Specialized Inpatient Trauma Treatment for Adults Abused as Children: A Follow-Up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated outcome at discharge and at follow-up assessments for adults abused as children who completed a 6-week inpatient program for traumatic stress recovery. METHOD: Participants were assessed at admission, discharge, and 3, 6, and 12 months postdischarge on measures of global symptom severity, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and disrupted beliefs. Two wait-list comparison groups were also assessed at two points in time for comparison with the discharge and 3-month postdischarge assessments of the treatment group. RESULTS: Relative to admission, the mean scores on all outcome measures for the treatment group were improved at discharge and at 6 and 12 months. Relative to a wait list group, the treatment group was significantly improved at discharge. After 3 months, the scores for the treatment group were not different from those of a wait list group because of deterioration in the treatment group. Age, source of income, and number of axis II disorders were associated with differing patterns of PTSD symptom change over time. Between 32% and 45%, depending on outcome measure, met stringent criteria for clinically significant change at 12 months postdischarge. CONCLUSIONS: At discharge from a specialized inpatient treatment program, adults with a history of abuse during childhood showed improvement relative to a wait list group. Scores tended to deteriorate in the 3 months following discharge but rebounded to discharge levels by 12 months postdischarge. Although many abused adults benefited from specialized inpatient treatment, a substantial proportion did not show clinically significant change 1 year later.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".