The efficacy of written exposure therapy versus imaginal exposure delivered online for posttraumatic stress disorder: Design of a randomized controlled trial in Veterans

A pilot randomized controlled trial of online written exposure therapy delivered by peer coaches to veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder

This pilot randomized clinical trial (RCT) sought to examine the preliminary efficacy of an internet-based version of written exposure therapy delivered to veterans through an online program supported by peer coaches. Veterans (N = 124) with clinically significant posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms were randomly assigned to imaginal exposure either via writing (written exposure) or verbal recounting (verbal exposure). The online treatment involved four to eight sessions of imaginal exposure preceded and followed by an online chat with a peer coach. Participants completed assessments at baseline, posttreatment, and 3-month follow-up. Half of the participants never started treatment; among those who started treatment, the mean number of sessions completed was 4.92. At posttreatment, participants in both conditions reported clinically meaningful improvements in PTSD symptoms, d = 1.35; depressive symptoms, d = 1.10; and functioning, d = 0.39. Although participants in both treatment conditions demonstrated significant improvements in PTSD symptom severity, equivalence results were inconclusive, as the 95% confidence interval of the change score difference exceeded the specified margin and overlapped with 0. Estimated mean change scores demonstrated that both conditions showed significant reductions at posttreatment and follow-up. Although engagement with the online program was a significant challenge, the findings suggest that written exposure therapy is effective for improving PTSD symptoms, depressive symptoms, and functioning when adapted for internet-based delivery and facilitated by peer coaches. Using technology to deliver exposure therapy and task-shifting the role of the therapist to peer coaches are promising strategies to increase access to effective PTSD care.

Mental Health of People Under Isolation During the covid-19 Outbreak: An Exploratory Study

We conducted an exploratory study using a survey inquiring on seven topics on how people were reacting to the covid-19 pandemic of 2020 aiming to trace a map of symptoms and feelings related to mental health and isolation. 1785 people participated in the survey. Additionally, we applied two psychological scales to analyze depression and stress (prevalent in previous studies). We found that people in isolation during the pandemic presented symptoms related to dissociative disorders, negative affect, and anxiety syndrome. Also, depression and stress had a high prevalence compared to the average rates indicated by the World Health Organisation and the Colombian Ministry of Health. The results indicated an association between depression and stress and being previously diagnosed with a mental health problem, and job and financial situation. Our results highlight the need to design prevention and intervention programmes to reduce the negative consequences of isolation.

Computerized Psychological Interventions in Veterans and Service Members: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Computerized psychological interventions can overcome logistical and psychosocial barriers to the use of mental health care in the Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense settings.

Objective

In this systematic review, we aim to outline the existing literature, with the goal of describing: the scope and quality of the available literature, intervention characteristics, study methods, study efficacy, and study limitations and potential directions for future research.

Methods

Systematic searches of two databases (PsycINFO and PubMed) using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were conducted from inception until November 15, 2020. The following inclusion criteria were used: the study was published in an English language peer-reviewed journal, participants were randomly allocated to a computerized psychological intervention or a control group (non–computerized psychological intervention active treatment or nonactive control group), an intervention in at least one treatment arm was primarily delivered through the computer or internet with or without additional support, participants were veterans or service members, and the study used validated measures to examine the effect of treatment on psychological outcomes.

Results

This review included 23 studies that met the predefined inclusion criteria. Most studies were at a high risk of bias. Targeted outcomes, participant characteristics, type of support delivered, adherence, and participant satisfaction were described. Most of the examined interventions (19/24, 79%) yielded positive results. Study limitations included participant characteristics limiting study inference, high rates of attrition, and an overreliance on self-reported outcomes.

Conclusions

Relatively few high-quality studies were identified, and more rigorous investigations are needed. Several recommendations for future research are discussed, including the adoption of methods that minimize attrition, optimize use, and allow for personalization of treatment.

Internet-based cognitive and behavioural therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults

BACKGROUND

Therapist-delivered trauma-focused psychological therapies are effective for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and have become the accepted first-line treatments. Despite the established evidence-base for these therapies, they are not always widely available or accessible. Many barriers limit treatment uptake, such as the number of qualified therapists available to deliver the interventions; cost; and compliance issues, such as time off work, childcare, and transportation, associated with the need to attend weekly appointments. Delivering Internet-based cognitive and behavioural therapy (I-C/BT) is an effective and acceptable alternative to therapist-delivered treatments for anxiety and depression.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of I-C/BT for PTSD in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to June 2020. We also searched online clinical trial registries and reference lists of included studies and contacted the authors of included studies and other researchers in the field to identify additional and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for RCTs of I-C/BT compared to face-to-face or Internet-based psychological treatment, psychoeducation, wait list, or care as usual. We included studies of adults (aged over 16 years), in which at least 70% of the participants met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed abstracts, extracted data, and entered data into Review Manager 5. The primary outcomes were severity of PTSD symptoms and dropouts. Secondary outcomes included diagnosis of PTSD after treatment, severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms, cost-effectiveness, adverse events, treatment acceptability, and quality of life. We analysed categorical outcomes as risk ratios (RRs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We pooled data using a fixed-effect meta-analysis, except where heterogeneity was present, in which case we used a random-effects model. We independently assessed the included studies for risk of bias and we evaluated the certainty of available evidence using the GRADE approach; we discussed any conflicts with at least one other review author, with the aim of reaching a unanimous decision.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies with 808 participants. Ten studies compared I-C/BT delivered with therapist guidance to a wait list control. Two studies compared guided I-C/BT with I-non-C/BT. One study compared guided I-C/BT with face-to-face non-C/BT. There was substantial heterogeneity among the included studies. I-C/BT compared with face-to-face non-CBT Very low-certainty evidence based on one small study suggested face-to-face non-CBT may be more effective than I-C/BT at reducing PTSD symptoms post-treatment (MD 10.90, 95% CI 6.57 to 15.23; studies = 1, participants = 40). There may be no evidence of a difference in dropout rates between treatments (RR 2.49, 95% CI 0.91 to 6.77; studies = 1, participants = 40; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure diagnosis of PTSD, severity of depressive or anxiety symptoms, cost-effectiveness, or adverse events. I-C/BT compared with wait list Very low-certainty evidence showed that, compared with wait list, I-C/BT may be associated with a clinically important reduction in PTSD post-treatment (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.29; studies = 10, participants = 608). There may be no evidence of a difference in dropout rates between the I-C/BT and wait list groups (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.60; studies = 9, participants = 634; low-certainty evidence). I-C/BT may be no more effective than wait list at reducing the risk of a diagnosis of PTSD after treatment (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.00; studies = 1, participants = 62; very low-certainty evidence). I-C/BT may be associated with a clinically important reduction in symptoms of depression post-treatment (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.06; studies = 7, participants = 473; very low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence also suggested that I-C/BT may be associated with a clinically important reduction in symptoms of anxiety post-treatment (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.33; studies = 5, participants = 345). There were no data regarding cost-effectiveness. Data regarding adverse events were uncertain, as only one study reported an absence of adverse events. I-C/BT compared with I-non-C/BT There may be no evidence of a difference in PTSD symptoms post-treatment between the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.35; studies = 2, participants = 82; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference between dropout rates from the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 4.73; studies = 2, participants = 132; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies found no evidence of a difference in post-treatment depressive symptoms between the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.54; studies = 2, participants = 84; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies found no evidence of a difference in post-treatment symptoms of anxiety between the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.95; studies = 2, participants = 74; very low-certainty evidence). There were no data regarding cost-effectiveness. Data regarding adverse effects were uncertain, as it was not discernible whether adverse effects reported were attributable to the intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While the review found some beneficial effects of I-C/BT for PTSD, the certainty of the evidence was very low due to the small number of included trials. This review update found many planned and ongoing studies, which is encouraging since further work is required to establish non-inferiority to current first-line interventions, explore mechanisms of change, establish optimal levels of guidance, explore cost-effectiveness, measure adverse events, and determine predictors of efficacy and dropout.

Exposure-Based Writing Therapies for Subthreshold and Clinical Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We undertook a systematic review to assess the efficacy of exposure-based writing therapies (WTs) for trauma-exposed adults with subthreshold or clinical levels of posttraumatic stress disorder. Four databases (PsycINFO, Medline, Wiley Online, PILOTS) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of exposure-based WTs. A total of 13 RCTs that reported on results from 17 WT versus control comparisons were included. The primary outcomes were posttraumatic stress symptom severity at posttreatment and/or clinical response. An overall unclear or high risk of bias was identified in 84.6% of studies. In comparison to both waitlist k = 3, Hedges' g = -0.97, 95% CI [-1.20, -0.73], and placebo writing conditions, k = 9, Hedges' g = -0.48, 95% CI [-0.87, -0.08], WTs were more beneficial to participants. There was no evidence of a difference between WTs that were longer in duration compared to other psychotherapy, k = 2; pooled OR = 1.42; 95% CI [0.83, 2.43]. These findings indicate that exposure-based WTs are effective when compared to waitlist and placebo writing control conditions. The evidence needs to be considered in the context of the modest number of studies conducted to date, the high methodological heterogeneity between the studies, and the high or unclear risk of bias across many studies. Further research is needed to increase the evidence base regarding the efficacy of WTs for posttraumatic stress. Future research should also measure the mediators and predictors of outcomes to further develop protocols and understand which variants of WTs work for different populations or individuals.