MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414779581 · doi:10.2196/72748

Reducing Intrusive Trauma Memories Using a Brief Mental Imagery Competing Task Intervention: Case Series of Trauma-Exposed Women in Iceland

2025· article· en· W4414779581 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kristjana Þórarinsdóttir, Emily A. Holmes, Johann Hardarson, Freyja Agustsdottir, Marie Kanstrup, Laura Singh, Arna Hauksdóttir, Thorhildur Halldorsdottir, Berglind Guðmundsdóttir, Edda Björk Þórðardóttir, Unnur Valdimarsdóttir, Andri S. Björnsson

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Mental healthPsychological interventionTask (project management)AnxietyMental imageDepression (economics)Brief intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: There is a need for scalable and simple interventions for trauma-exposed people. In this case series, we built on our previous case study and case series findings and further explored the use and potential effectiveness of a brief novel intervention to reduce the number of past intrusive memories of trauma. The imagery competing task intervention consists of a memory reminder and the visuospatial task Tetris played with mental rotation, targeting 1 intrusive memory at a time. Here, we test remote delivery of the intervention, including guidance from researchers without specialist mental health training, in a sample of women in Iceland with current intrusive memories from trauma. Objective: In a case series of trauma-exposed women, we aimed to explore whether this brief novel intervention reduces the number of established intrusive memories (primary outcome) and improves general functioning and symptom reduction in posttraumatic stress, depression, and anxiety (secondary outcomes). The acceptability of the intervention along with adaptations, that is, delivery by psychology students without specialist mental health training and digital delivery, was explored. Methods: Participants (N=8) monitored the number of intrusive memories from an index trauma (occurring 3-16 years previously) in a daily diary at baseline, during the intervention, and postintervention at 1-month and 3-month follow-ups. The intervention was delivered digitally with guidance from clinical psychologists or psychology students. A repeated AB design was used ("A": preintervention baseline, "B": intervention phase). Intrusions were targeted one by one, creating repetitions of an AB design (ie, length of baseline "A" and intervention "B" varied for each memory). Results: The number of intrusive memories reduced for all participants from the baseline phase compared with the intervention phase, although the reduction was minimal for 2 participants (6.3%-93%). The number of intrusive memories continued to reduce for 6 out of 8 participants (58%-100% reduction at 1-month follow-up; 72%-100% reduction at 3-month follow-up). Symptoms of posttraumatic stress, depression, and anxiety were reduced for most participants postintervention and continued to decrease during the follow-up periods. Functioning was improved for 7 of the 8 participants from baseline to postintervention and continued to improve at the follow-up assessments for 3 participants. The intervention delivered digitally and partly by students was perceived to be an acceptable way to reduce the frequency of intrusive memories by all participants (mean rating 9.5 out of 10). Conclusions: Data from this case series of traumatized women provide preliminary evidence for the effectiveness of this novel brief intervention in reducing intrusive memories of trauma occurring several years ago and in improving functioning and reducing core symptom burden. This study will inform a randomized controlled trial of this novel intervention, which may have considerable implications for large-scale clinical management of traumatized populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207