Do Acute Benefits of Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Endure?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Psychotherapies for Chronic PTSD randomised trial found that three 14-week psychotherapies acutely benefitted patients with chronic posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Previous research has reported sustained follow-up benefits for prolonged exposure (PE) and relaxation therapy (RT), but few comparable data exist for interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT). We describe 3-month follow-up for acute responders to all 3 treatments. METHOD: Acute responders, defined a priori as ≥30% improved from baseline, were reevaluated after 3-month no-treatment follow-up by independent evaluators using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS). RESULTS: Fifty of 110 initial study entrants met acute responder status at week 14. Forty-three (86%) responders entered follow-up: 23 remitters (CAPS ≤20) and 20 responders. At week 26, 27 had achieved remission status, 10 remained responders, and 6 had relapsed. Of week 14 remitters, 8 of 9 PE, all 8 IPT, and 4 of 6 RT patients remained remitted. Relapse rates were 7% (1/9) for PE, 10% (2/20) for IPT, and 33% (3/9) for RT. At week 26, PE showed greater improvement on CAPS than RT ( P = 0.048) and a trend for superiority over IPT ( P = 0.098), with no significant difference between IPT and RT. Depressive symptoms remained low during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These are the first systematic data on follow-up responder status and persistence of acute treatment benefits in patients receiving individual IPT for chronic PTSD. Patients generally maintained gains across treatments, fluctuating most in RT. Study limitations include small sample size and brief follow-up interval. PTSD research should employ response and remission criteria.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".