Tackling the global problem of traumatic stress in low-income countries: a pilot clinical trial comparing reconsolidation therapy to paroxetine in Nepal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traumatic stress is a global mental health problem requiring novel, easily implemented treatment solutions. We compared the effectiveness and efficiency of Reconsolidation Therapy (RT) to the well-established antidepressant paroxetine, in reducing symptoms of traumatic stress among patients from Nepal, a low-income country. METHODS: Forty-six adults with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were randomized to one of two groups. The reconsolidation blocker propranolol was administered 90 min before briefly recalling a traumatic memory with a therapist, weekly for six consecutive weeks. This was compared to daily paroxetine for 26 weeks. Self-reported PTSD symptoms were assessed blindly at the 7th, 13th, and 26th weeks. RESULTS: = - 4.83, 95% CI = [- 5.66, - 4.01], p < .001), whereby both groups improved, with Cohen's effect sizes of d = 2.34 (95% CI = [1.57, 3.12]) for paroxetine, and of 2.82 (95% CI = [1.98, 3.66]) for RT after 7 weeks, suggesting treatment effectiveness for both groups in a real-world setting. Three and six-month follow-up yielded further significant improvement in both groups, which did not differ from each other. CONCLUSION: RT also displayed promising efficiency, considering that it had been discontinued weeks earlier while the paroxetine treatment was continued, as recommended. RT could be taught in low-income countries as part of the local therapeutic resources to treat the core symptoms of PTSD, provided that such results are replicated on a broader scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN34308454 (11/10/2017).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".