Psychosocial treatment of pediatric posttraumatic stress disorder: the neglected field of single-incident trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the prevalence of childhood trauma, studies regarding psychotherapy for children suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are scarce, especially regarding the treatment for pediatric PTSD following single-incident trauma. Treatment practices for this population rely mainly on the paradigms of therapy for adult PTSD and pediatric PTSD following sexual abuse. This review outlines the studies published in the last 10 years pertaining to the treatment of pediatric PTSD following single-incident trauma. This is done in the context of available literature on the paradigms mentioned above. Of 742 articles dealing with treatment of pediatric trauma, 10 were found relevant to the treatment of pediatric PTSD following single-incident trauma. The modalities of treatment most frequently reported in this context were cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), and play therapy. As a whole, CBT studies were methodologically more rigorous, used manualized, reproducible treatment, and were group, school-based therapies. EMDR treatments were usually short and individual. Most studies showed statistically significant improvement but were still methodologically lacking. We conclude that research on the subject of treatment for pediatric PTSD following single-incident trauma constitutes a neglected part of the study of pediatric PTSD. This stands in contrast to the obvious prevalence of this type of trauma. We encourage future research that will address issues such as clarifying the role of pharmacotherapy, comparing different modes of treatment, dismantling treatment "packages," researching developmentally sensitive treatments, conducting long-term follow-up, and comparing different PTSD populations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".