The Effects of the Processing of Positive Memories Technique on Posttrauma Affect and Cognitions Among Survivors of Trauma: Protocol for a Daily Diary Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Processing of Positive Memories Technique (PPMT) is a promising new treatment approach for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which involves detailed narration and processing of specific positive autobiographical memories. Indeed, preliminary case-series studies have found reductions in PTSD symptoms, negative affect, and negative cognitions among survivors of trauma who have received PPMT. However, PPMT's effects have not been investigated at the daily level. In this study, we describe the protocol for a study that will examine the daily-level impacts of PPMT in a trauma-exposed, nonclinical community sample. OBJECTIVE: This study uses an innovative research protocol that combines case-series design and daily diary approaches to examine changes in daily affect, daily cognitions, and daily PTSD symptoms pre- and post-PPMT. We hypothesize that at the daily level, in comparison to their own pre-PPMT levels, following the PPMT intervention, participants will report (1) a lower count of endorsed daily PTSD symptoms, (2) increases in daily positive affect and decreases in daily negative affect, (3) increases in positive affect reactivity to daily positive events, and (4) decreases in daily posttrauma cognitions. METHODS: We are currently recruiting participants (target n=70) from a metroplex in the southwest United States. Following a screening survey, eligible participants complete a preintervention baseline survey, followed by 21 daily surveys in their natural environments. Then, they receive 4 PPMT sessions on a weekly basis. After the conclusion of the PPMT intervention, participants complete a postintervention outcome survey and 21 daily surveys. To compare daily affect, daily cognitions, and daily PTSD symptoms before and after PPMT, we will use the daily diary report data and conduct multilevel random intercepts and slopes linear regression models. RESULTS: Data collection was initiated in March 2022 and is expected to end by June 2024. As of November 28, 2023, a total of 515 participants had consented to the study in the screening phase. No analyses will be conducted until data collection has been completed. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings could clarify whether deficits in positive autobiographical memory processes may also characterize PTSD alongside deficits in traumatic memory processes. Furthermore, PPMT could be an additional therapeutic tool for clinicians to help clients reduce posttraumatic distress in their everyday lives. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/51838.
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 | 0.026 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".