Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy versus Other PTSD Psychotherapies as Treatment for Women Victims of War-Related Violence: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although war-trauma victims are at a higher risk of developing PTSD, there is no consensus on the effective treatments for this condition among civilians who experienced war/conflict-related trauma. This paper assessed the effectiveness of the various forms of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) at lowering PTSD and depression severity. All published and unpublished randomized controlled trials studying the effectiveness of CBT at reducing PTSD and/or depression severity in the population of interest were searched. Out of 738 trials identified, 33 analysed a form of CBTs effectiveness, and ten were included in the paper. The subgroup analysis shows that cognitive processing therapy (CPT), culturally adapted CPT, and narrative exposure therapy (NET) contribute to the reduction of PTSD and depression severity in the population of interest. The effect size was also significant at a level of 0.01 with the exception of the effect of NET on depression score. The test of subgroup differences was also significant, suggesting CPT is more effective than NET in our population of interest. CPT as well as its culturallyadapted form and NET seem effective in helping war/conflict traumatised civilians cope with their PTSD symptoms. However, more studies are required if one wishes to recommend one of these therapies above the other.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".