Psychology Department, HMP & YOI Cornton Vale, Stirling, UK; School of Health & Social Science, Edinburgh Napier University, UK.
School of Health & Social Science, Edinburgh Napier University, UK; Rivers Centre for Traumatic Stress, NHS Lothian, UK.
J Affect Disord. 2019 Jan 15;243:305-321. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.09.059. Epub 2018 Sep 17.
No previous meta-analyses have specifically investigated the effectiveness of psychological group therapy for symptoms associated with complex interpersonal trauma, including whether trauma memory processing (TMP) therapies are superior to psychoeducational approaches alone.
A systematic review identified 36 randomised control trials (RCTs) which were included in the meta-analysis.
Large significant effect sizes were evident for TMP interventions when compared to usual care for three outcome domains including: PTSD (k = 6, g = -0.98, 95% CI -1.53, -0.43), Depression (k = 7, g = -1.12, 95% CI -2.01, -0.23) and Psychological Distress (k = 6, g = -0.98, 95% CI 1.66, -0.40). When TMP and psychoeducation interventions were directly compared, results indicated a small non-significant effect in favour of the former for PTSD symptoms, (k = 4, g = -0.34, 95% CI -1.05, 0.36) and small non-significant effect sizes in favour of the latter for Depression (k = 3, g = 0.29, 95% CI -0.83, 1.4) and Psychological Distress (k = 6, g = 0.19, 95% CI -0.34, 0.71).
Heterogeneity and a limited number of high quality RCTs, particularly in the Substance Misuse and Dissociation domains, resulted in uncertainty regarding meta-analytical estimates and subsequent conclusions.
Results suggest that TMP interventions are useful for traumatic stress whereas non-TMP interventions can be useful for symptoms of general distress (e.g. anxiety and depression). Thus, both TMP and psychoeducation can be useful for the treatment of complex interpersonal trauma symptoms and further research should unravel appropriate sequencing and dose of these interventions.
之前没有荟萃分析专门研究心理团体治疗对与复杂人际创伤相关症状的有效性,包括创伤记忆处理(TMP)疗法是否优于单纯的心理教育方法。
系统综述确定了 36 项随机对照试验(RCT),这些试验被纳入荟萃分析。
与常规护理相比,TMP 干预在三个结果领域表现出较大的显著效果,包括:创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)(k=6,g=-0.98,95%置信区间-1.53,-0.43)、抑郁(k=7,g=-1.12,95%置信区间-2.01,-0.23)和心理困扰(k=6,g=-0.98,95%置信区间 1.66,-0.40)。当直接比较 TMP 和心理教育干预时,结果表明前者对 PTSD 症状有小但无统计学意义的效果优势(k=4,g=-0.34,95%置信区间-1.05,0.36),而后者对抑郁(k=3,g=0.29,95%置信区间-0.83,1.4)和心理困扰(k=6,g=0.19,95%置信区间-0.34,0.71)的效果优势较小且无统计学意义。
异质性和高质量 RCT 的数量有限,特别是在物质滥用和分离领域,导致对荟萃分析估计和随后结论的不确定性。
结果表明,TMP 干预对创伤应激有效,而非 TMP 干预对一般困扰症状(如焦虑和抑郁)有效。因此,TMP 和心理教育都可以用于治疗复杂人际创伤症状,进一步的研究应该阐明这些干预措施的适当顺序和剂量。