MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W67775550 · doi:10.1177/070674371305800710

Book Review: Trauma and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Mental Healthcare Model for Mass Trauma Survivors: Control-Focused Behavioral Treatment of Earthquake, War and Torture Trauma

2013· article· en· W67775550 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Colin Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTortureLearned helplessnessMental healthPosttraumatic stressPsychiatryPsychologyStressorClinical psychologyPolitical scienceHuman rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trauma and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder A Mental Healthcare Model for Mass Trauma Survivors: Control-Focused Behavioral Treatment of Earthquake, War and Torture Trauma Metin Basoglu, Ebru Salcioglu. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press; 2011. 294 p. US$105.00Reviewer rating: GoodIn this 294-page, well-referenced, well-written, and thoughtful volume, Metin Basoglu and Ebru Salcioglu have made a strong case for a new, accessible, costeffective, and evidence-informed treatment model for survivors of mass trauma. The book is nicely put together and divided into 3 parts that flow naturally from 1 to the next: 1) Theory; 2) Assessment and Treatment; and 3) Implications for Care. The control-focused behavioural treatment (CFBT) model they present recognizes real-world limitations to meeting the needs of the millions of mass trauma survivors worldwide, both in terms of resources and cost, something relevant not only in the developing world but also in developed countries, such as Canada. The authors, based out of the United Kingdom and Turkey, have extensive experience working with earthquake, war, and torture survivors on a large scale and this serves to ground their model in the practical. As such, this volume will likely be of interest not only to clinicians but also to aid agencies and mental health care policy makers.The theoretical underpinnings of CFBT are derived from learning theory. Evidence is presented that suggests it is the unpredictability and uncontrollability of stressors that lead to the development of the fear, helplessness, and avoidance seen in posttraumatic stress disorer (PTSD) and posttraumatic depression. The authors note that these mechanisms are shared in traumas, both of human design and natural causes. Based on this, a strong case is made that overcoming avoidance and enhancing sense of control should be the central targets of therapy.The authors present several scales they have developed to screen for PTSD and depression symptoms and for disability. They describe the use of these scales, both to identify survivor treatment needs and to assess outcomes. The Appendix includes many of these scales, but for the psychometrics, readers are referred to other publications by the authors. Given the large number of established scales measuring the same things, it is not clear why so many additional scales are needed, although the authors contend that their scales have the advantage of being designed in accordance with learning theory. The Sense of Control Scale and the Fear and Loss of Control Subscale of the Emotions and Beliefs After War Scale do, however, seem particularly well-suited to measure change, regarding CFBT's central therapeutic targets. The authors also contend that completing the scales in CFBT has an important therapeutic benefit.A 3-step process for the CFBT session is described, including:1. identifying trauma cues and avoidance behaviour;2. explaining treatment and its rationale; and3. defining treatment tasks and giving self-exposure instructions.Verbatim transcripts of key points to be made by the therapist are suggested, and a full treatment manual for therapists is provided in the Appendix. Case vignettes further illustrate the how-to delivery of CFBT, so a clinician will find everything necessary in this book to be able to provide this treatment. The authors also describe modifications to the process for complicated patients (for example, comorbid depression, suicidal ideas, psychosis, flashbacks, prolonged grief, and comorbid medical conditions) and children. …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.025

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicResilience and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→