Social Support Moderates Outcome in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Exposure Therapy and (or) Cognitive Restructuring for Chronic Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand what predicts good outcome in psychiatric treatments, thus creating a pathway to improving efficacy. METHOD: Our study investigated relations between predictor variables and outcome (on the Clinician Administered Posttraumatic Stress Disorder [PTSD] Scale [CAPS]) at posttreatment for 77 treatment completers in a randomized controlled trial of exposure therapy and (or) cognitive restructuring, compared with relaxation, for chronic PTSD in adults. RESULTS: More social support on the Significant Others Scale significantly predicted better outcome on the CAPS, even after controlling for the effects of treatment group and of pretreatment severity. Importantly, social support was only a significant predictor of outcome for participants receiving cognitive restructuring and (or) exposure therapy and not for participants in the relaxation condition. CONCLUSIONS: Better social support is associated with significantly greater gain following cognitive restructuring and (or) exposure therapy for PTSD. Future interventions should consider augmenting social support as an adjunct to treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".