Temporary PTSD symptom increases among individuals receiving CPT in a hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial: Potential predictors and association with overall symptom change trajectory.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Concern about symptom worsening with trauma-focused treatment may be one factor hindering the implementation of evidence-based treatments for PTSD, like cognitive processing therapy (CPT), despite evidence for their efficacy. Previous studies have examined the frequency and effect of symptom exacerbation, or temporary symptom increases, on outcomes, but primarily in randomized clinical trials. METHOD: = 183) completed self-report measures of PTSD symptoms at each session. RESULTS: Most participants (67.3%) experienced at least one temporary symptom increase during CPT (only 1.6% continued to have higher symptoms by the end of treatment). Demographic variables, comorbid conditions (i.e., depression, anxiety, substance use), and baseline PTSD symptom levels did not predict symptom increases. Importantly, symptom increases did not predict treatment noncompletion, posttreatment PTSD symptom levels, or loss of probable PTSD diagnosis. Moreover, growth curve modeling revealed that temporary symptom increases did not predict the trajectory of PTSD symptoms over the course of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of symptom increases, which were higher than in previous studies, may be attributed to a routine care sample or to the differences in session timing and measurement. These results add to a nascent literature documenting that symptom increases may be a normal, transient part of treatment that do not impact a patient's ability to have symptom improvement during a course of CPT. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".