Couple and family therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder
Suomi, Aino, Evans, Lynette, Rogers, Bryan, Taplin, Stephanie and Cowlishaw, Sean. (2019). Couple and family therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. (12), p. Article CD011257. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011257.pub2
|Authors||Suomi, Aino, Evans, Lynette, Rogers, Bryan, Taplin, Stephanie and Cowlishaw, Sean|
Data collection and analysis
One trial with 40 couples (80 participants) showed that CBCT was more effective than wait list control in reducing PTSD severity (SMD −1.12, 95% CI −1.79 to −0.45; low‐quality evidence), anxiety (SMD −0.93, 95% CI −1.58 to −0.27; very low‐quality evidence) and depression (SMD −0.66, 95% CI −1.30 to −0.02; very low‐quality evidence) at post‐treatment for the primary patient with PTSD. Data from two studies indicated that treatment and control groups did not differ significantly according to relationship satisfaction (SMD 1.07, 95% CI −0.17 to 2.31; very low‐quality evidence); and one study showed no significant differences regarding depression (SMD 0.28, 95% CI −0.35 to 0.90; very low‐quality evidence) or anxiety symptoms (SMD 0.15, 95% CI −0.47 to 0.77; very low‐quality evidence) for the partner of the patient with PTSD.
One trial with 57 couples (114 participants) showed that SAT was more effective than PFE in reducing PTSD severity for the primary patient (SMD −1.32, 95% CI −1.90 to −0.74; low‐quality evidence) at post‐treatment. There was no evidence of differences on the other outcomes, including relationship satisfaction (SMD 0.01, 95% CI −0.51 to 0.53; very low‐quality evidence), depression (SMD 0.21, 95% CI −0.31 to 0.73; very low‐quality evidence) and anxiety (SMD −0.16, 95% CI −0.68 to 0.36; very low‐quality evidence) for intimate partners; and depression (SMD −0.28, 95% CI −0.81 to 0.24; very low‐quality evidence) or anxiety (SMD −0.34, 95% CI −0.87 to 0.18; very low‐quality evidence) for the primary patient.
Two studies reported on adverse events and dropout rates, and no significant differences between groups were observed. Two studies were classified as having a 'low' or 'unclear' risk of bias in most domains, except for performance bias that was rated ‘high’. Two studies had significant amounts of missing information resulting in 'unclear' risk of bias. There were too few studies available to conduct subgroup analyses.
|Journal||Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews|
|Journal citation||(12), p. Article CD011257|
|Publisher||John Wiley & Sons Ltd|
|Digital Object Identifier (DOI)||https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011257.pub2|
|PubMed Central ID||PMC6890534|
|Open access||Open access|
All rights reserved
File Access Level
|Online||04 Dec 2019|
|Publication process dates|
|Deposited||27 Jun 2023|
0views this month
0downloads this month