Department of Liaison Psychiatry, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
Violence Research Group, Department of Oral Surgery, Medicine and Pathology, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, UK
Violence Research Group, Department of Oral Surgery, Medicine and Pathology, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, UK
Violence Research Group, Department of Oral Surgery, Medicine and Pathology, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, UK
Department of Epidemiology, Statistics and Public Health, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, UK
Correspondence: Jonathan I. Bisson, Department of Liaison Psychiatry, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust, Monmouth House, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XW, UK. Tel: 029 20743940; fax: 029 20743928; e-mail: BissonJI{at}Cardiff.ac.uk
See editorial, pp.
34, this
issue.
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Aims To examine the efficacy of a four-session cognitivebehavioural intervention following physical injury.
Method A total of 152 patients attending an accident and emergency department displaying psychological distress following physical injury were randomised 13 weeks post-injury to a four-session cognitivebehavioural intervention that started 510 weeks after the injury or to no intervention and then followed up for 13 months.
Results At 13 months, the total Impact of Event Scale score was significantly more reduced in the intervention group (adjusted mean difference=8.4,95% CI 2.414.36). Other differences were not statistically significant.
Conclusions A brief cognitivebehavioural intervention reduces symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in individuals with physical injury who display initial distress.
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
METHOD |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Study entry criteria
The study entry criteria were: physically injured (e.g. in a motor vehicle
accident, assault or industrial accident); local home address; aged between 16
and 70 years; no pre-existing major psychiatric disorder; no major physical
disability or illness reported; no evidence of cognitive deficit; evidence of
acute psychological distress on the three self-report questionnaires as
determined by fulfilment of DSMIV
(American Psychiatric Association,
1994) PTSD symptom criteria on the PTSD Diagnostic Scale
(Foa et al, 1993), a
score of >15 on the anxiety or depression sub-scale of the Hospital Anxiety
and Depression Scale (HADS; Zigmond &
Snaith, 1983) or a score of >35 on the Impact of Event Scale
(IES; Horowitz et al,
1979).
Design
The study was a randomised controlled trial in which standard care only
(the control condition that involved no formal psychosocial intervention) was
compared with standard care plus the four-session cognitivebehavioural
intervention. A placebo intervention condition was not used to control for
non-specific intervention effects, given the previous neutral and negative
findings with one-off interventions (Rose
et al, 2001). The primary outcome measure was the change
in IES score from baseline at 3 and 13 months after injury. Secondary outcome
measures were a change in HADS scores and the total score on the
clinician-administered PTSD Diagnostic Scale
(Blake et al, 1990) at
3 and 13 months after injury. All of these scales have been widely used in
trauma research and have been shown to have strong psychometric
properties.
Randomisation
Following study entry, participants were allocated randomly either to the
intervention group or to standard care only (control) group. Randomisation
codes were generated by computer in random-sized blocks of four and six
participants to ensure equal-sized groups. Codes were written on cards and
sealed in opaque envelopes to conceal their contents from the research
psychologist prior to opening.
Intervention
The intervention consisted of four 1-hour weekly sessions between 5 and 10
weeks after the physical injury. They were administered by a research
psychologist (R.P.), fully trained and supervised in the intervention by
J.I.B. Intervention fidelity was ensured in two ways. The intervention was
defined in detail in an intervention manual and 16 sessions were selected
randomly for audio-recording. J.I.B. listened to the tapes and checked their
content against the instructions contained in the manual. The tapes confirmed
that the intervention was being delivered according to the instruction
manual.
During the intervention, participants were educated regarding the stress response to injury. They were then encouraged to describe the traumatic incident in detail, in the first person present tense, including thoughts, feelings, sights, smells, noises, emotions and physical reactions. The account was read aloud by the participants and recorded on audio tape, which they were asked to listen to for at least half an hour every day throughout the intervention. The therapist also identified, discussed and challenged any cognitive distortions such as unrealistic beliefs about being responsible for their injury. Image habituation training (Vaughan & Tarrier, 1992), where a traumatic image is kept repeatedly in mind for 30s or more, was used when the participant was being troubled by specific distressing intrusive images. A graded in vivo exposure programme was devised if the participant was avoiding real-life situations, for example car travel. Homework tasks comprised listening to the tape daily, using image habituation training where necessary and the achievement of any agreed exposure goals. During the final session, discussion focused on successes and difficulties over the course of therapy. The participant was given a written summary that outlined successes, areas for attention, potential problem areas and how to cope with these. In all the sessions, progress, levels of functioning and homework compliance were reviewed.
No intervention
Individuals randomly allocated to the no intervention group
were advised of this and that they would be contacted again 12 weeks and 13
months after the trauma for further evaluation. Before randomisation, all
individuals were advised that, should they be allocated to the no
intervention group, they would not receive an alternative intervention
unless clinically indicated because this could compromise interpretation of
the results. They were also advised that they could contact the investigators
at any time, should the need arise.
Patient evaluations
Baseline measures were obtained using questionnaires designed to establish
basic demographic information, levels of functioning and perceptions of the
trauma and its impact. The HADS, IES and PTSD Diagnostic Scale were also
completed. At 12 weeks and 13 months after injury the participants completed
further questionnaires, including the HADS and IES, to determine the effects
of injury. In addition, a second research psychologist (D.J.) interviewed all
participants and administered the clinician-administered PTSD Diagnostic Scale
blind to whether or not the participant had received the intervention. D.J.
was asked to indicate to which group she thought that the participants had
been allocated. Her classification was no different from chance, strongly
suggesting successful blinding.
Statistical analysis
The protocol power calculation assumed a group difference in reduction of
IES score of 10 points over 13 months, with a within-group s.d. at baseline of
15. In order to have a 95% probability of correctly detecting a significant
difference and a 5% chance of incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis, a
minimum sample size of 60 patients in each group was required. The main
analysis of the results was an intention-to-treat analysis based on all
randomised participants as randomised. The last valid score of those who did
not complete the trial was carried forward for the final analysis.
Unfortunately there is no really satisfactory solution to the general problem
of missing data. It was therefore decided also to analyse only those who
completed, as a form of sensitivity analysis, and to examine the degree to
which this and the intention-to-treat analysis differ. The mean values
obtained from the main outcome measures at follow-up for the control group and
the intervention group were compared using analysis of covariance, with the
baseline score as covariate, and 95% confidence intervals. Analysis of
covariance was performed separately for each variable and time point. No
interactions were tested. Dichotomous variables were analysed using relative
risks and 95% confidence intervals.
Forward linear stepwise regression analyses were performed to investigate the impact of independent variables selected a priori through a review of the results of previous studies of predictors of PTSD on the total IES score at 3 and 13 months. The independent variables selected were injury in assault, female gender, past psychiatric history, past trauma history, neuroticism, alexithymia, the intervention, compensation claim, visual analogue scales regarding degree of self-blame, blaming others and pain, and initial scores on the HADS anxiety and depression sub-scales and the IES intrusion and avoidance sub-scales. A variable was entered if the significance level of its F-to-enter was less than the entry value of 0.05, and removed if the significance was greater than the removal value of 0.1. All were measured at baseline with the exception of the compensation variable (proportion who claimed compensation for their injuries), which was determined at the 3- and 13-month follow-up interviews.
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
A total of 76 participants were randomised to each group: 67 (88%) of the intervention group and 61 (80%) of the control group completed the 3-month follow-up and 61 (80%) of the intervention group and 55 (72%) of the control group completed the 13-month follow-up. There appeared to be no major differences in relation to the outcome measures at baseline between the 116 participants who completed the follow-up period and the 36 (24%) who did not: mean initial IES score was 46.0 (s.d.=16.3) for the former and 45.8 (s.d.=15.5) for the latter. Background variables and dimensions of trauma are set out in Table 1. The intervention and control groups appeared equivalent. The mean number of intervention sessions was 3.30 (s.d.=1.24). Four (5%) of the intervention group completed no treatment sessions, 7 (9%) completed one, 5 (7%) completed two, 6 (8%) completed three and 54 (71%) completed all four. None of the control group received alternative treatment.
|
Dimensions of trauma
Of the intervention group 44 (58%) had been injured as a result of a motor
vehicle accident, compared with 41 (54%) of the control group; 25 (33%) of the
intervention group had been injured as a result of an assault, compared with
28 (37%) of the control group; and 7 (9%) of the intervention group had been
injured as a result of other incidents, compared with 7 (9%) of the control
group. The latter included an electrocution, partial amputation of fingertips,
falls and a variety of industrial injuries. The majority of individuals in
both groups 61 (80%) of the intervention group and 62 (82%) of the
control group had an Abbreviated Injury Scale
(Association for the Advancement of
Automotive Medicine, 1990) score of 1 (denoting minor injury).
Twelve (16%) of the intervention group scored 2 (moderately severe injury),
compared with eleven (15%) of the control group; and two (3%) of the
intervention group and three (4%) of the control group scored 3 (serious
injury). One incident involved the death of another individual.
Outcome measures
The results of an intention-to-treat analysis of the main outcome measures
based on all 152 subjects are shown in
Table 2. The mean reduction in
the IES scores was significantly greater in the intervention group than in the
control group at 13 months and was greater at 3 months, although this was not
significant. These findings apply to the IES total score and to both the
intrusion and avoidance sub-scales. The clinician-administered PTSD Diagnostic
Scale scores were also lower in the intervention group at both 3 and 13 months
but the differences were not significant. There were no significant
differences in the reductions in the anxiety or depression sub-scale scores of
the HADS between the groups at any time point. The
completers-only analysis revealed very similar results. The mean
reduction in IES scores was significantly greater in the intervention group at
13 months and was greater than in the control group at 3 months, although this
was not significant. At 13 months the adjusted mean difference between scores
for those in the intervention group who completed the trial (n=61)
and those in the control group was 10.0 (95% CI 3.416.6,
P=0.003). There were no significant differences in the reductions in
the anxiety or depression sub-scale scores of the HADS between the completer
groups at any time point.
|
Twenty (30%) of both the intervention and control groups satisfied the DSMIV criteria for PTSD according to the clinician-administered PTSD Diagnostic Scale at 3 months (relative risk=1.0, 95% CI 0.52.1). At 13 months, 10 (16%) of the intervention group satisfied the DSMIV criteria for PTSD compared with 15 (27%) of the control group (relative risk=0.6, 95% CI 0.31.5). A 50% reduction in the baseline IES score was found in 19 (25%) of the intervention group at 3 months compared with 15 (20%) of the control group (relative risk=0.73, 95% CI 0.31.6). At 13 months 34 (45%) of the intervention group had achieved a 50% reduction in the baseline IES score compared with 21 (28%) of the control group (relative risk=0.5, 95% CI 0.20.9).
Participants in the intervention group appeared to value the intervention, as judged by a mean score of 8.3 (s.d.=1.7) when asked to evaluate the usefulness of the intervention on a 010 scale (0=no use at all; 10=as useful as I can imagine).
Linear regression analyses
Total IES at 3 months
Table 3 displays the results
of this analysis. The first variable to be added was the initial intrusion
score on the IES (IESI), which accounted for 31% of the total variance.
The variable entered in step 2 was the initial depression score on the HADS
(HADSD), which, along with the IESI score, accounted for 33% of
the total variance of the IES total score at 3 months. No further variables
were added to the results because the predetermined 0.05 limit was reached.
This shows that the initial IESI score influenced the total IES score
at 3 months more than any other independent variable, and that the initial
HADSD score had a small additional influence on the total IES at 3
months independently of the IESI.
|
Total IES at 13 months
The first variable to be added was initial IESI score, which
accounted for 12% of the total variance. The variable entered in step 2 was
the intervention, which, along with IESI, accounted for 19% of the
total variance. The level of pain reported initially was entered in step 3,
which, along with the intervention and the IESI score, accounted for
21% of the total variance of the IES total score at 13 months. No further
variables were added to the results because the predetermined 0.05 limit was
reached. This shows that the initial IESI score influenced the total
IES score at 13 months more than any other independent variable. Receipt of
the intervention also significantly influenced the total IES score at 13
months to a lesser extent, as did the level of initial pain reported.
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Design
Rigorous study design and methodological soundness were key objectives
because many previous studies of the effectiveness of brief interventions have
been characterised by porous methodology. The sample size was larger than in
previous studies of early multiple-session interventions following traumatic
events and those who completed the follow-up period were representative of
those included. The 13-month follow-up period enabled longer-term assessment
of the intervention than in previous studies. The exclusion criteria may have
led to some bias but were likely to result in the exclusion of individuals
less likely to respond to a brief, focused intervention.
Efficacy and mechanism
In common with the three previous positive-outcome randomised controlled
trials (André et al,
1997; Bryant et al,
1998,
1999) but contrary to the
findings of investigations of early single-session interventions
(Rose et al, 2001),
the results of this study suggest that a four-session
cognitivebehavioural intervention reduces the symptoms of PTSD
following physical injury and is well tolerated. However, this study is not
directly comparable with the studies of Bryant et al
(1998,
1999) because Bryant and
colleagues worked with patients identified as having acute stress disorder and
the intervention was planned to be applied within 2 weeks. In our study
individuals had to be experiencing symptoms but no diagnosis was required and
the intervention was between 5 and 10 weeks post-trauma.
Possible mechanisms for the positive outcome in this study include the fact that processing may occur with regular controlled exposure, as happens with multiple-session but not single-session interventions. This explanation is consistent with psychological theories in which it is argued that the formation of fear structures and associated avoidance behaviour leads to the development of PTSD (e.g. Foa & Kozak, 1986). The educational component and cognitive restructuring may also have facilitated the processing of traumatic material. The absence of a significant effect on outcome 3 months after injury except on the avoidance sub-scale of the IES and the fact that rates of PTSD were equal in both groups may be due to the recent completion of the month-long intervention. It might have been desirable on this basis to have delayed the post-treatment assessment until 1 month after completion of the intervention, although previous studies have not found equivalent rates of PTSD after intervention (e.g. Bryant et al, 1998, 1999). Ongoing confrontation of feared stimuli may have resulted in the positive effects of exposure work increasing over time, as has been shown in treatment trials of exposure therapy for established PTSD (Marks et al, 1998).
The positive impact of the intervention was not very large. There are several potential explanations for this. It may be that the intervention was not long enough, that the cognitivebehavioural techniques used were not effective for some individuals or that the relative inexperience of the therapist had a bearing on the results. These explanations would appear to be supported by a study of acute stress disorder in which individuals appeared to improve more following five 1.5-h sessions delivered by more experienced therapists (Bryant et al, 1998). However, the precisely defined nature of the therapy and the supervision and fidelity checks should have helped to reduce any negative impact of therapist experience. Previous research suggests that therapist inexperience has a small negative impact on outcome (Stein & Lambert, 1995).
The focus of the intervention on PTSD may account for the finding that there were no significant differences in depression and anxiety scores between the intervention and control groups: the intervention neither decreased nor increased anxiety and depression relative to the control group. This raises questions about the significance of the effect of treatment of anxiety and depression. It seems probable that other symptoms such as anxiety and depression may require treatment in their own right through psychological or pharmacological techniques.
Predictors
The finding that initial intrusion symptoms on the IES are predictive of
poor outcome at both 3 and 13 months is supported by previous studies
(Brewin et al, 1998).
The association of a poorer outcome with initial depression is also supported
by other studies (Wallace & Lees,
1988; Freedman et al,
1999). The other factors identified as being predictive of poorer
outcome at 13 months were the absence of intervention and higher levels of
initial pain. The finding of an association with physical pain is interesting.
Physical pain may make the initial experience more traumatic or be another
index of psychological distress. Pain has been much researched and found to be
associated with poorer psychological outcome in other studies
(Perry et al, 1987;
Difede et al, 1997).
The absence of an association of IES score with the other variables considered
is also important.
Clinical implications
This study suggests that individuals presenting to accident and emergency
departments with minor/moderately severe injury can be helped by routine
screening to detect the presence of acute psychological sequelae and, if these
are present, by a four-session cognitivebehavioural intervention. This
intervention is straightforward and could be delivered by mental health
professionals or counsellors with specific training and supervision.
Implementation would have major resource implications, however, because there
is no similar intervention being carried out routinely in trauma centres at
present.
Given the lack of evidence of the effectiveness of early single-session interventions, we consider it unlikely that a shorter intervention than this one is likely to be beneficial. Streamlining the intervention could reduce costs but would be unlikely to be cost-effective. It could be argued that it is not cost-effective to treat all cases this early, given the high rate of remission in the control group. An alternative stepped care approach could be introduced where only those individuals who remain symptomatic at, say, 3 months are offered a four-session intervention, which would be likely to result in a reduction of the numbers entering treatment. This could, however, result in the development of more established and potentially more difficult-to-treat disorders than those present 1 month after injury. Investment could, potentially, lead to reduced morbidity and improved functioning in what is a very large population of those with physical injury.
There remain many unanswered questions. Not everyone in the intervention group experienced improvement and although there was a modest reduction in PTSD symptoms at 13 months it was apparent that several individuals continued to experience significant distress. However, this study is evidence that early interventions can help and serves as a catalyst to further research in this area. Future research should investigate intervention timing in more detail, specific interventions for coexisting anxiety and depressive symptoms and application to those with more serious trauma.
![]() |
Clinical Implications and Limitations |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
LIMITATIONS
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
André, C., Lelord, F., Légeron, P., et al (1997) Controlled study of outcome after 6 months to early intervention of bus driver victims of aggression. Encéphale, 23, 65 71.[Medline]
Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (1990) The Abbreviated Injury Scale (1990 revision). Chicago: Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine.
Blake, D. D., Weathers, F.W., Nagy, L. M., et al (1990) A clinician rating scale for assessing current and lifetime PTSD: the CAPS-I. Behaviour Therapy, 13, 187 188.
Brewin, C. R., Andrews, B., Rose, S., et al (1998) Acute stress disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder in victims of violent crime. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 360 366.
Bryant, R. A., Harvey, A. G., Dang, S. T., et al (1998) Treatment of acute stress disorder: a comparison of cognitivebehavioral therapy and supportive counselling. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 862 866.[CrossRef][Medline]
Bryant, R. A., Sackville, T., Dang, S. T., et al
(1999) Treating acute stress disorder: an evaluation of
cognitive behavior therapy and supportive counselling techniques.
American Journal of Psychiatry,
156, 1780
1786.
Difede, J., Jaffe, A. B., Musngi, G., et al (1997) Determinants of pain expression in hospitalized burn patients. Pain, 72, 245 251.[CrossRef][Medline]
Foa, E. B. & Kozak, M. J. (1986) Emotional processing of fear: exposure to corrective information. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 20 35.[CrossRef][Medline]
Foa, E. B., Riggs, D. S., Dancu, C.V., et al (1993) Reliability and validity of a brief instrument for assessing post traumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 6, 459 473.
Freedman, S. A., Brandes, D., Peri, T., et al (1999) Predictors of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. A prospective study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 174, 353 359.[Abstract]
Horowitz, M., Wilner, N. & Alvarez, W. (1979) Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 41, 209 218.[Abstract]
Marks, I., Lovell, K., Noshirvani, H., et al
(1998) Treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder by exposure
and/or cognitive restructuring: a controlled study. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 55, 317
325.
Perry, S. W., Cella, D. F., Falkenberg, J., et al (1987) Pain perception in burn patients with stress disorders. Journal of Pain Symptom Management, 2, 29 33.
Rose, S., Bisson, J. & Wessely, S. (2001) A systematic review of brief psychological interventions (debriefing) for the treatment of immediate trauma related symptoms and the prevention of post-traumatic stress disorder . Cochrane Library, issue 3. Oxford: Update Software.
Shepherd, J. P. & Bisson, J. I. (2004)
Towards integrated health care: a model for assault victims (editorial).
British Journal of Psychiatry,
184, 3
4.
Sherman, J. J. (1998) Effects of psychotherapeutic treatments for PTSD: a meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 11, 413 436.[CrossRef][Medline]
Stein, D. M. & Lambert, M. J. (1995) Graduate training in psychotherapy: are therapy outcomes enhanced? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 182 196.[CrossRef][Medline]
Vaughan, K. & Tarrier, N. (1992) The use of image habituation training with post-traumatic stress disorders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 658 664.[Abstract]
Wallace, L. M. & Lees, J. (1988) A psychological followup study of adult patients discharged from a British burn unit. Burns, 14, 39 45.[CrossRef]
Zigmond, A. S. & Snaith, R. P. (1983) The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67, 361 370.[Medline]
Received for publication April 16, 2003. Revision received July 24, 2003. Accepted for publication August 12, 2003.
Related articles in BJP: