Cited by 132Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

Psychological Trauma Symptom Improvement in Veterans Using Emotional Freedom Techniques: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Church, Dawson, Hawk, Crystal, Brooks, Audrey J., Toukolehto, Olli, Wren, Maria, Dinter,, Ingrid, Stein, Phyllis·2013·Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease

Abstract

This study examined the effect of Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT), a brief exposure therapy combining cognitive and somatic elements, on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and psychological distress symptoms in veterans receiving mental health services. Veterans meeting the clinical criteria for PTSD were randomized to EFT (n = 30) or standard of care wait list (SOC/WL; n = 29). The EFT intervention consisted of 6-hour-long EFT coaching sessions concurrent with standard care. The SOC/WL and EFT groups were compared before and after the intervention (at 1 month for the SOC/WL group and after six sessions for the EFT group). The EFT subjects had significantly reduced psychological distress (p < 0.0012) and PTSD symptom levels (p < 0.0001) after the test. In addition, 90% of the EFT group no longer met PTSD clinical criteria, compared with 4% in the SOC/WL group. After the wait period, the SOC/WL subjects received EFT. In a within-subjects longitudinal analysis, 60% no longer met the PTSD clinical criteria after three sessions. This increased to 86% after six sessions for the 49 subjects who ultimately received EFT and remained at 86% at 3 months and at 80% at 6 months. The results are consistent with that of other published reports showing EFT's efficacy in treating PTSD and comorbid symptoms and its long-term effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/nmd.0b013e31827f6351

Cites

42 of 42 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
Church, D., Hawk, C., Brooks, A. J., Toukolehto, O., Wren, M., Dinter, & Stein, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (US)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
Corresponding author
Church, Dawson
Venue
Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease
Published
2013-02
Volume
201
Issue
2
Pages
153-160
ISSN
0022-3018 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2053519596
Cited by
131
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
14.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Keywords
Emotional Freedom Technique, post-traumatic stress disorder, veterans, psychological distress, somatic therapy, PTSD symptom reduction, comorbid symptoms, waitlist control
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety, Depression, Emotions, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Freedom, Humans, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, Male, Middle Aged, Phobic Disorders, Research Design, Smoking, Social Support, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Time Factors, Veterans, Comorbidity, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, 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