Abstract：
BACKGROUND: There is emerging literature regarding the efficacy of trauma-focussed writing therapies (TF-WTs) for posttraumatic stress. Such therapies have the potential to reduce posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) in a brief time frame and can be delivered remotely. There remains a need for further research assessing the efficacy of different types of TF-WTs, as well comparing them to alternative control conditions not previously assessed. The present study assessed two TF-WTs that had differing writing instructions in comparison to an intervention that involved writing about positive experiences.
METHODS: Adult community participants (n = 83) with subthreshold or clinical PTSD symptoms were randomized to one of three conditions (two of which involved trauma-focussed writing, and the other involved writing about positive experiences). All conditions involved three weekly telehealth-delivered writing appointments. Outcomes were measured using the PTSD Checklist (PCL-5) and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS-21), and were evaluated at baseline, one-week post-intervention, and five-weeks post-intervention. This trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR Protocol 12620001065987).
RESULTS: There was no evidence that the two TF-WTs were more efficacious in reducing PTSS or producing clinically meaningful change in comparison to positive experiences writing. Instead, a significant reduction from baseline to follow-up in PTSS, depression, anxiety and stress was observed in all three conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: The results should be interpreted with consideration of the modest sample size and absence of longer-term follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Three-session trauma-focussed writing delivered via telehealth may not be superior to writing about positive experiences.
METHODS: Adult community participants (n = 83) with subthreshold or clinical PTSD symptoms were randomized to one of three conditions (two of which involved trauma-focussed writing, and the other involved writing about positive experiences). All conditions involved three weekly telehealth-delivered writing appointments. Outcomes were measured using the PTSD Checklist (PCL-5) and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS-21), and were evaluated at baseline, one-week post-intervention, and five-weeks post-intervention. This trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR Protocol 12620001065987).
RESULTS: There was no evidence that the two TF-WTs were more efficacious in reducing PTSS or producing clinically meaningful change in comparison to positive experiences writing. Instead, a significant reduction from baseline to follow-up in PTSS, depression, anxiety and stress was observed in all three conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: The results should be interpreted with consideration of the modest sample size and absence of longer-term follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Three-session trauma-focussed writing delivered via telehealth may not be superior to writing about positive experiences.
摘要：
背景：关于创伤聚焦写作疗法（TF-WTs）对创伤后应激的疗效的文献正在兴起。这种疗法有可能在短时间内减少创伤后应激症状（PTSS），并且可以远程提供。仍需要进一步研究评估不同类型的TF-WT的功效，以及将它们与先前未评估的替代控制条件进行比较。本研究评估了两种TF-WT，它们具有不同的写作指导，与涉及写作积极经验的干预相比。
方法：患有亚阈值或临床PTSD症状的成年社区参与者（n=83）被随机分为三种情况之一（其中两种涉及以创伤为重点的写作，另一个涉及写积极的经历)。所有条件都涉及每周三次远程医疗提供的写作预约。使用创伤后应激障碍检查表(PCL-5)和抑郁症来衡量结果，焦虑和压力量表（DASS-21），并在基线时进行评估，干预后一周，干预后五周。该试验已在澳大利亚和新西兰临床试验注册中心注册（ANZCTR方案12620001065987）。
结果：没有证据表明两种TF-WT在减少PTSS或产生临床上有意义的变化方面比积极的写作经验更有效。相反，PTSS从基线到随访显着减少，抑郁症,在所有三种情况下都观察到焦虑和压力。
结论：在解释结果时，应考虑样本量适中和缺乏长期随访。
结论：通过远程健康提供的以创伤为重点的三节写作可能不会优于关于积极经历的写作。
方法：患有亚阈值或临床PTSD症状的成年社区参与者（n=83）被随机分为三种情况之一（其中两种涉及以创伤为重点的写作，另一个涉及写积极的经历)。所有条件都涉及每周三次远程医疗提供的写作预约。使用创伤后应激障碍检查表(PCL-5)和抑郁症来衡量结果，焦虑和压力量表（DASS-21），并在基线时进行评估，干预后一周，干预后五周。该试验已在澳大利亚和新西兰临床试验注册中心注册（ANZCTR方案12620001065987）。
结果：没有证据表明两种TF-WT在减少PTSS或产生临床上有意义的变化方面比积极的写作经验更有效。相反，PTSS从基线到随访显着减少，抑郁症,在所有三种情况下都观察到焦虑和压力。
结论：在解释结果时，应考虑样本量适中和缺乏长期随访。
结论：通过远程健康提供的以创伤为重点的三节写作可能不会优于关于积极经历的写作。
