Intrusive Memory Frequency and Related Inner Tension Following Dialectical Behavior Therapy or Cognitive Processing Therapy for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: An e-Diary Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Intrusive memories are a core symptom of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), yet their retrospective assessment is prone to biases, making real-time methods such as e-diaries essential. While trauma-focused treatments target intrusive symptoms, their efficacy has not yet been evaluated using real-time assessments. Objective: This study aimed to use e-diaries to assess and compare the effects of dialectical behavior therapy for PTSD (DBT-PTSD) and cognitive processing therapy (CPT) on intrusive memories and related inner tension in a large sample of women with childhood abuse-related PTSD and co-occurring borderline personality disorder (BPD) symptoms. Methods: In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, 193 women with PTSD related to childhood sexual or physical abuse and at least 3 BPD criteria were randomized to receive either DBT-PTSD or CPT. e-Diary assessments were conducted at 3 time points: before treatment, after 6 months, and after 12 months of therapy. At each time point, participants reported intrusive memories and related inner tension over 5 consecutive days using an event-based design. Results: Both intrusive memories and related inner tension decreased significantly over time (intrusions: ß=-0.53, P<.001; inner tension: ß=-0.15, P<.001). While reductions in intrusion frequency did not differ significantly between treatment groups (ß=0.05, P=.45), DBT-PTSD was associated with significantly greater reductions in intrusion-related inner tension compared with CPT (ß=-0.16, P<.001). Conclusions: This study provides the first real-time evaluation of trauma-focused PTSD treatments using e-diaries in daily life. Both interventions were associated with reduced intrusion frequency, while DBT-PTSD showed greater reductions in associated emotional distress-potentially reflecting its emphasis on emotion-regulation strategies and distress tolerance, which may be particularly relevant for individuals with comorbid BPD symptoms. These findings highlight the value of e-diaries for capturing treatment-related symptom change in ecologically valid contexts.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".