Testing adaptations of cognitive-behavioral conjoint therapy for PTSD: A randomized controlled pilot study with veterans.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have well-documented relationship problems and many wish to include their intimate partners in treatment. This pilot study randomly assigned 46 couples (Veterans with clinician-administered PTSD scale confirmed PTSD diagnosis and their intimate partners) to one of two groups. The treatment group received a modified mindfulness-based version of cognitive-behavioral conjoint therapy for PTSD (CBCT; Monson & Fredman, 2012) that included all three phases of the mindfulness-based cognitive behavioral conjoint therapy (MB-CBCT). The control group received a modified version of CBCT that included communication skills training from Phases 1 and 2 of CBCT (CBCT-CS) without PTSD-specific content. Modified CBCT Phases 1 and 2 content was delivered to both groups during weekend retreats in multicouple group sessions. The postretreat protocol for MB-CBCT included nine individual couple sessions: a transition session following the retreat, and CBCT Phase 3. For CBCT-CS, two additional monthly multicouple group sessions reviewed communication skills. No statistically significant pre- to posttreatment differences were detected for primary outcomes between groups: Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Veterans (mean change difference, −1.4, 95% CI [−16.0 to 13.2]); Dyadic Adjustment Scale for Veterans (mean change difference, −1.0, 95% CI [−13.2 to 11.2]); and Dyadic Adjustment Scale for Partners (mean change difference, −0.4, 95% CI [−8.9 to 8.1]). However, within group pre- to posttreatment effect sizes were medium to large for both MB-CBCT and CBCT-CS on all three primary outcomes. Findings suggest that Veterans returning from recent conflicts and their partners may benefit from both modifications of CBCT.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".