Present- and trauma-focused cognitive–behavioral conjoint therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder: A case study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bidirectional association between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and intimate relationship functioning has been well established, and conjoint therapies for PTSD have been created to simultaneously improve PTSD and relationship distress. However, some couples are unwilling to participate in trauma-focused therapy; therefore, a present-focused version of cognitive–behavioral conjoint therapy for PTSD (pf-CBCT for PTSD) was created to decrease barriers to treatment. We propose that, along with trauma-focused cognitive–behavioral conjoint therapy for PTSD (CBCT for PTSD), pf-CBCT for PTSD can be used as part of a sequential approach to PTSD treatment. The various phases of pf-CBCT for PTSD and CBCT for PTSD may be flexibly delivered according to a particular couple’s unique needs and preferences. We present a case study to illustrate this approach of using both pf-CBCT for PTSD and CBCT for PTSD with trauma-focused sessions. The case study describes conjoint treatment of a woman with PTSD related to childhood sexual abuse and her cohabiting partner of 25 years. Discussion provides additional clinical considerations and directions for future research.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".