Partner outcomes from an uncontrolled trial of Couple HOPES: A guided online couple intervention for posttraumatic stress disorder and relationship enhancement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is associated with significant individual and relationship impairment for people with PTSD and their romantic partners. Conjoint treatments, such as cognitive behavioral conjoint therapy for PTSD (CBCT), are designed to address individual and relationship factors, yet significant barriers impede accessing in-person therapy. Couple HOPES (i.e., Helping Overcome PTSD and Enhance Satisfaction) is a coach-guided, online couple intervention for PTSD based on CBCT that was designed to address these barriers. Previous investigations have found preliminary efficacy of Couple HOPES for improving PTSD symptoms, relationship functioning, and some individual functioning domains for the partner with probable PTSD. However, no study to date has tested individual outcomes for romantic partners, which is needed to fully evaluate the intervention's promise. The current study tested these partner outcomes in a combined, uncontrolled sample of 27 couples. Intent-to-intervene analyses found significant improvements at postintervention in four of eight tested outcomes, including ineffective arguing, g = 0.74; anger, g = 0.32; perceived health, g = 0.67; and quality of life, g = 0.56. Depressive symptoms, generalized anxiety, alcohol misuse, and work functioning did not significantly change, gs = 0.17-0.42. Among participants who completed a 1-month follow-up assessment, generalized anxiety, g = 0.43, and perceived health, g = 0.73, significantly improved over follow-up, whereas anger, g = -0.48, lost gains previously made. Results were largely consistent in the completer sample. These findings show the potential of Couple HOPES to have broad benefits not only for individuals with probable PTSD but also for their romantic 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".