Comparison of Prolonged Exposure vs Cognitive Processing Therapy for Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Among US Veterans: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent and serious mental health problem. Although there are effective psychotherapies for PTSD, there is little information about their comparative effectiveness. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of prolonged exposure (PE) vs cognitive processing therapy (CPT) for treating PTSD in veterans. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial assessed the comparative effectiveness of PE vs CPT among veterans with military-related PTSD recruited from outpatient mental health clinics at 17 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers across the US from October 31, 2014, to February 1, 2018, with follow-up through February 1, 2019. The primary outcome was assessed using centralized masking. Tested hypotheses were prespecified before trial initiation. Data were analyzed from October 5, 2020, to May 5, 2021. Interventions: Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 individual cognitive-behavioral therapies, PE or CPT, delivered according to a flexible protocol of 10 to 14 sessions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in PTSD symptom severity on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) from before treatment to the mean after treatment across posttreatment and 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Secondary outcomes included other symptoms, functioning, and quality of life. Results: Analyses were based on all 916 randomized participants (730 [79.7%] men and 186 [20.3%] women; mean [range] age 45.2 [21-80] years), with 455 participants randomized to PE (mean CAPS-5 score at baseline, 39.9 [95% CI, 39.1-40.7] points) and 461 participants randomized to CPT (mean CAPS-5 score at baseline, 40.3 [95% CI, 39.5-41.1] points). PTSD severity on the CAPS-5 improved substantially in both PE (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.89-1.08]) and CPT (SMD, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.61-0.80]) groups from before to after treatment. Mean improvement was greater in PE than CPT (least square mean, 2.42 [95% CI, 0.53-4.31]; P = .01), but the difference was not clinically significant (SMD, 0.17). Results for self-reported PTSD symptoms were comparable with CAPS-5 findings. The PE group had higher odds of response (odds ratio [OR], 1.32 [95% CI, 1.00-1.65]; P < .001), loss of diagnosis (OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.12-1.74]; P < .001), and remission (OR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.24-2.00]; P < .001) compared with the CPT group. Groups did not differ on other outcomes. Treatment dropout was higher in PE (254 participants [55.8%]) than in CPT (215 participants [46.6%]; P < .01). Three participants in the PE group and 1 participant in the CPT group were withdrawn from treatment, and 3 participants in each treatment dropped out owing to serious adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that although PE was statistically more effective than CPT, the difference was not clinically significant, and improvements in PTSD were meaningful in both treatment groups. These findings highlight the importance of shared decision-making to help patients understand the evidence and select their preferred treatment. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01928732.

Service utilization following participation in cognitive processing therapy or prolonged exposure therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder.

This study evaluated the impact of a course of prolonged exposure or cognitive processing therapy on mental health and medical service utilization and health care service costs provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Data on VA health service utilization and health care costs were obtained from national VA databases for 70 veterans who completed prolonged exposure or cognitive processing therapy at a Midwestern VA medical center. Utilization of services and cost data were examined for the year before and after treatment. Results demonstrated a significant decrease in the use of individual and group psychotherapy. Direct costs associated with mental health care decreased by 39.4%. Primary care and emergency department services remained unchanged.

National survey of psychologists' test feedback training, supervision, and practice: a mixed methods study.

In this empirical, mixed methods study, we explored test feedback training, supervision, and practice among psychologists, focusing specifically on how feedback is provided to clients and whether feedback skills are taught in graduate programs. Based on a 48.5% return rate, this national survey of clinical, counseling, and school psychologists' suggests psychologists provide test feedback to clients but inconsistently. Most respondents, 91.7%, indicated they give verbal feedback at least some of the time, whereas 35% do so every time. However, 2.8% indicated they never give feedback. A negative correlation exists for clinical psychologists between years since graduation and providing verbal feedback. Of particular interest, approximately one third of respondents indicated predoctoral coursework, practica, and internship were of little-to-no help in preparing them to provide feedback. Also, feedback training in predoctoral coursework, practica, and internship was not correlated to actually providing feedback. There was, however, a significant correlation between postdoctoral training and providing feedback. Consistent with existing ethical exceptions, the most frequent reason for not providing feedback was using assessments in forensic settings. Individuals who indicated their training was not helpful cited "trial and error" and self-instruction as ways in which they learned feedback skills. We discuss implications and suggestions for feedback training, research, and practice.