Efficacy of two brief trauma-focussed writing interventions in comparison to positive experiences writing: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is emerging literature regarding the efficacy of trauma-focussed writing therapies (TF-WTs) for posttraumatic stress. Such therapies have the potential to reduce posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) in a brief time frame and can be delivered remotely. There remains a need for further research assessing the efficacy of different types of TF-WTs, as well comparing them to alternative control conditions not previously assessed. The present study assessed two TF-WTs that had differing writing instructions in comparison to an intervention that involved writing about positive experiences. METHODS: Adult community participants (n = 83) with subthreshold or clinical PTSD symptoms were randomized to one of three conditions (two of which involved trauma-focussed writing, and the other involved writing about positive experiences). All conditions involved three weekly telehealth-delivered writing appointments. Outcomes were measured using the PTSD Checklist (PCL-5) and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS-21), and were evaluated at baseline, one-week post-intervention, and five-weeks post-intervention. This trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR Protocol 12620001065987). RESULTS: There was no evidence that the two TF-WTs were more efficacious in reducing PTSS or producing clinically meaningful change in comparison to positive experiences writing. Instead, a significant reduction from baseline to follow-up in PTSS, depression, anxiety and stress was observed in all three conditions. LIMITATIONS: The results should be interpreted with consideration of the modest sample size and absence of longer-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Three-session trauma-focussed writing delivered via telehealth may not be superior to writing about positive experiences.

A randomised controlled trial of perineural vs intravenous dexamethasone for foot surgery.

We used 20 ml ropivacaine 0.75% for ankle blocks before foot surgery in 90 participants who we allocated in equal numbers to: perineural dexamethasone 8 mg and intravenous saline 0.9%; perineural saline 0.9% and intravenous dexamethasone 8 mg; or perineural and intravenous saline 0.9%. Dexamethasone increased the median (IQR [range]) time for the return of some sensation or movement, from 14.6 (10.8-18.8 [5.5-38.0]) h with saline to 24.1 (19.3-29.3 [5.0-44.0]) h when given perineurally, p = 0.00098, and to 20.9 (18.3-27.8 [8.8-31.3]) h when given intravenously, p = 0.0067. Dexamethasone increased the median (IQR [range]) time for the return of normal neurology, from 17.6 (14.0-21.0 [9.5-40.5]) h with saline to 27.5 (22.0-36.3 [7.0-53.0]) h when given perineurally, p = 0.00016, and to 24.0 (20.5-32.3 [13.0-42.5]) h when given intravenously, p = 0.0022. Dexamethasone did not affect the rates of block success, postoperative pain scores, analgesic use, or nausea and vomiting. The route of dexamethasone administration did not alter its effects.