A Closer Examination of Relational Outcomes from a Pilot Study of Abbreviated, Intensive, Multi‐Couple Group Cognitive‐Behavioral Conjoint Therapy for PTSD with Military Dyads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive-behavioral conjoint therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder (CBCT for PTSD) is associated with improvements in patients' PTSD symptoms, partners' psychological distress, and relationship satisfaction. However, little is known about whether CBCT for PTSD is associated with changes in other relationship domains that have theoretical and clinical relevance to the relational context of PTSD. The current study is a secondary analysis of relational outcomes from an uncontrolled, within-group trial designed to examine whether an abbreviated, intensive, multi-couple group version of CBCT for PTSD (AIM-CBCT for PTSD) delivered in a retreat during a single weekend was associated with improvements in PTSD symptoms and relationship satisfaction. In this investigation, we examined whether AIM-CBCT for PTSD is also associated with improvements in ineffective arguing, supportive dyadic coping by partner, joint dyadic coping, and partners' accommodation of patients' PTSD symptoms. Participants were 24 couples who included a post-9/11 U.S. service member or veteran with PTSD. At 1- and 3-month follow-up, patients reported significant reductions in couples' ineffective arguing (ds = -.71 and -.78, respectively) and increases in supportive dyadic coping by partners relative to baseline (ds = .50 and .44, respectively). By 3-month follow-up, patients also reported significant increases in couples' joint dyadic coping (d = .57), and partners reported significant reductions in their accommodation of patients' PTSD symptoms (d = -.44). Findings suggest that AIM-CBCT for PTSD is associated with improvements in multiple relationship domains beyond relationship satisfaction but that these may be differentially salient for patients and 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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".