A randomized trial of brief couple therapy for PTSD and relationshipsatisfaction.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This three-arm randomized trial tested a brief version of cognitive-behavioral conjoint therapy (bCBCT) delivered in two modalities compared to couples' psychoeducation in a sample of U.S. veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and their intimate partners. METHOD: Couples were randomized to receive (a) in-person, office-based bCBCT (OB-bCBCT), (b) bCBCT delivered via home-based telehealth (HB-bCBCT), or (c) an in-person psychoeducation comparison condition (PTSD family education [OB-PFE]). Primary outcomes were clinician-assessed PTSD severity (Clinician Administered PTSD Scale), self-reported psychosocial functioning (Brief Inventory of Psychosocial Functioning), and relationship satisfaction (Couples Satisfaction Index) at posttreatment and through 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: PTSD symptoms significantly decreased by posttreatment with all three treatments, but compared to PFE, PTSD symptoms declined significantly more for veterans in OB-bCBCT (between-group d = 0.59 [0.17, 1.01]) and HB-bCBCT (between-group d = 0.76 [0.33, 1.19]) treatments. There were no significant differences between OB-bCBCT and HB-bCBCT. Psychosocial functioning and relationship satisfaction showed significant small to moderate improvements, with no differences between treatments. All changes were maintained through 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A briefer, more scalable version of CBCT showed sustained effectiveness relative to an active control for improving PTSD symptoms when delivered in-person or via telehealth. Both bCBCT and couples' psychoeducation improved psychosocial and relational outcomes. These results could have a major impact on PTSD treatment delivery within large systems of care where access to brief, evidence-based PTSD treatments incorporating family members are needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".