (PSS-SR) and Impact of Event Scale (IES)] inventories. For a subsample (n = 109), follow-up data at 6 months were available. Results: A significant decline in symptom severity was found (e.g. CAPS intention-to-treat sample Cohen’s d = 1.64). At post-treatment, 82.9% showed a clinically meaningful response and 54.9% a loss of diagnosis. Dropout was very low (2.3%). Conclusions: Intensive trauma-focused treatment programmes including prolonged exposure, EMDR therapy, and physical activity can be effective for patients suffering from severe PTSD and are associated with low dropout rates.

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of an intensive treatment programme combining prolonged exposure and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing for severe post-traumatic stress disorder

Woudenberg¹,

Voorendonk²,

Bongaerts³

et al. 2018

“…Inclusion criteria were: (a) age ≥ 18 years; (b) history of multiple interpersonal traumas (repeated sexual abuse and/or repeated physical abuse); (c) meeting full DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000) diagnostic criteria for PTSD established with the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS-IV; Blake et al, 1995); and (d) history of multiple treatment attempts. Exclusion criteria were: (a) suicide attempt within eight weeks prior to study entry (i.e.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intensive prolonged exposure therapy for chronic PTSD patients following multiple trauma and multiple treatment attempts

Hendriks

Kleine

Broekman³

et al. 2018

Background: Suboptimal response and high dropout rates leave room for improvement of trauma-focused treatment (TFT) effectiveness in ameliorating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. Objective: To explore the effectiveness and safety of intensive prolonged exposure (iPE) targeting chronic PTSD patients with a likely diagnosis of ICD-11 Complex PTSD following multiple interpersonal trauma and a history of multiple treatment attempts. Method: Participants (N = 73) received iPE in 12 × 90-minute sessions over four days (intensive phase) followed by four weekly 90-minute booster prolonged exposure (PE) sessions (booster phase). The primary outcomes, clinician-rated severity of PTSD symptoms, and diagnostic status (Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale; CAPS-IV) were assessed at baseline, post-treatment, and at three and six months. Treatment response trajectories were identified and predictors of these trajectories explored. Results: Mixed model repeated measures analysis of CAPS-IV scores showed a baseline-to-posttreatment decrease in PTSD symptom severity (p < .001) that persisted during the three- and six-month follow-ups with large effect sizes (Cohen’s d > 1.2); 71% of the participants responded. None of the participants dropped out during the intensive phase and only 5% during the booster phase. Adverse events were extremely low and only a minority showed symptom exacerbation. Cluster analysis demonstrated four treatment response trajectories: Fast responders (13%), Slow responders (26%), Partial responders (32%), and Non-responders (29%). Living condition and between-session fear habituation were found to predict outcome. Participants living alone were more likely to belong to the Partial responders than to the Non-responders cluster, and participants showing more between-session fear habituation were more likely to belong to the Fast responders than to the Non-responders cluster. Conclusions: The results of this open study suggest that iPE can be effective in PTSD patients with multiple interpersonal trauma and after multiple previous treatment attempts. In addition, in this chronic PTSD population iPE was safe.

“…As the study started before the introduction of the DSM-5, participants were eligible if they met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD according to DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) as assessed with the Clinician-administered PTSD scale (CAPS; Blake et al, 1995). Furthermore, the index trauma (i.e.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trauma-related memories in PTSD after interpersonal violence: an ambulatory assessment study

Kleindienst

Priebe

Petri

et al. 2017

Background: Ambulatory assessment (AA) is increasingly recommended for assessing symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Previous AA studies provided new insights into the phenomenology of trauma-related memories, but also divergent findings. Notably, the range of trauma-related memories (a major target of psychotherapeutic interventions) reported in AA studies was as wide as 7.3 to 74.5 per week which might result from different methods used in these studies. Objective: We aimed at assessing the frequency of trauma-related memories in PTSD related to interpersonal violence and investigated whether this frequency is dependent upon the method. Method: For each patient trauma-related memories were assessed using two variants of smartphone-based AA: (1) Event-based sampling (EBS), i.e. participants entered data on each intrusive memory as it occurred; (2) Time-based sampling (TBS), i.e. participants reported the number of trauma-related memories they had experienced during the last two hours after they had been alerted by the smartphone. The numbers reported during the TBS-block were either analysed as reported by the participants or restricted to one per hour (rTBS). The impact of smartphone-assessments on trauma-related memories was assessed during a post-monitoring questionnaire. Results: While trauma-related memories were frequent across assessments, the methodology had a huge impact on the numbers: EBS (median = 7) and rTBS (median = 6) yielded significantly lower weekly numbers of intrusive trauma-related memories than TBS (median = 49). Accordingly, the possibility to report unrestricted numbers of trauma-related memories clearly impacted the results. The post-monitoring questionnaire identified another source for the divergent findings: while feeling disrupted by the smartphone-assessments was unrelated to the numbers reported during EBS, feeling disrupted was related to an increase of trauma-related memories during TBS and rTBS. Conclusions: The method clearly impacts the recorded number of trauma-related memories. Future research should clarify whether other variables (e.g. the subjective stress related to intrusive memories) are less dependent on the methodology.