An exploratory study of patient preference-based sequential CBT intervention for PTSD, insomnia and nightmares after sexual assault
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual assaults have multiple-interrelated consequences, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, insomnia and recurrent nightmares. Although these symptoms may co-vary, they often require distinct clinical attention. Treating each disorder in a sequential way may be beneficial, but no evidence supports the choice of one sequence over another. Allowing participants to choose the order of treatment may increase engagement and reduce attrition. This study explores the efficacy of a sequential intervention combining three cognitive-behaviour treatment (CBT) protocols (for PTSD, insomnia and recurrent nightmares) allowing participants to choose the order. The aims of the study were to document the overall intervention efficacy and to evaluate the differential outcome of the chosen sequences. Fourteen participants suffering from PTSD, comorbid insomnia disorder and recurrent nightmares were recruited. Results showed decreases in PTSD, insomnia, depression and anxiety symptoms and nightmare distress after the intervention. Participants targeting PTSD first did not seem to benefit more from the intervention than those targeting sleep difficulties first. All participants who completed the intervention were in PTSD remission at post-treatment, and 90% at 12-month follow-up. These exploratory findings support the feasibility of sequentially addressing PTSD, insomnia and nightmares, and provide evidence for selecting treatment sequence according to patient preferences.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".