Single-Session Attention Bias Modification Training in Victims of Work-Related Accidents

Attentional bias modification and attention control training in PTSD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Cognitive models of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) highlighted the effect of maladaptive cognitive processing in the development and maintenance of PTSD. PTSD is related to attentional bias (AB) toward threatening stimuli and greater attentional bias variability (ABV). Attentional bias modification (ABM) and attention control training (ACT) have demonstrated the effect of improving PTSD, but the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are controversial.

Objectives

The current study aimed to evaluate the extent of evidence supporting the efficacy of ABM in the treatment of PTSD.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched PUBMED, PsycINFO, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for articles published between 1980 and 2022. RCTs of ABM for adult participants with PTSD symptoms were identified. The primary outcome was changes in PTSD severity, and the second outcome was changes in AB and ABV. Trial quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Publication bias was assessed using the Doi plot and Luis Furuya-Kanamori (LFK) index.

Results

Eight RCTs comparing the effect of ABM to ACT were included in the review, and six studies were meta-analyzed. Meta-analysis favored ACT in improving PTSD symptoms and ABV, and the effect size was large. ABM and ACT demonstrated similar effects in improving AB.

Conclusion

ACT should not only be seen as a control training condition but also has therapeutic values. However, since the current meta-analysis only included a limited number of studies, further research was still needed to examine the clinical value of ACT in PTSD treatment.

Attention and interpretation cognitive bias change: A systematic review and meta-analysis of bias modification paradigms

This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the effect of Cognitive Bias Modification for attention (CBM-A) and interpretation (CBM-I) on reducing the targeted biases and investigates moderators of each approach. PsycINFO, PsychArticles, and PubMED databases were searched for randomized-controlled studies published before March 2020 with pre- and post-CBM cognitive bias outcome measures, resulting in 91 CBM-A (n = 5914 individuals) and 70 CBM-I samples (n = 4802 individuals). Random-effects models and Hedge's g calculation showed significant medium overall effects of bias reduction with moderate to high heterogeneity (CBM-A g = 0.49 [0.36, 0.64], I² = 85.19%; CBM-I g = 0.58 [0.48, 0.68], I² = 70.92%). Effect sizes did not differ between approaches and remained significant after trim-and-fill adjustment for possible publication bias. Moderator variables were investigated with meta-regression and subgroup analyses. Participant age, symptom type, control condition and number of trials moderated CBM-A; student and clinical status moderated CBM-I effect size. Results support attention and interpretation modification in controlled laboratory and variable (online) training settings for non-clinical and clinical samples across various symptom types (anxiety, depression, substance use, eating disorders). Further empirical evidence is necessary to determine optimal sample and methodological combinations most strongly associated with adaptive behavioral outcomes.