Design of a randomized superiority trial of a brief couple treatment for PTSD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interpersonal difficulties are common among veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and are associated with poorer treatment response. Treatment outcomes for PTSD, including relationship functioning, improve when partners are included and engaged in the therapy process. Cognitive-behavioral conjoint therapy for PTSD (CBCT) is a manualized 15-session intervention designed for couples in which one partner has PTSD. CBCT was developed specifically to treat PTSD, engage a partner in treatment, and improve interpersonal functioning. However, recent research suggests that an abbreviated CBCT protocol may lead to sufficient gains in PTSD and relationship functioning, and yield lower dropout rates. Likewise, many veterans report a preference for receiving psychological treatments through clinical videoteleconferencing (CVT) rather than traditional face-to-face modalities that require travel to VA clinics. This manuscript describes the development and implementation of a novel randomized controlled trial (RCT) that examines the efficacy of an abbreviated 8-session version of CBCT ("brief CBCT," or B-CBCT), and compares the efficacy of this intervention delivered via CVT to traditional in-person platforms. Veterans and their partners were randomized to receive B-CBCT in a traditional Veterans Affairs office-based setting (B-CBCT-Office), CBCT through CVT with the veteran and partner at home (B-CBCT-Home), or an in office-delivered, couple-based psychoeducation control condition (PTSD Family Education). This study is the first RCT designed to investigate the delivery of B-CBCT specifically to veterans with PTSD and their partners, as well as to examine the delivery of B-CBCT over a CVT modality; findings could increase access to care to veterans with PTSD and their partners.
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 | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".