Treatment and Prevention of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

What treatments are effective for chronic posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the prevention of PTSD following trauma? The current review illustrates the basic efficacy of several psychosocial treatments for PTSD (ie, exposure, stress inoculation training, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, cognitive therapy); discusses comparative studies of these treatments; examines two preventive interventions for trauma survivors (ie, psychological debriefing, cognitive behavioral programs); and suggests future research directions. Several psychosocial treatments for chronic PTSD have been proven effective. The few randomized, comparative studies do not provide strong evidence for the superiority of one intervention over another. Further, these studies do not support an additive benefit for combined treatments. While evidence does not support the efficacy of psychological debriefing in preventing PTSD following trauma, studies do suggest that brief cognitive-behavioral programs may accelerate recovery and prevent the development of chronic PTSD following trauma. Treatment and Prevention of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder 61 Primary Psychiatry, August 2003 imaginal and in vivo exposure without formal cognitive therapy or substantial elements of stress inoculation training, is illustrated by the five studies summarized in Table 1. The table presents the study samples and treatment outcome, in terms of the percent reduction in PTSD severity scores at posttreatment and percentage of treatment completers who still met criteria for PTSD after treatment and at follow-up (up to 1 year posttreatment). Three of the studies were restricted to adult female assault victims (predominately rape), while the remaining two studies utilized general trauma samples that included men and women with PTSD following a range of traumatic events. As shown in Table 1, ET was associated with reductions in PTSD symptom severity of 40% to 67%, compared to 26% to 42% for active control treatments and 1% to 20% for wait list. In addition, between 45% and 100% of individuals in control conditions met criteria for PTSD after treatment and approximately 50% met criteria for PTSD at follow-up. By comparison, between 13% and 60% of individuals receiving ET met criteria for PTSD following treatment, and between 13% and 45% at follow-up. Thus, most gains with ET were maintained through the follow-up period. The efficacy of imaginal exposure therapy has also been investigated with some limited success in male veteran samples. While greater improvement occurred for treatment than control conditions, these studies did not report posttreatment incidence of PTSD. Stress-Inoculation Training Stress-inoculation training (SIT) is an anxiety management program developed by Meichenbaum that was modified for use with sexual assault survivors. SIT focuses on training in general anxiety management techniques for three channels of fear and anxiety (ie, physical, behavioral, and cognitive) and their application in general and in response to PTSD symptoms. The treatment rationale is that through learning these techniques, the client becomes better able to manage anxiety and PTSD symptoms are therefore reduced. There are several components to SIT programs. First, psychoeducation focuses on the nature of fear/anxiety, the three channels of fear/anxiety, rationale for treatment, and common reactions to sexual assault. Following psychoeducation, the remaining components may vary based upon the design of the SIT program and needs of the client. The remaining components may include relaxation training, breathing retraining, role-playing, covert modeling, guided self-dialogue, and thought stopping. Controlled studies examining the effectiveness of SIT demonstrate larger reductions in PTSD for SIT than waitlist and supportive counseling (Table 2). At follow-up assessments done up to 1 year posttreatment, these reductions have largely been maintained. Given the evidence for its efficacy, SIT is a viable option for the treatment of PTSD. However, all of the studies examining the efficacy of SIT have focused on female assault survivors. Table 1 Rates of PTSD Posttreatment and at Follow-up in ET RCTs ET SC or RLX WL Study Sample (N) %* Post† FU‡ %* Post† FU‡ %* Post† FU‡ Foa et al (1991) Female sexual assault (45) 40§ 60% 45% 26§ 90% 55% 20§ 100% ND Foa et al (1999) Female sexual and physical assault (96) 60§ 35% 35% ND ND ND 18§ 100% ND Marks et al (1998) Male and female, general trauma (87) 42# 25% ND 37# 45% ND ND ND ND Resick et al (2002) Female sexual assault (171) 67# 18% 15% ND ND ND 1# 98% ND Taylor et al (2003) Male and female, general trauma (45) 65# 13% 13% 41# 60% 53% ND ND ND * Percent reduction in PTSD severity scores. Derived using the following formula: (pre PTSD severity–post PTSD severity)/pre PTSD severityx100%. † Percentage of treatment completers who still met criteria for PTSD after treatment. ‡ Percentage of treatment completers who still met criteria for PTSD up to 1 year posttreatment. § Based upon PTSD Interview scores. # Based upon Clinician Administered PTSD Scale scores. PTSD=posttraumatic stress disorder; ET=exposure therapy; RCTs=randomized controlled trials; N=number of completers; SC=supportive counseling; RLX=relaxation; WL=wait list; Post=posttreatment; FU=follow-up; ND=no data. Rauch SAM, Cahill SP. Primary Psychiatry. Vol 10, No 8. 2003. Table 2 Rates of PTSD Posttreatment and at Follow-up in SIT RCTs SIT SC WL Study Sample (N) %* Post† FU‡ %* Post† FU‡ %* Post† FU‡ Foa et al (1991) Female sexual assault (45) 55§ 50% 45% 26§ 90% 55% 20§ 100% ND Foa et al (1999) Female physical/sexual assault (96) 56§ 42% 32% ND ND ND 18§ 100% ND * Percent reduction in PTSD severity scores. Derived using the following formula: (pre PTSD severity–post PTSD severity)/pre PTSD severityx100%. † Percent of treatment completers who still met criteria for PTSD after treatment. ‡ Percent of treatment completers who still met criteria for PTSD up to 1 year posttreatment. § Based on Posttraumatic Stress Symptom Interview scores. PTSD=posttraumatic stress disorder; SIT=stress-inoculation training; RCTs=randomized controlled trials; N=number of completers; SC=supportive counseling; WL=wait list; Post=posttreatment; FU=follow-up; ND=no data. Rauch SAM, Cahill SP. Primary Psychiatry. Vol 10, No 8. 2003. S.A.M. Rauch, S.P. Cahill 62 Primary Psychiatry, August 2003 While researchers may expect that these results would generalize to other trauma populations, this is not known. Cognitive Therapy Cognitive therapy (CT) focuses on the interpretation of events rather than the events themselves as the source of emotional reactions. Therefore, in CT, anxiety and other PTSD symptoms are thought to result from negative and unhelpful interpretations of events that fall into common patterns, such as overgeneralization when a person reacts to a new situation based upon a previous experience. For example, a woman raped by a man with a beard may develop the belief that men with beards are dangerous and experience anxiety and fear whenever she sees such a man. In CT, these problematic thoughts are identified and challenged (eg, collecting evidence, looking for alternative interpretations, etc.), leading to development of more helpful alternative thoughts. Cognitive processing therapy (CPT) includes exposure but emphasizes CT techniques. The exposure component involves writing a detailed account of the trauma, which is then read to the therapist. Difficult points in the narrative are identified and cognitive techniques are used to closely examine these points. In addition, trauma-related cognitions are identified with sessions focusing on beliefs about safety, trust, power/control, esteem, and intimacy. As can be seen in Table 3, randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that CT and CPT reduced the incidence of PTSD following a variety of traumas more than wait list and relaxation. While rates of PTSD at follow-up were not available in one of these studies, rates of PTSD for the CPT condition were similar at follow-up, suggesting maintenance of gains. Importantly, CPT was specifically designed for use with sexual assault survivors. Use in other trauma populations has not been empirically examined. Eye Movement Densensitization and Reprocessing Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), a relatively new treatment, first appeared in professional literature in 1989. EMDR has eight treatment phases, which involve a combination of general clinical practice (history and treatment planning, client education, and ongoing reassessment); brief imaginal exposure to trauma-related memories, thoughts, and feelings; and a form of cognitive restructuring called “installation.” The most unique feature of EMDR is therapist-induced rapid eye movements in the client during the desensitization (ie, imaginal exposure) and installation phases. Most commonly, eye movements are induced by instructing the client to follow the therapists’ fingers as they are moved rapidly back and forth across the client’s visual field. Other forms of laterally alternating stimuli (eg, tones) or activities (eg, hand tapping) are sometimes used instead of eye movements. The basic efficacy of EMDR is demonstrated by two studies summarized in Table 4. As shown in the table, rates of PTSD following treatment with EMDR were lower than obtained in control conditions. However, posttreatment rates of PTSD following treatment in the recent study by Taylor and colleagues were substantially larger than in the earlier, and smaller study by Rothbaum, despite the fact that the former study included a larger number of sessions. Assessment of treatment fidelity in each study indicated excellent adherence to the treatment protocol, suggesting the differences in outcome may reflect differences in study population rather than differences in the quality of administering EMDR. EMDR has also been studied in veteran samples Table 4 Rates of PTSD Posttreatment and at Follow-up in EMDR RCTs EMDR RLX WL Study Sample (N) %* Post† FU‡ %* Post† FU‡ %* Post† FU‡ Rothbaum (1997) Female sexual assault (18) 57§ 10% ND ND ND ND 10§ 88% ND Taylor et al (2003) Male and female general trauma (45) 48§ 40% 33% 41§ 60% 53% ND ND ND * Percent reduction in PTSD severity scores. Derived using the following formula: (pre PTSD severity–post PTSD severity)/pre PTSD severityx100%. † Percent of treatment completers who still met criteria for PTSD after treatment. ‡ Percent of treatment completers who still met criteria for PTSD up to 1 year posttreatment. § Based upon Clinician Administered PTSD scale severity scores PTSD=posttraumatic stress disorder; EMDR=Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing; RCTs=randomized controlled trials; RLX=relaxation; WL=wait list; N=number of completers; Post=posttreatment; FU=follow-up; ND=no data. Rauch SAM, Cahill SP. Primary Psychiatry. Vol 10, No 8. 2003. Table 3 Rates of PTSD Posttreatment and at Follow-up in CT and CPT RCTs CT or CPT RLX WL Study Sample (N) %* Post† FU‡ %* Post† FU‡ %* Post† FU‡ Marks et al (1998) Male and female general trauma (87) 50§ 35% ND 37§ 45%§ ND ND ND ND Resick et al (2002) Female sexual assault (171) 72§ 20% 19% ND ND ND 13 98%§ ND * Percent reduction in PTSD severity scores. Derived using the following formula: (pre PTSD severity–post PTSD severity)/pre PTSD severityx100%. † Percent of treatment completers who still met criteria for PTSD after treatment. ‡ Percent of treatment completers who still met criteria for PTSD up to 1 year posttreatment. § Based upon Clinician Administered PTSD scale severity scores. PTSD=posttraumatic stress disorder; CT=cognitive therapy; CPT=cognitive-processing therapy; RCTs=randomized controlled trials; RLX=relaxation; WL=wait list; N=number of completers; Post=posttreatment; FU=follow-up; ND=no data. Rauch SAM, Cahill SP. Primary Psychiatry. Vol 10, No 8. 2003. Treatment and Prevention of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder 63 Primary Psychiatry, August 2003 with mixed results. Several studies investigating the role of eye movements and other laterally alternating stimuli have generally failed to find evidence of a specific effect on treatment outcome. Cusak and Spatos compared EMDR with a condition that replaced the installation trials with additional desensitization trials and found no differences between the two conditions. Thus, despite evidence for the basic efficacy of EMDR, there are no data supporting the unique features in EMDR. Comparisons Among Treatments In a comparison of ET (including imaginal and in vivo exposure), CT, ET/CT, and relaxation with a mixed trauma sample with PTSD, Marks and colleagues. found that the three treatments resulted in significant reductions in anxiety, PTSD symptoms, and depression, compared to relaxation. Few differences were found among the treatments, including no benefit for the combined treatment compared to either CT or ET. Similarly, Paunovic and Ost found that both ET and ET/CT resulted in significant improvements in PTSD, general anxiety, and depression in a sample of refugees with PTSD, with no differences in outcome between the treatments. In a study comparing SIT, ET, and ET/SIT in a female assault sample with PTSD, there was a trend for more clients in ET (52%) to obtain good end-state functioning (a composite of PTSD, depressive, and general anxiety symptoms) than SIT (31%) or ET/SIT (27%). However, the only significant difference in outcome between treatments for completers was lower general anxiety in ET compared to ET/SIT. Again, the combination did not add to the benefit of the components alone. Finally, Resick and colleagues compared CPT, ET, and minimal attention control in sexual assault survivors with PTSD. Both CPT and ET resulted in significant reductions in PTSD and depression that were superior to control. Again, no differences in PTSD or depression were detected between treatments. Early Intervention and Prevention of Chronic Posttraumatic Stress Disorder While the majority of trauma survivors recover without intervention, a significant minority develops chronic PTSD. As a result, many researchers have examined how to prevent the development of PTSD following trauma. The two approaches to facilitating recovery following a traumatic event that have received the most research are psychological debriefing and abbreviated cognitive-behavioral packages. Psychological Debriefing We use the term psychological debriefing to refer to very brief (one or a few session) interventions that share a number of components and are applied shortly after a traumatic event (frequently within 48–72 hours). These common components include discussion of the facts of the traumatic event as well as the survivors’ beliefs about what happened; an opportunity to express thoughts, impressions, and emotional reactions; normalization of the survivors’ reactions; and planning for coping with the trauma and its sequelae. For a detailed description of critical incident stress management, one form of psychological debriefing, see Everly and colleagues. Much of the research examining psychological debriefing has had methodological weaknesses (ie, nonrandom assignment, no standardized measures of PTSD symptom severity, etc.). Randomized controlled trials of psychological debriefing in a variety of trauma populations have not supported its effectiveness in preventing PTSD. For instance, Lee and colleagues randomly assigned women to receive either psychological debriefing or assessment control at 2 weeks postmiscarriage. At 4 months postmiscarriage there was no difference in anxiety or depression between psychological debriefing and the assessment control groups. In a sample of physical and sexual assault survivors, Rose and colleagues assigned participants to education, debriefing plus education, or assessment. There were no differences in rates of PTSD at 6 months posttrauma (26% assessment, 11% education, and 23% debriefing). Similarly, there were no differences in PTSD symptom severity with psychological debriefing compared to an assessment control in a sample of motor vehicle accident (MVA) survivors at 3 months post-MVA. In a sample of British military peacekeeping troops, Deahl and colleagues gave the troops a pre-deployment stress training followed by randomly assigning some soldiers to receive post-operational psychological debriefing. No differences were found in PTSD symptoms at 3-, 16-, or 12-month follow-up. Indeed, some trials have found longterm detrimental effects for psychological debriefing. Hobbs and colleagues found few differences between psychological debriefing and an assessment control group with MVA survivors at 4 months post-MVA. However, the psychological debriefing group resulted in worse outcome when differences were demonstrated. In a follow-up with this sample at 3-years post-MVA, the psychological debriefing group showed worse outcome in general psychiatric symptoms, travel anxiety, pain, physical functioning, overall functioning, and financial problems. Importantly, among those who were initially most distressed (ie, high intrusion and avoidance symptoms), soldiers who received psychological debriefing remained symptomatic while those who did not receive psychological debriefing recovered. These studies do not support the effectiveness of general, acute, implementation of psychological debriefing with trauma survivors. However, proponents of psychological debriefing have suggested that research has not included appropriate outcome measures to capture the changes that occur with psychological debriefing and that psychological debriefing has been inappropriately administered (see Everly and colleagues). Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) programs that combine elements of psychoeducation and prolonged imaginal and in vivo exposure with SIT and CT have been found to be helpful in speeding recovery and preventing the development of chronic PTSD. Table 5 summarizes all four published studies that have investigated the efficacy of brief CBT programs (4–5 sessions) administered beginning approximately 2 weeks after the traumatic event. This approach to preventing chronic PTSD was pioneered by Foa and colleagues, who treated female sexual assault survivors that met symptom criteria, but not yet duration criteria, for PTSD. The results suggested that, compared to a S.A.M. Rauch, S.P. Cahill 64 Primary Psychiatry, August 2003 no-treatment control group, the treatment program hastened recovery but did not significantly reduce the incidence of PTSD at follow-up. However, survivors were not randomly assigned to treatment, thereby raising the possibility that differences between groups were due to some third variable that happened to be correlated with study condition. Building on the work of Foa and colleagues, Bryant and colleagues published three studies of brief CBT in the treatment of acute stress disorder (ASD) following motor vehicle and industrial accidents. ASD has been the focus of these preventive interventions since prospective data support that people with ASD posttrauma are more likely to develop chronic PTSD. As with the Foa and colleagues study, the studies by Bryant and colleagues show that brief treatment with CBT hastened recovery. More importantly, cognitive behavior therapy was also found to reduce the incidence of PTSD at follow-up. As shown in Table 5, brief CBT and ET alone were associated with reductions in PTSD symptom severity of 57% to 73%, compared to 12% to 38% in comparison groups. In addition, only 8% to 20% of individuals receiving CBT met criteria for PTSD following treatment, and between 17% and 23% met criteria for PTSD 6 months later. In contrast, between 46% and 83% of individuals receiving supportive counseling met criteria for PTSD after treatment and between 58% and 67% met criteria for PTSD 6 months later. In one study, Bryant and colleagues compared the full CBT program with a simpler program in which most of the SIT and CT interventions were removed, and found no reduction in treatment efficacy. This finding mirrors results from studies of combined treatments for chronic PTSD. Summary and Future Directions Research illustrates that several psychosocial approaches can be helpful in the treatment of PTSD, including ET, SIT, CT, EMDR, and CBT treatment packages that combine elements of ET with SIT or CT. These treatments are more effective in reducing the symptoms of PTSD and, although not explicitly reviewed here, associated symptoms of depression and general anxiety. Studies that have directly compared one active treatment for PTSD with one another have not provided any strong evidence for the clear superiority of one treatment over the others. Moreover, studies directly comparing individual treatments (eg, ET alone or CT alone) with combination treatments (eg, ET plus CT) have also failed to produce any strong evidence for the superiority of combined treatments over individual treatments. Preventive CBT treatments utilizing ET, either alone or in combination with elements of SIT and CT, have been found to speed recovery posttrauma and prevent the development of chronic PTSD. Psychological debriefing, a second approach to early intervention, although quite popular, has not been found to be efficacious in the prevention of posttrauma psychopathology. Although advances have been made in the treatment of PTSD, a significant proportion of individuals continue to meet criteria for PTSD after treatment and attempts to improve treatment outcome by combining existing treatments have not been especially successful. Thus, two important avenues for further research are: (1) the identification of client variables to predict who will respond to current treatments for PTSD; and (2) the development of modifications to current treatments or new treatments for partial and nonresponders. In particular,no studies have directly compared anypsychosocial treatment with medica-tion in the treatment of PTSD nor havestudies yet been conducted to examinewhether combining psychosocial treat-ments with medication may yield bet-ter outcome than either treatmentalone. Finally, although these treat-ments have been available for years,consumer accessibility is a problemdue to difficulties in establishing andmaintaining effective methods of dis-semination of these treatment methodsto treatment providers. PP References1. Foa EB, Rothbaum BO, Riggs D, Murdock T.Treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder inrape victims: A comparison between cognitive-behavioral procedures and counseling. J ConsultClin Psychology. 1991;59:715-723. Table 5Rates of PTSD at Posttreatment and Follow-up in RCTs of Early Intervention/Brief Prevention CBT Studies CBTETSCWLStudySample (N)%* Post† FU‡ %* Post† FU‡ %* Post† FU‡ %* Post† FU‡Bryant et al (1998) Male and femaleaccidents (24)71§ 8%# 17%# ND ND ND 26§ 83%# 67%# ND ND NDBryant et al (2003) Male and femaleaccidents andnon-sexual assault (24) 71§ 8%# 17%# ND ND ND 12§ 58%# 58%# ND ND NDBryant et al (1999) Male and femaleaccidents andnon-sexual assault (45) 57§ 20%# 23%# 64§ 14%# 15%# 27§ 56%# 67%# ND ND NDFoa et al (1995) Female sexualassault (20)73|| 10%|| 11%|| ND ND ND ND ND ND 38|| 70%|| 22%||* Percent reduction in PTSD severity scores. Derived using the following formula: (pre PTSD severity–post PTSD severity)/pre PTSD severityx100%.† Percent of treatment completers who still met criteria for PTSD after treatment.‡ Percent of treatment completers who still met criteria for PTSD up to 1 year posttreatment.§ Based on Impact of Event Scale scores.# Based upon Clinician Administered PTSD scale severity scores.||Based on Posttraumatic Stress Symptom Interview scores.PTSD=posttraumatic stress disorder; RCTs=randomized controlled trials; CBT=cognitive-behavioral package (ET, stress inoculation training, and cognitiverestructuring); ET=exposure therapy; SC=supportive counseling; WL=wait list; N=number of completers; Post=posttreatment; FU=follow-up; ND=no data. Rauch SAM, Cahill SP. Primary Psychiatry. Vol 10, No 8. 2003. Treatment and Prevention of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder 65Primary Psychiatry, August 20032. Foa EB, Dancu CV, Hembree EA, Jaycox LH,Meadows EA, Street GP. A comparison of expo-sure therapy, stress inoculation training, andtheir combination for reducing posttraumaticstress disorder in female assault victims.J Consult Clin Psychology. 1999;67:194-200. 3. Marks I, Lovell K, Noshirvani H, Livanou M,Thrasher S. Treatment of post-traumatic stressdisorder by exposure and/or cognitive restructur-ing: A controlled study. Arch Gen Psychiatry.1998;55:317-325. 4. Keane TM, Fairbank JA, Caddell JM, ZimmeringRT. Implosive (flooding) therapy reduces symp-toms of PTSD in Vietnam combat veterans.Behav Ther. 1989;20:245-260. 5. Tarrier N, Pilgrim H, Sommerfield C, et al. A ran-domized trial of cognitive therapy and imaginalexposure in the treatment of chronic posttrau-matic stress disorder. J Consult Clin Psychology.1999;67:13-18. 6. Jaycox LH, Foa EB, Morral AR. Influence ofemotional engagement and habituation on expo-sure therapy for PTSD. J Consult Clin Psychology.1998;66:185-192. 7. Pitman RK, Orr SP, Altman B, et al. Emotionalprocessing and outcome of imaginal floodingtherapy in Vietnam veterans with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. Comp Psychiatry.1996;37:409-418. 8. Resick PA, Nishith P, Weaver TL, Astin MC,Feuer CA. A comparison of cognitive-processingtherapy with prolonged exposure and a waitingcondition for the treatment of chronic posttrau-matic stress disorder in female rape victims.J Consult Clin Psychol. 2002;70:867-879. 9. Taylor S, Thordarson DS, Maxfield L, Federoff IC,Lovell K, Ogrodniczuk J. Efficacy, speed, andadverse effects of three PTSD treatments:Exposure therapy, relaxation training, and EMDR.J Consult Clin Psychology. 2003;71:330-338. 10. Boudewynes PA, Hyer L, Woods MG, HarrisonWR, McCranie E. PTSD among Vietnam veter-ans: An early look at treatment outcome usingdirect therapeutic exposure. J Traum Stress.1990;3:359-368. 11. Cooper NA, Clum GA. Imaginal flooding as asupplementary treatment for PTSD in combatveterans: A controlled study. Behav Ther.1989;20:381-391. 12. Meichenbaum D. Self instructional methods.In: Kanfer FH, Goldstein AP, eds. Helping PeopleChange. New York, NY: Pergamon Press;1974:357-391. 13. Calhoun KS, Resick PA. Post-traumatic stressdisorder. In: Barlow DH, ed. Clinical Handbookof Psychological Disorders. New York, NY:Guilford Press; 1993:48-98. 14. Beck AT, Emery G Anxiety Disorders andPhobias: A Cognitive Perspective. New York, NY:Basic Books; 1985.15. Shapiro F. Efficacy of the eye movement desen-sitization procedure in the treatment of trau-matic memories. J Traum Stress. 1989;2:199-223. 16. Shapiro F. Eye movement desensitization and repro-cessing: Basic principles, protocols and procedures.2nd ed. New York., NY: Guilford Press; 2001. 17. Rothbaum BO. A controlled study of eye move-ment desensitization and reprocessing for post-traumatic stress disordered sexual assault vic-tims. Bull Menn Clin. 1997;61:317-334. 18. Boudewyns PA, Stwertka SA, Hyer LA, AlbrechtJW, Sperr EV. Eye movement desensitizationand reprocessing: a pilot study. Behav Ther.1993;16:30-33. 19. Boudewyns PA, Hyer, LA. Eye movement desen-sitization and reprocessing (EMDR) as treat-ment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).Clin Psychol Psychother. 1996;3:185-195. 20. Carlson JG, Chemtob CM, Rusnak, K, HedlundNL, Muraoka MY. Eye movement desensitizationand reprocessing for combat-related posttraumat-ic stress disorder. J Traum Stress. 1998;11:3-24. 21. Jensen JA. An investigation of eye movementdesensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) as atreatment for posttraumatic stress disorder(PTSD) symptoms of Vietnam combat veterans.Behav Ther. 1994;25:311-326. 22. Devilly GJ, Spence SH, Rapee RM. Statisticaland reliable change with eye movement desen-sitization and reprocessing: Treating traumawithin a veteran population. Behav Ther.1998;29:435-455. 23. Renfrey G, Spates CR. Eye movement desensiti-zation and reprocessing: A partial dismantlingprocedure. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry.1994;25:231-239. 24. Pitman RK, Orr SP, Altman B, Longpre RE,Poire RE, Macklin ML. Emotional processingduring eye-movement desensitization andreprocessing therapy of Vietnam veterans withchronic post-traumatic stress disorder. CompPsychiatry. 1996;22:149-151. 25. Cusack K, Spates CR. The cognitive dismantlingof eye movement desensitization and reprocess-ing (EMDR) treatment of posttraumatic stressdisorder (PTSD). J Anx Disord. 1999;13:87-99. 26. Paunovic N, Ost LG. Cognitive-behaviour thera-py vs exposure therapy in the treatment of PTSDin refugees. Behav Ther Res. 2001;39:1183-1197. 27. Breslau N, Kessler R, Chilcoat H, Schultz L,Davis G, Andreski P. Trauma and posttraumaticstress disorder in the community: The 1996Detroit area survey of trauma. Arch GenPsychiatry. 1998;55:626-632. 28. Bisson JI, McFarlane AC, Rose S: Psychologicaldebriefing. In: Foa EB, Keane TM, FreidmanMJ, eds. Effective Treatment for PTSD. New York,NY: Guilford Press; 2000:39-59.29. Everly GS, Flannery RB, Eyler V, Mitchell JT.Sufficiency analysis of an integrated multicom-ponent approach to crisis intervention: criticalincident stress management. Adv Mind BodMed. 2001;17:174-183. 30. Lee C, Slade P, Lygo V. The influence of psycho-logical debriefing on emotional adaptation inwomen following early miscarriage: A prelimi-nary study. Br J Med Psychol. 1996;69:47-58. 31. Rose S, Brewin CR, Andrews B, Kirk M. A ran-domized controlled trial of individual psycho-logical debriefing for victims of violent crime.Psychol Med. 1999;29:793-799. 32. Conlon L, Fahy TJ, Conroy R. PTSD in ambu-lant RTA victims: A randomized controlled trialof debriefing. J Psychosom Res. 1999;46:37-44. 33. Deahl M, Srinivasan M, Jones N, Thomas J,Neblett C, Jolly A. Preventing psychologicaltrauma in soldiers: the role of operational stresstraining and psychological debriefing. J MedPsychology. 2000;73:77-85. 34. Bisson JI, Jenkins PL, Alexander J, Bannister C.Randomized controlled trial of psychologicaldebriefing for victims of acute burn trauma.Br J Psychiatry. 1997;171:78-81. 35. Mayou RA, Ehlers A, Hobbs M. Psychologicaldebriefing for road traffic accident victims:Three year follow-up of a randomised con-trolled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2000;176:589-593. 36. Hobbs M, Mayou R, Harrison B, Worlock P. Arandomized controlled trial of psychologicaldebriefing for victims of road traffic accidents.Br Med J. 1996;313:1438-1439. 37. Bryant RA, Harvey AG, Sackville T, Dang ST,Basten C. Treatment of acute stress disorder:A comparison between cognitive-behavioraltherapy and supportive counseling. J ConsultClin Psychology. 1998;66:862-866. 38. Bryant RA, Moulds M, Guthrie R, Nixon RDV.Treating acute stress disorder following mildtraumatic brain injury. Am J Psychiatry.2003;160:585-587. 39. Bryant RA, Sackville T, Dangh ST, Moulds M,Guthrie R. Treating acute stress disorder: Anevaluation of cognitive behavior therapy andsupportive counseling techniques. Am JPsychiatry. 1999;156:1780-1786. 40. Foa EB, Hearst-Ikeda D, Perry KJ. Evaluation ofa brief cognitive-behavioral program for the pre-vention of chronic PTSD in recent assault vic-tims. J Consult Clin Psychology. 1995;63:948-955. 41. Harvey AG, Bryant RA. The relationshipbetween acute stress disorder and posttraumat-ic stress disorder: A prospective evaluation ofmotor vehicle accident survivors. J Consult ClinPsychology. 1998;66:507-512.