0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Provision of online eye movement and desensitisation therapy (EMDR) for people with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD): a multi-method service evaluation Translated title: Prestación de terapia en línea de desensibilización y reprocesamiento por medio de movimientos oculares (EMDR) para personas con trastorno de estrés postraumático (TEPT): evaluación de servicios multimétodo Translated title: 为创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)患者提供在线眼动和脱敏治疗(EMDR):多方法服务评估

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          Background: The evidence for the effectiveness of online EMDR for PTSD is scarce.

          Objective: This service evaluation aimed to assess how online EMDR compared to in-person EMDR, in terms of its potential effectiveness and acceptability to therapists and patients.

          Method: The evaluation was carried out in the Cardiff and Vale University Health Board Traumatic Stress Service. We compared the outcome of therapy (PTSD scores at end of treatment), number of sessions, drop-out rate, and adverse events using linear/logistic regression in those receiving online EMDR over a 12-month period with those who had received in-person therapy in the year previous to that. Interviews with therapists and clients who had provided or undertaken online EMDR explored their views and experiences of treatment. Interviews were analysed thematically.

          Results: 33 people received in-person EMDR (15.3 sessions, SD = 1.4), and 45 received online EMDR (12.4 sessions, SD = 0.9). 24 individuals completed therapy in-person, and 32 online. There was no evidence of a difference in therapy completion, drop-out rates or adverse events between the two delivery modes. There was weak evidence that those who completed EMDR online and had available data ( N = 29), had slightly lower PTSD scores at the end of therapy compared to those who received in-person EMDR ( N = 24) (17.1 (SD = 3.2) versus 24.5 (SD = 3.0), mean difference = 7.8, 95% CI −0.3, 15.9, p = .06). However, groups were not randomised and only those who completed treatment were analysed, so estimates may be biased. 11 patients and five therapists were interviewed. Overall, both therapists and clients viewed online EMDR as safe and effective. Benefits mentioned by clients included feeling more in control and not having to travel. Clients’ concerns related to lack of privacy and ‘transition time/space’ between therapy and their daily lives.

          Conclusion: Results suggest that online EMDR is an acceptable, safe and effective alternative to in-person EMDR for PTSD in this service.

          HIGHLIGHTS

          • This service evaluation assessed how online Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) compared to in-person EMDR in people with PTSD.

          • Individuals receiving online EMDR had lower PTSD scores at the end of therapy, but the evidence for this was weak and as this was not a randomised trial we do not know whether this was due to the mode of therapy or other characteristics of clients receiving online therapy.

          • Clients and therapists generally viewed online EMDR as being safe and effective, and supported the availability of online EMDR for PTSD.

          Translated abstract

          Antecedentes: Las pruebas de la efectividad de la EMDR en línea para el TEPT son escasas.

          Objetivo: Esta evaluación del servicio tenía como objetivo valorar cómo se comparaba la EMDR en línea con la EMDR en persona, en términos de su eficacia potencial y aceptabilidad para terapeutas y pacientes.

          Método: La evaluación se llevó a cabo en el Cardiff and Vale University Health Board Traumatic Stress Service. Se compararon los resultados de la terapia (puntuaciones de TEPT al final del tratamiento), el número de sesiones, la tasa de abandono y los acontecimientos adversos mediante regresión lineal/logística en los que recibieron EMDR en línea durante un período de 12 meses con los que habían recibido terapia en persona el año anterior. Las entrevistas con terapeutas y clientes que habían proporcionado o realizado EMDR en línea exploraron sus puntos de vista y experiencias del tratamiento. Las entrevistas se analizaron temáticamente.

          Resultados: 33 personas recibieron EMDR en persona (15,3 sesiones, DE = 1,4), y 45 recibieron EMDR en línea (12,4 sesiones, DE = 0,9). 24 personas completaron la terapia en persona y 32 en línea. No hubo pruebas de una diferencia en la finalización de la terapia, las tasas de abandono o los eventos adversos entre los dos modos de entrega. Hubo pruebas débiles de que los que completaron EMDR en línea y tenían datos disponibles ( N = 29), tenían puntuaciones de TEPT ligeramente más bajas al final de la terapia en comparación con los que recibieron EMDR en persona ( N = 24) (17,1 (SD = 3,2) versus 24,5 (SD = 3,0), diferencia media = 7,8, IC del 95% −0,3, 15,9, p = ,06). Sin embargo, los grupos no fueron aleatorizados y sólo se analizaron los que completaron el tratamiento, por lo que las estimaciones pueden estar sesgadas. Se entrevistó a 11 pacientes y cinco terapeutas. En general, tanto los terapeutas como los clientes consideraron que la EMDR en línea era segura y eficaz. Entre las ventajas mencionadas por los clientes se encontraban la sensación de tener más control y no tener que desplazarse. Las quejas de los pacientes se referían a la falta de privacidad y al ‘tiempo/espacio de transición’ entre la terapia y su vida cotidiana.

          Conclusión: Los resultados sugieren que la EMDR en línea es una alternativa aceptable, segura y eficaz a la EMDR en persona para el TEPT en este servicio.

          Translated abstract

          背景:在线 EMDR 对 PTSD 有效的证据很少。

          目的:该服务评估旨在评估在线 EMDR 与面对面 EMDR 相比,其潜在有效性以及治疗师和患者的可接受性。

          方法:评估在卡迪夫和维尔大学健康委员会创伤应激服务中心进行。我们使用线性/逻辑回归比较了 12个月内接受在线 EMDR 治疗的患者与在前一年亲自接受治疗患者的治疗结果(治疗结束时的 PTSD 评分)、疗程次数、退出率和不良事件。对提供或进行在线 EMDR 的治疗师和客户进行采访,探讨他们的观点和治疗经历。 对访谈进行了主题分析。

          结果:33 人接受了现场 EMDR(15.3 次疗程,SD = 1.4),45 人接受了在线 EMDR(12.4 次疗程,SD = 0.9)。 24 人亲自完成治疗,32 人在线完成治疗。没有证据表明两种治疗方式之间的治疗完成率、退出率或不良事件存在差异。有微弱的证据表明,与接受现场 EMDR 的患者 ( N = 24) 相比,在线完成 EMDR 并拥有可用数据的患者 ( N = 29) 在治疗结束时的 PTSD 评分略低 (17.1 (SD = 3.2)) 对比 24.5 (SD = 3.0),平均差 = 7.8,95%CI −0.3, 15.9, p = .06)。 然而,分组并未随机化,仅对完成治疗的患者进行分析,因此估计可能存在偏差。11 名患者和 5 名治疗师接受了采访。 总体而言,治疗师和客户都认为在线 EMDR 安全有效。 客户提到的好处包括感觉更有控制力并且不必出差。客户担心缺乏隐私以及治疗与日常生活之间的‘过渡时间/空间’。

          结论:结果表明,在线 EMDR 是该服务中针对 PTSD 的一种可接受的、安全且有效的替代面对面 EMDR 的方法。

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Psychometric properties of the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition (PCL-5) in veterans.

          This study examined the psychometric properties of the posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition (PCL-5; Weathers, Litz, et al., 2013b) in 2 independent samples of veterans receiving care at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center (N = 468). A subsample of these participants (n = 140) was used to define a valid diagnostic cutoff score for the instrument using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5; Weathers, Blake, et al., 2013) as the reference standard. The PCL-5 test scores demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .96), test-retest reliability (r = .84), and convergent and discriminant validity. Consistent with previous studies (Armour et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2014), confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the data were best explained by a 6-factor anhedonia model and a 7-factor hybrid model. Signal detection analyses using the CAPS-5 revealed that PCL-5 scores of 31 to 33 were optimally efficient for diagnosing PTSD (κ(.5) = .58). Overall, the findings suggest that the PCL-5 is a psychometrically sound instrument that can be used effectively with veterans. Further, by determining a valid cutoff score using the CAPS-5, the PCL-5 can now be used to identify veterans with probable PTSD. However, findings also suggest the need for research to evaluate cluster structure of DSM-5. (PsycINFO Database Record
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Meta-analysis of the efficacy of treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder.

            Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is an important mental health issue in terms of the number of people affected and the morbidity and functional impairment associated with the disorder. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of all treatments for PTSD. PubMed, MEDLINE, PILOTS, and PsycINFO databases were searched for randomized controlled clinical trials of any treatment for PTSD in adults published between January 1, 1980, and April 1, 2012, and written in the English language. The following search terms were used: post-traumatic stress disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD, combat disorders, and stress disorders, post-traumatic. Articles selected were those in which all subjects were adults with a diagnosis of PTSD based on DSM criteria and a valid PTSD symptom measure was reported. Other study characteristics were systematically collected. The sample consisted of 137 treatment comparisons drawn from 112 studies. Effective psychotherapies included cognitive therapy, exposure therapy, and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (g = 1.63, 1.08, and 1.01, respectively). Effective pharmacotherapies included paroxetine, sertraline, fluoxetine, risperidone, topiramate, and venlafaxine (g = 0.74, 0.41, 0.43, 0.41, 1.20, and 0.48, respectively). For both psychotherapy and medication, studies with more women had larger effects and studies with more veterans had smaller effects. Psychotherapy studies with wait-list controls had larger effects than studies with active control comparisons. Our findings suggest that patients and providers have a variety of options for choosing an effective treatment for PTSD. Substantial differences in study design and study participant characteristics make identification of a single best treatment difficult. Not all medications or psychotherapies are effective. © Copyright 2013 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Psychological therapies for chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults.

              Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a distressing condition, which is often treated with psychological therapies. Earlier versions of this review, and other meta-analyses, have found these to be effective, with trauma-focused treatments being more effective than non-trauma-focused treatments. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005 and updated in 2007. To assess the effects of psychological therapies for the treatment of adults with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). For this update, we searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) all years to 12th April 2013. This register contains relevant randomised controlled trials from: The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). In addition, we handsearched the Journal of Traumatic Stress, contacted experts in the field, searched bibliographies of included studies, and performed citation searches of identified articles. Randomised controlled trials of individual trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TFCBT), eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR), non-trauma-focused CBT (non-TFCBT), other therapies (supportive therapy, non-directive counselling, psychodynamic therapy and present-centred therapy), group TFCBT, or group non-TFCBT, compared to one another or to a waitlist or usual care group for the treatment of chronic PTSD. The primary outcome measure was the severity of clinician-rated traumatic-stress symptoms. We extracted data and entered them into Review Manager 5 software. We contacted authors to obtain missing data. Two review authors independently performed 'Risk of bias' assessments. We pooled the data where appropriate, and analysed for summary effects. We include 70 studies involving a total of 4761 participants in the review. The first primary outcome for this review was reduction in the severity of PTSD symptoms, using a standardised measure rated by a clinician. For this outcome, individual TFCBT and EMDR were more effective than waitlist/usual care (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.62; 95% CI -2.03 to -1.21; 28 studies; n = 1256 and SMD -1.17; 95% CI -2.04 to -0.30; 6 studies; n = 183 respectively). There was no statistically significant difference between individual TFCBT, EMDR and Stress Management (SM) immediately post-treatment although there was some evidence that individual TFCBT and EMDR were superior to non-TFCBT at follow-up, and that individual TFCBT, EMDR and non-TFCBT were more effective than other therapies. Non-TFCBT was more effective than waitlist/usual care and other therapies. Other therapies were superior to waitlist/usual care control as was group TFCBT. There was some evidence of greater drop-out (the second primary outcome for this review) in active treatment groups. Many of the studies were rated as being at 'high' or 'unclear' risk of bias in multiple domains, and there was considerable unexplained heterogeneity; in addition, we assessed the quality of the evidence for each comparison as very low. As such, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. The evidence for each of the comparisons made in this review was assessed as very low quality. This evidence showed that individual TFCBT and EMDR did better than waitlist/usual care in reducing clinician-assessed PTSD symptoms. There was evidence that individual TFCBT, EMDR and non-TFCBT are equally effective immediately post-treatment in the treatment of PTSD. There was some evidence that TFCBT and EMDR are superior to non-TFCBT between one to four months following treatment, and also that individual TFCBT, EMDR and non-TFCBT are more effective than other therapies. There was evidence of greater drop-out in active treatment groups. Although a substantial number of studies were included in the review, the conclusions are compromised by methodological issues evident in some. Sample sizes were small, and it is apparent that many of the studies were underpowered. There were limited follow-up data, which compromises conclusions regarding the long-term effects of psychological treatment.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eur J Psychotraumatol
                Eur J Psychotraumatol
                European Journal of Psychotraumatology
                Taylor & Francis
                2000-8066
                11 December 2023
                2023
                11 December 2023
                : 14
                : 2
                : 2281182
                Affiliations
                [a ]Centre for Academic Mental Health, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol , Bristol, UK
                [b ]National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol , Bristol, UK
                [c ]Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol , Bristol, UK
                [d ]Division of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, Cardiff University , Cardiff, UK
                [e ]Division of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neuroscience, MRC Centre for Neuropsychiatric Genetics and Genomics, Cardiff University , Cardiff, UK
                Author notes
                [CONTACT ] Daniela Strelchuk Daniela.strelchuk@ 123456bristol.ac.uk Centre for Academic Mental Health, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol , Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol, BS8 2BN, UK National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol , Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol, BS8 2BN, UK

                Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2023.2281182.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1634-2801
                Article
                2281182
                10.1080/20008066.2023.2281182
                10990439
                38073540
                a6c479b1-3c41-45d7-a71a-edbd33afaf62
                © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 5, Equations: 0, References: 27, Pages: 12
                Categories
                Basic Research Article
                Research Article

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                online emdr,service evaluation,ptsd,multi-method,qualitative interviews,emdr online,evaluación de servicios,tept,multimétodo,在线 emdr;服务评价;ptsd;多种方法

                Comments

                Comment on this article