Cited by 24Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Imagery rescripting for patients with posttraumatic stress disorder: a qualitative study of patients' and therapists' perspectives about the elements of change

Open access
Bosch, Marion, Arntz, Arnoud·2023·Cognitive and Behavioral Practice

Abstract

• Imagery rescripting is effective for PTSD due to childhood trauma. • Caring for the child and speaking up to the perpetrator are important elements. • Rescripting by the therapist, as well as rescripting by the patient, is important. • Patients find a positive connection with the therapist helpful. Imagery rescripting (IR) has been proven effective in several studies applied to different disorders. It is unclear, however, what the elements of change are according to patients and therapists and whether they agree on this. In this study, we examined the perspectives of patients and therapists and their degree of agreement regarding the elements of change in IR for posttraumatic stress disorder due to childhood trauma. Patients who showed a substantial decrease in symptoms on the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) after a maximum of 12 sessions of IR, as well as their therapists, were approached. Ten patients and nine therapists provided in-depth interviews about the elements of change in the treatment they had received or conducted. A qualitative analysis of the results was used. One element of change was mentioned by all but one interviewee—namely, caring for the child by the therapist when the therapist rescripts the traumatic event. All except two interviewees mentioned that when the therapist rescripts, speaking up to the perpetrator was important. Both aspects were also important when patients did the rescripting themselves. All patients mentioned the positive connection they had with the therapist and the encouragement they received from him or her was important. There was only moderate agreement between patient and therapist regarding the most important element of change, although overall both patients and therapists believed the same elements were of importance. To our knowledge this is the first study in which the elements of change viewed by patients and therapists are investigated in relationship to one another. Despite the fact that this study does not provide definite answers of what works, the perspective of patients and therapists needs to be taken into account when IR for posttraumatic stress disorder is further developed.

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.cbpra.2021.08.001

Cites

51 of 52 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?

  • In a recent qualitative study, patients indicated that the therapist being both confrontational and able to meet the patient's needs during imagery rescripting was helpful to improve the working alliance.

    “An indication of this comes from a recent qualitative study, in which patients indicated that the therapist being both confrontational (and not avoidant) and able to meet the patient's needs during ImRs was helpful to improve the working alliance (20).”

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 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Alliger-Horn, C., Zimmermann, P., & Mitte, K. (2015). Comparative effectiveness of IRRT and EMDR in war-traumatized German soldiers. Vergleichende wirksamkeit von IRRT und EMDR bei kriegstraumatisierten deutschen Soldaten. Trauma und Gewalt, 9 (3), 204-215. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1077-7229(2100124-3/h0005)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bosch, M., & Arntz, A.
Affiliations
  • PsyQ (NL)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Arntz, Arnoud
Venue
Cognitive and Behavioral Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-02
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
18-34
ISSN
1077-7229 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3207216376
Cited by
24
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive and Behavioral Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
imagery rescripting, post-traumatic stress disorder, childhood trauma, patient perspectives, therapist perspectives, patient-therapist agreement, therapeutic relationship, PCL-5

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