FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1544564934> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1544564934 abstract "The first aim of this thesis was to describe the characteristics of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and to elucidate its place as a symptom disorder that sometimes develops when people are exposed to a traumatic event. The current major theoretical approaches to account for why some people who are exposed to trauma develop PTSD and the mechanisms by which this occurs were described. Three classes of theories were reviewed: conditioning/learning approach; information processing theories with a particular focus on the meaning of the trauma event; and biological models with an emphasis on recent neurocircuitry and neurochemistry models. Successful treatment approaches were then reviewed which indicated two major contenders for the most efficacious treatment for PTSD: traditional cognitive behaviour therapies (CBT) using either stress inoculation or prolonged exposure; and eye movement desensitisation and processing (EMDR). Prior to the first study (Lee, Gavriel, Drummond, Richards, and Greenwald, 2002), a review of the literature indicated equivalent effects for EMDR and CBT. There had been very few direct comparison studies and each had serious methodological flaws, particularly with respect to random assignment and treatment fidelity. Therefore, the first study ensured adequate attention to these areas and involved a direct comparison between the two procedures using a sample of 24 participants diagnosed with PTSD. EMDR and stress inoculation training with prolonged exposure were found to lead to similar symptom improvement at the end of treatment, apart from a slight advantage for EMDR on intrusion symptoms. Both treatments led to significantly greater symptom reduction than a wait list control condition. At follow-up, EMDR led to greater gains on both self-report and observer rated measures of PTSD and self-report measures of depression. Overall, the findings were similar to those described in previously published studies, with a suggestion that EMDR was slightly more efficient than the standard CBT approach. Given that the evidence suggested that EMDR was a more efficient treatment, it became critical to understand the underlying processes. A process study was undertaken that examined the responses of people with PTSD receiving EMDR treatment (Lee, Taylor, and Drummond, 2006). Guided by process studies of other treatments and theories that might account for why EMDR is effective, participants' responses were examined to see which models better accounted for symptom improvement. The main analysis tested whether or not the responses were consistent with processes that occurred during traditional CBT treatment, which prior research had identified as reliving, or whether they were more consistent with Shapiro's proposal that enhanced information processing occurs because there is a dual focus of attention (that is, the person simultaneously focuses on an external stimulus and on the traumatic memory) (Shapiro, 1995). The responses made by 44 participants were coded by an independent rater according to whether they were primarily reliving, distancing, affect or material other than the primary trauma. The coding system was found to have satisfactory inter-rater reliability. Greatest improvement occurred when the participant processed in a more detached or distant manner, whereas reliving responses were not associated with improvement. Cross-lagged panel correlations suggested that processing in a more detached manner was a consequence of the EMDR procedure rather than a measure that co-varied with improvement. The findings underscored a difference in the processes that underlie EMDR and traditional CBT.The major question left unanswered from this second study was what causes this distancing process? Competing views were that it was facilitated by eye movement; alternatively, the therapist's instructions to participants might have precipitated this distancing phenomenon. The third study tested these ideas by randomly assigning 48 participants to either an eye movement or a no eye movement condition under two types of therapist instructions (reliving or distancing). Participants recalled personal distressing memories, and measures of distress and vividness were taken after treatment and at follow up. Only the eye movements made a significant difference to people's level of distress. This conclusion appeared at odds with some of the previous literature that had tested the effects of eye movement on levels of distress. A meta-analysis of some of this research had suggested that there was no significant advantage of including eye movement in EMDR treatment unless the person had been diagnosed with PTSD. However, a close examination of this meta-analysis indicated some major methodological flaws in the computation; therefore, this was recalculated. The conclusion from this fourth study was consistent with study three in that EMDR with eye movement was found to lead to significantly greater improvement that EMDR without eye movement. The results of these four studies were then discussed in terms of their implications for the theoretical models presented in Chapter 1. Aspects of learning theory that might account for EMDR efficiency were discussed as well as the failure of this model to account for treatment gains following EMDR. Information processing models were seen to better account for some of the phenomena observed in EMDR and for the findings from the four studies. Some suggestions of how eye movements might facilitate improved information processing were presented.Finally, the relative merits of EMDR and CBT treatments were discussed and suggestions made for when to combine approaches. The conclusions highlight the point that EMDR appears to be the most promising treatment for PTSD." @default.
• W1544564934 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1544564934 creator A5090644269 @default.
• W1544564934 date "2006-01-01" @default.
• W1544564934 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1544564934 title "Efficacy and mechanisms of action of EMDR as a treatment for PTSD" @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1495150842 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1562193183 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1579843842 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1637267194 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1674852110 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1699437435 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1705041815 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1763274674 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1799977177 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1815877557 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W182532768 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1870939480 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1879376530 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1897304692 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1961805572 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1964767261 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1964981148 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1969025349 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1980611472 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1982195369 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1989097748 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1989881223 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1994184572 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W1996322198 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2003880014 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2007516104 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2007985571 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2009130056 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2013396427 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2017152382 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2026134451 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2032910917 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2034710245 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2036905741 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2039066407 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2041780061 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2055459268 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2058397180 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2062202696 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2066358461 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2066807621 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2070414169 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2070477872 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2072818711 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2076659700 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2082017016 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2083110454 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2083356067 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2083640561 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2084086903 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2086194805 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2086444633 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2089404405 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2091930870 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2096470434 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2101245093 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2107326406 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2119132304 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2127982411 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2133664593 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2139411957 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2140982303 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2142905649 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2157331283 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2159816312 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2161063277 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2162689982 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2164355926 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2165540518 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2168720564 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2480481305 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2506821246 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2779225231 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2903291849 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2911342376 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W3082100929 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W603098281 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W648173199 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W85954588 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2142838869 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2181668851 @default.
• W1544564934 cites W2296042795 @default.
• W1544564934 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W1544564934 type Work @default.
• W1544564934 sameAs 1544564934 @default.
• W1544564934 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1544564934 crossrefType "dissertation" @default.
• W1544564934 hasAuthorship W1544564934A5090644269 @default.
• W1544564934 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W1544564934 hasConcept C119599485 @default.
• W1544564934 hasConcept C127313418 @default.
• W1544564934 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W1544564934 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1544564934 hasConcept C158251709 @default.

• next