Patterns of change in physical functioning and posttraumatic stress disorder with cognitive processing therapy in a randomized controlled implementation trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Physical health concerns (e.g. chronic pain, fatigue) are common among clients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Prior research has indicated that clients report improved physical functioning and fewer physical health symptoms after receiving Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT) for PTSD. However, less is known about the impact of physical functioning on the clients’ PTSD symptom improvement in CPT.Objective: The current study examined the patterns of change of and between physical functioning and PTSD symptoms over the course of CPT among a diverse military, veteran, and community sample.Method: We collected clients’ (N = 188) physical functioning and PTSD symptom severity prior to and during CPT using the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey and the PTSD Checklist. We used multilevel modelling to 1) evaluate the impact of baseline physical functioning on the PTSD symptom trajectory, 2) examine the trajectory of physical functioning, and 3) assess the dynamics between physical functioning and PTSD symptoms over the course of CPT.Results: Our multilevel analyses indicated that 1) physical functioning significantly improved for those with low levels of functioning prior to treatment, 2) poorer baseline physical functioning predicted slower improvements in PTSD symptoms, and 3) poorer physical functioning in one session predicted less PTSD symptom improvement by the next session.Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that while physical functioning can interfere with PTSD symptom improvement, physical functioning can also improve over the course of CPT. In light of the interconnected nature of physical health and PTSD symptoms, clinicians may need to attend to lower levels of physical functioning when providing CPT or other trauma-focused therapies. Future research to determine whether specific treatment adaptations may benefit such clients is needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".