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.
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。