Pretreatment relationship characteristics predict outcomes from an uncontrolled trial of intensive, multicouple group PTSD treatment.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive behavioral conjoint therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder (CBCT for PTSD; Monson & Fredman, 2012) is associated with improvements in patients' and partners' mental health and relationship satisfaction. Some pretreatment relationship characteristics have predicted CBCT for PTSD outcomes for patients, but findings were limited to a single community sample consisting primarily of female patients with male partners. A better understanding of whether pretreatment relationship characteristics predict outcomes in other patient populations and whether there are partners who may be particularly responsive to couple therapy for PTSD could optimize treatment matching. This study investigated whether pretreatment partner accommodation and relationship satisfaction predicted patient and partner treatment outcomes from an uncontrolled trial of an abbreviated, intensive, multicouple group version of CBCT for PTSD conducted with 24 active-duty military or veteran couples (96% male patients/female partners). In general, changes in patients' PTSD and comorbid symptoms and relationship satisfaction did not vary by pretreatment partner accommodation or patients' own pretreatment relationship satisfaction. In contrast, pretreatment relationship characteristics predicted partner outcomes. Partners who engaged in higher levels of accommodation pretreatment and partners who reported lower levels of pretreatment relationship satisfaction experienced greater declines in psychological distress following treatment. Also, partners who began the study relationally distressed exhibited significant increases in relationship satisfaction following treatment, whereas those who were not relationally distressed did not. Findings suggest that improvements generally do not vary by pretreatment relationship characteristics for patients, whereas partners who begin treatment with elevated relationship risk factors may be especially likely to experience improvement across outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".