Cited by 55Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Effectiveness of the unified protocol for transdiagnostic treatment of emotional disorders among veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder: a pilot study

Varkovitzky, Ruth L., Sherrill, Andrew M., Reger, Greg M.·2018·Behavior Modification

Abstract

Effective treatment options are needed for veterans who do not participate in trauma-focused psychotherapy. Research has yet to examine the effectiveness of transdiagnostic psychotherapy in veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and co-occurring psychological disorders. This pilot study examined the effectiveness of the Unified Protocol for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders (UP) delivered in a 16-week group format. We examined treatment outcomes in male and female veterans ( n = 52) in an outpatient specialty PTSD clinic at a large Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. We hypothesized significant decreases in emotion regulation difficulty (Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale), PTSD symptom severity (PTSD Checklist for DSM-5), and depressive symptom severity (Patient Health Questionnaire-9). In addition, we hypothesized that reductions in emotion regulation difficulty across treatment would negatively predict PTSD and depressive symptoms at posttreatment. PTSD symptoms, depressive symptoms, and emotion regulation difficulty all evidenced significant improvements at the end of treatment relative to baseline ( ps < .001). In addition, reductions in emotion regulation across treatment were associated with lower PTSD and depressive symptoms at posttreatment ( ps < .001). This pilot study provides preliminary evidence supporting use of UP among veterans with PTSD and co-occurring disorders. Well-designed clinical trials evaluating efficacy of UP among veterans are needed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0145445517724539

Cites

59 of 59 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

1 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Varkovitzky, R. L., Sherrill, A. M., & Reger, G. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Emory University (US)
Corresponding author
Varkovitzky, Ruth L.
Venue
Behavior Modification
Published
2017-08-27
Volume
42
Issue
2
Pages
210-230
ISSN
  • 0145-4455 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-4167
OpenAlex
W2748476071
Cited by
55
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4
FWCI
3.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavior Modification (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
Unified Protocol for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders, transdiagnostic psychotherapy, post-traumatic stress disorder, veterans, emotion regulation, depression, PTSD symptom severity, group therapy
MeSH terms
Adult, Depression, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Pilot Projects, Psychotherapy, Severity of Illness Index, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Veterans, 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