Cited by 79Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsSleep and related disorders

Posttraumatic stress disorder treatment dropout among military and veteran populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Edwards‐Stewart, Amanda, Smolenski, Derek J., Bush, Nigel E., Cyr, Betty‐Ann, Beech, Erin H., Skopp, Nancy A., Belsher, Bradley E.·2021·Journal of Traumatic Stress

Abstract

High treatment dropout rates reported in recent literature have brought into question the effectiveness of trauma-focused posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatments among military populations. The aim of the current systematic review was to evaluate PTSD treatment dropout rates among military populations by treatment type and other study-level variables. We searched four databases as well as gray literature for randomized controlled trials that evaluated evidence-based PTSD treatments in samples of active duty personnel and/or veterans. In total, 26 studies were included in this review, with a total of 2,984 participants. We analyzed dropout rates across treatment types using multivariate meta-analysis. Across all forms of treatment, the aggregated dropout rate was 24.2%. Dropout percentages based on treatment type were 27.1% for trauma-focused treatments, 16.1% for non-trauma-focused treatments, and 6.8% for waitlist groups. We found substantial heterogeneity between studies that was not explained by military status or other study-level covariates. Summary risk ratios (RRs) comparing relative dropout between treatment groups indicated that trauma-focused treatment groups had a higher risk of dropout compared to non-trauma-focused treatments, RR = 1.60. The statistical heterogeneity of within-treatment dropout risk ratios was negligible. Dropout rates among military patients receiving trauma-focused therapies were only slightly higher than those reported in the literature among civilian populations and were not explained by study-level covariates.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jts.22653

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Edwards‐Stewart, A., Smolenski, D. J., Bush, N. E., Cyr, B., Beech, E. H., Skopp, N. A., & Belsher, B. E.
Affiliations
  • Department of Health Affairs Psychological Health Center of Excellence, Research Branch Tacoma Washington USA
  • Department of Health Affairs Psychological Health Center of Excellence, Performance & Analytics Branch Tacoma Washington USA
  • Alliant University (US)
Corresponding author
Edwards‐Stewart, Amanda
Venue
Journal of Traumatic Stress
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-02
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
808-818
ISSN
  • 0894-9867 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6598
OpenAlex
W3127942947
Cited by
79
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 2
FWCI
1.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Traumatic Stress (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, treatment discontinuation, military personnel, veterans, trauma-focused psychotherapy, waitlist control, medication adherence
MeSH terms
Humans, Military Personnel, Patient Dropouts, Psychotherapy, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Veterans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review