Comparing Suicide Rates for Cognitive Processing Therapy Versus Prolonged Exposure Therapy for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.

IF 2.3 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY Pub Date : 2025-03-12 DOI:10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.20240035
Jenna A Park, Daniel J Gottlieb, Bradley V Watts, Vincent Dufort, Jamie L Gradus, Brian Shiner
{"title":"Comparing Suicide Rates for Cognitive Processing Therapy Versus Prolonged Exposure Therapy for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.","authors":"Jenna A Park, Daniel J Gottlieb, Bradley V Watts, Vincent Dufort, Jamie L Gradus, Brian Shiner","doi":"10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.20240035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to compare suicide mortality rates for patients receiving two evidence-based psychotherapy (EBP) protocols for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD): cognitive processing therapy (CPT) and prolonged exposure (PE).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Suicide mortality was measured among U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs patients with PTSD who received EBP from 2009 through 2019. Regional variation in delivering CPT versus PE was leveraged as an instrumental variable (IV) to compare suicide mortality by using standard adjustment and IV-based analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 62,686 patients received EBP for PTSD; 82.4% were male, and the mean±SD age was 46.9±14.4. Patients were followed for a median of 6 years, and there were 136 deaths by suicide (38.3 and 32.4 per 100,000 person-years among the CPT and PE groups, respectively). The regional rate of CPT versus PE delivery was a strong IV that had greater explanatory power for the type of EBP received than all patient factors combined. The standard adjustment model for CPT produced a hazard ratio of 1.25, whereas the reduced-form IV produced a hazard ratio of 1.22. The probit IV, in which relevant covariates were updated annually, produced an odds ratio of 0.99. The time-to-event IV produced a hazard ratio of 1.20. The differences were not significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No statistically significant difference was found between CPT and PE in the outcome of death by suicide. More effective interventions that result in higher remission rates would likely need to be developed to achieve a relative decrease in suicide risk through PTSD treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":46822,"journal":{"name":"AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY","volume":" ","pages":"appipsychotherapy20240035"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.20240035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare suicide mortality rates for patients receiving two evidence-based psychotherapy (EBP) protocols for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD): cognitive processing therapy (CPT) and prolonged exposure (PE).

Methods: Suicide mortality was measured among U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs patients with PTSD who received EBP from 2009 through 2019. Regional variation in delivering CPT versus PE was leveraged as an instrumental variable (IV) to compare suicide mortality by using standard adjustment and IV-based analyses.

Results: In total, 62,686 patients received EBP for PTSD; 82.4% were male, and the mean±SD age was 46.9±14.4. Patients were followed for a median of 6 years, and there were 136 deaths by suicide (38.3 and 32.4 per 100,000 person-years among the CPT and PE groups, respectively). The regional rate of CPT versus PE delivery was a strong IV that had greater explanatory power for the type of EBP received than all patient factors combined. The standard adjustment model for CPT produced a hazard ratio of 1.25, whereas the reduced-form IV produced a hazard ratio of 1.22. The probit IV, in which relevant covariates were updated annually, produced an odds ratio of 0.99. The time-to-event IV produced a hazard ratio of 1.20. The differences were not significant.

Conclusions: No statistically significant difference was found between CPT and PE in the outcome of death by suicide. More effective interventions that result in higher remission rates would likely need to be developed to achieve a relative decrease in suicide risk through PTSD treatment.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
4.00%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: Founded in 1939, the American Journal of Psychotherapy (AJP) has long been a leader in the publication of eclectic articles for all psychotherapists. Transtheoretic in reach (offering information for psychotherapists across all theoretical foundations), the goal of AJP is to present an overview of the psychotherapies, subsuming a host of schools, techniques, and psychological modalities within the larger domain of clinical practice under broad themes including dynamic, behavioral, spiritual, and experiential.
期刊最新文献
A Tribute: Habib Davanloo, M.D. Comparing Suicide Rates for Cognitive Processing Therapy Versus Prolonged Exposure Therapy for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Scorn Not Its Simplicity: Examining the Effectiveness of Simple Generalist Treatment for Personality Disorders. Good-Enough Therapy: A Review of the Empirical Basis of Good Psychiatric Management. Good Psychiatric Management of Borderline Personality Disorder: Foundations and Future Challenges.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1