Initial outcomes of couple HOPES: A guided online couple intervention for PTSD and relationship enhancement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Couple HOPES (Helping Overcome PTSD and Enhance Satisfaction) is a guided, online couple intervention adapted from Cognitive-Behavioral Conjoint Therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It was created to overcome a range of barriers to accessing evidence-based treatments for PTSD and the intimate relationship problems associated with it. This manuscript describes initial outcomes of the intervention in a series of 10 couples. Participants were military, veteran and first responders with probable PTSD and their intimate partners. Couples completed the program and measurements of PTSD, relationship satisfaction, and secondary outcomes at pre-, mid-, and post-intervention. Mean satisfaction for the program was high and it was completed by seven of ten couples. Participants with PTSD evidenced significant and large pre- to post-intervention effect size improvements in PTSD symptoms (g = 0.80) and perceived health (g = 1.13). They also exhibited non-significant but medium effect size pre- to post-intervention improvements in quality of life (g = 0.62), and depression (g = 0.53), and small effect size pre- to post-intervention improvements in argumentativeness (g = 0.43), anger (g = 0.31), and anxiety (g = 0.31). Partners reported significant and moderate pre- to post-intervention effect size improvements in relationship satisfaction (g = 0.68), and medium but not significant effect size improvements in accommodation of PTSD (g = 0.56). Results provide initial support for the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of Couple HOPES for improving PTSD and relationship satisfaction. However, more testing in larger samples, including with randomized controlled designs, 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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 it