CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 140Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchMental Health via WritingPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Written exposure as an intervention for PTSD: a randomized clinical trial with motor vehicle accident survivors

Open access
Sloan, Denise M., Marx, Brian P., Bovin, Michelle J., Feinstein, Brian A., Gallagher, Matthew W.·2012·Behaviour Research and Therapy
DOI 10.1016/j.brat.2012.07.001PMC PMC3433579
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The present study examined the efficacy of a brief, written exposure therapy (WET) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Participants were 46 adults with a current primary diagnosis of motor vehicle accident-related PTSD. Participants were randomly assigned to either WET or a waitlist (WL) condition. Independent assessments took place at baseline and 6-, 18-, and 30-weeks post baseline (WL condition not assessed at 30 weeks). Participants assigned to WET showed significant reductions in PTSD symptom severity at 6- and 18-week post-baseline, relative to WL participants, with large between-group effect sizes. In addition, significantly fewer WET participants met diagnostic criteria for PTSD at both the 6- and 18-week post-baseline assessments, relative to WL participants. Treatment gains were maintained for the WET participants at the 30-week post baseline assessment. Notably, only 9% of participants dropped out of WET and the WET participants reported a high degree of satisfaction with the treatment. These findings suggest that a brief, written exposure treatment may efficaciously treat PTSD. Future research should examine whether WET is efficacious with other PTSD samples, as well as compare the efficacy of WET with that of evidence-based treatments for PTSD.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2012.07.001

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • WET is an effective treatment for PTSD and is noninferior to other gold standard PTSD treatments (e.g., Cognitive Processing Therapy) and has lower dropout rates.

    “WET is an effective treatment for PTSD and is noninferior to other gold standard PTSD treatments (e.g., Cognitive Processing Therapy) and has lower dropout rates [18–21].”

    From Written exposure therapy for treatment of perinatal PTSD among women with comorbid PTSD and SUD: A pilot study examining feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness (2023) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Results and Discussion report that WET reduced MVA-related PTSD symptoms relative to a waitlist, and the Discussion reports a 9% dropout rate, lower than rates reported for other evidence-based PTSD treatments. But this trial did not compare WET directly with Cognitive Processing Therapy or establish noninferiority; the Discussion calls such a comparison a next step. Page numbers were not supplied in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Institute of Medicine 2007 Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: An assessment of the evidence Washington, DC National Academies Press
  2. Spitzer RL Williams JB Gibbon M First MB 1994 Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV— Patient edition New York New York State Psychiatric Institute, Biometrics Research Department

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sloan, D. M., Marx, B. P., Bovin, M. J., Feinstein, B. A., & Gallagher, M. W.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • Stony Brook University (US)
Corresponding author
Sloan, Denise M.
ORCID
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-10
Volume
50
Issue
10
Pages
627-635
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.brat.2012.07.001
PMC
PMC3433579
OpenAlex
W2129792337
Cited by
140
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5
FWCI
5.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R34MH077658-02)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
written exposure therapy, post-traumatic stress disorder, motor vehicle accidents, trauma-focused psychotherapy, PTSD symptom severity, treatment efficacy, treatment retention, treatment satisfaction, brief psychotherapy
MeSH terms
Accidents, Traffic, Adult, Female, Humans, Implosive Therapy, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Writing, Treatment Outcome, Survivors

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