Cognitive–behavioral conjoint therapy for PTSD improves various PTSD symptoms and trauma-related cognitions: Results from a randomized controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies document an association between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and impairments in intimate relationship functioning, and there is evidence that PTSD symptoms and associated impairments are improved by cognitive-behavioral conjoint therapy for PTSD (CBCT for PTSD; Monson & Fredman, 2012). The present study investigated changes across treatment in clinician-rated PTSD symptom clusters and patient-rated trauma-related cognitions in a randomized controlled trial comparing CBCT for PTSD with waitlist in a sample of 40 individuals with PTSD and their partners (N = 40; Monson et al., 2012). Compared with waitlist, patients who received CBCT for PTSD immediately demonstrated greater improvements in all PTSD symptom clusters, trauma-related beliefs, and guilt cognitions (Hedge's gs -.33 to -1.51). Results suggest that CBCT for PTSD improves all PTSD symptom clusters and trauma-related cognitions among individuals with PTSD and further supports the value of utilizing a couple-based approach to the treatment of PTSD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; 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".