Visual Schema Displacement Therapy versus Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing therapy versus waitlist in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder: results of a randomized clinical trial.

Introduction: Visual Schema Displacement Therapy (VSDT) is a novel approach showing promise in mitigating distressing memories, akin to Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR). Objectives: This study aimed to determine the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of VSDT in individuals with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), comparing it to EMDR therapy and a waitlist control condition (WLCC). It was hypothesized that the application of VSDT would be safe and PTSD symptoms significantly be reduced from both baseline to post-treatment and from baseline to follow-up in the VSDT and EMDR therapy conditions. Furthermore, we expected both treatments to be significantly more effective than the waitlist control. Moreover, we hypothesized that VSDT and EMDR therapy would be associated with significant improvements in symptoms of depression and general psychopathology. Method: Forty-six adults with PTSD were randomly assigned to VSDT, EMDR therapy, or WLCC, receiving six 90-minute sessions. Assessments included the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM)-5 (CAPS-5), PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) before, during, and 3 months post-treatment. Results: Bayesian analysis found no differences between VSDT and EMDR in PTSD symptom reduction but both outperformed WLCC. EMDR was superior to the WLCC in reducing symptoms of depression and general psychopathology. At 3-month follow-up, 58.3% of the participants in the VSDT condition no longer met the PTSD diagnostic criteria (41.2% EMDR therapy and 15.4% WLCC) with no difference between the two therapy conditions. Self-reported PTSD symptom reduction was significant in VSDT (d = 1.38) and EMDR (d = 1.40) but modest in WLCC (d = 0.39). Dropout rate was 19.3%, with no adverse events. Conclusion: This study supports VSDT's efficacy in treating PTSD, offering a valuable therapeutic option comparable to EMDR, with significant reductions in PTSD symptoms and no difference with EMDR or the control condition for depressive symptoms and general psychopathology, and no reported adverse events.

The effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability of EMDR vs. EMDR 2.0 vs. the Flash technique in the treatment of patients with PTSD: study protocol for the ENHANCE randomized controlled trial.

Background: Several widely studied therapies have proven to be effective in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, there is still room for improvement because not all patients benefit from trauma-focused treatments. Improvements in the treatment of PTSD can be achieved by investigating ways to enhance existing therapies, such as eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy, as well as exploring novel treatments. The purpose of the current study is to determine the differential effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability of EMDR therapy, an adaptation of EMDR therapy, referred to as EMDR 2.0, and a novel intervention for PTSD, the so-called Flash technique. The second aim is to identify the moderators of effectiveness for these interventions. This study will be conducted among individuals diagnosed with PTSD using a randomized controlled trial design. Methods: A total of 130 patients diagnosed with (complex) PTSD will be randomly allocated to either six sessions of EMDR therapy, EMDR 2.0, or the Flash technique. The primary outcomes used to determine treatment effectiveness include the presence of a PTSD diagnosis and the severity of PTSD symptoms. The secondary outcomes of effectiveness include symptoms of depression, symptoms of dissociation, general psychiatric symptoms, and experiential avoidance. All patients will be assessed at baseline, at 4-week post-treatment, and at 12-week follow-up. Questionnaires indexing symptoms of PTSD, depression, general psychopathology, and experiential avoidance will also be assessed weekly during treatment and bi-weekly after treatment, until the 12-week follow-up. Efficiency will be assessed by investigating the time it takes both to lose the diagnostic status of PTSD, and to achieve reliable change in PTSD symptoms. Treatment acceptability will be assessed after the first treatment session and after treatment termination. Discussion: This study is the first to investigate EMDR 2.0 therapy and the Flash technique in a sample of participants officially diagnosed with PTSD using a randomized controlled trial design. This study is expected to improve the available treatment options for PTSD and provide therapists with alternative ways to choose a therapy beyond its effectiveness by considering moderators, efficiency, and acceptability. Trial registration: The trial was retrospectively registered in the ISRCTN registry at 10th November 2022 under registration number ISRCTN13100019.

The Effects of the Flash Technique Compared to Those of an Abbreviated Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Therapy Protocol on the Emotionality and Vividness of Aversive Memories.

Introduction: The Flash technique is a novel intervention aimed at rapidly decreasing the subjective disturbance of an aversive memory, thereby serving as a potential way of treating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The protocol is used to stimulate clients to engage in positive imagery while being discouraged to actively recollect the targeted disturbing memory. Previous research into the Flash technique's efficacy shows promising results, yet controlled studies are lacking. Objectives: To test the efficacy of the Flash technique, it was compared to an abbreviated eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy protocol in a controlled experimental setting. We hypothesized that the Flash technique would lead to a larger decrease in the emotionality and vividness of an aversive autobiographical memory when compared to EMDR therapy. Our second hypothesis was that the procedure of the Flash technique would be evaluated more pleasant by its receiver. Method: The sample consisted of 60 non-clinical participants (mean age = 25.28 years; 73.33% female) who were able to recall an aversive autobiographical memory. They were randomized to either the Flash technique or the EMDR therapy condition. Measurements consisted of emotionality and vividness-ratings pre and post intervention, and at 1-week follow-up. Results: Bayesian analyses showed no differences between Flash and EMDR to the extent to which the emotionality and vividness of their memory was reduced. Afterward, the Flash technique was rated more pleasant than EMDR. Conclusion: The results support the claim that the Flash technique might be used as a brief and efficacious intervention for individuals suffering from disturbing memories. Although the results suggest that its efficacy does not differ from EMDR, the Flash technique seems to yield similar outcomes in a more pleasant way. Further research into its working mechanisms and in a clinical sample is required.