Cited by 194Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsSleep and related disorders

A multisite randomized controlled effectiveness trial of cognitive processing therapy for military-related posttraumatic stress disorder

Forbes, D., Lloyd, D., Nixon, R.D.V., Elliott, P., Varker, T., Perry, D., Bryant, R.A., Creamer, M.·2012·Journal of Anxiety Disorders

Abstract

Cognitive processing therapy (CPT) is currently applied in military veteran mental health services in many countries. This study tests the effectiveness of community-administered CPT for military-related PTSD under randomized controlled conditions. Fifty-nine treatment-seeking veterans with military-related PTSD were randomly allocated to receive 12 twice-weekly 60 min sessions of CPT or an equivalent period of usual treatment at veterans' community based counseling services. Intent to treat analyses found significantly greater improvement for participants receiving CPT over usual treatment at post-treatment and 3 month follow-up. CPT also produced greater improvements in anxiety, depression, social and dyadic relationships than usual treatment. No CPT related adverse events occurred during the trial. This trial reports the first randomized controlled trial evidence that CPT is an effective treatment for military PTSD and co-morbid conditions when compared to usual treatment and delivered in community settings by clinicians from diverse disciplines, preferred treatment orientation and levels of experience.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.janxdis.2012.01.006

Cites

48 of 48 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?

  • Outcome assessors were blinded in only six of the 18 controlled studies (33%).

    “outcome assessors were blinded in only six studies (33%; Baker et al. 2006;Forbes et al. 2012;Mills et al. 2012;Forsyth et al. 2017;Shawyer et al. 2017;Kelly et al. 2020).”

    From Effect of community mental health care programs in Australia: A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as Forbes et al. 2012

  • Only three of 18 controlled studies (17%) reported that the sample size was sufficiently large to be confident in the findings with at least 80% power.

    “Only three of 18 studies (17%) reported that the sample size was sufficiently large enough to be confident in the findings with at least 80% power (Hugo et al. 2002;Forbes et al. 2012;Meadows et al. 2019).”

    From Effect of community mental health care programs in Australia: A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as Forbes et al. 2012

  • Four of five therapeutic studies examining substance misuse reported significant reductions in participants' consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use.

    “Four of five studies that examined substance misuse reported significant reductions in participants' consumption of alcohol (Forbes et al. 2012), tobacco (Baker et al. 2006;Ashton et al. 2015) and other drug use (Nagel et al. 2009).”

    From Effect of community mental health care programs in Australia: A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as Forbes et al. 2012

  • Participants who engaged in cognitive processing therapy had significant reductions in depressive, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress symptoms.

    “Specifically, participants who engaged in cognitive processing therapy had significant reductions in depressive, anxiety and post-traumatic stress symptoms (Forbes et al. 2012).”

    From Effect of community mental health care programs in Australia: A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as Forbes et al. 2012

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Forbes, D., Lloyd, D., Nixon, R. D. V., Elliott, P., Varker, T., Perry, D., Bryant, R. A., & Creamer, M.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Flinders University (AU)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Forbes, D.
Venue
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-04
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
442-452
ISSN
0887-6185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1983685871
Cited by
193
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 14
FWCI
18.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Anxiety Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Australian Government
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
cognitive processing therapy, post-traumatic stress disorder, military veterans, community-based treatment, psychotherapy effectiveness, anxiety, depression, interpersonal relationships, dyads, comorbidities, adverse events
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Anxiety, Combat Disorders, Depression, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Veterans, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome

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