Partner accommodation moderates treatment outcomes for couple therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Partner accommodation of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms (i.e., altering one's own behaviors to minimize patient distress and/or relationship conflict due to patients' PTSD symptoms) has been shown to be positively associated with patient and partner psychopathology and negatively associated with patient and partner relationship satisfaction cross-sectionally. However, the prognostic value of partner accommodation in treatment outcomes is unknown. The goals of the present study were to determine if partner accommodation decreases as a function of couple therapy for PTSD and if pretreatment partner accommodation moderates the efficacy of couple therapy for PTSD. METHOD: Thirty-nine patients with PTSD and their intimate partners (n = 39) were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of cognitive-behavioral conjoint therapy (CBCT) for PTSD (Monson & Fredman, 2012) and received CBCT for PTSD immediately or after 3 months of waiting. Blinded assessors determined clinician-rated PTSD symptoms and patient-rated PTSD and depressive symptoms and relationship satisfaction at baseline, midtreatment/4 weeks of waiting, and posttreatment/12 weeks of waiting. RESULTS: Contrary to expectation, partner accommodation levels did not change over time for either treatment condition. However, baseline partner accommodation significantly moderated treatment outcomes. Higher levels of partner accommodation were associated with greater improvements in PTSD, depressive symptoms, and relationship satisfaction among patients receiving CBCT for PTSD compared with waiting list. At lower levels of partner accommodation, patients in both groups improved or remained at low levels of these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with PTSD who have more accommodating partners may be particularly well-suited for couple therapy for 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".