CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 259Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsSleep and related disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The problem of dropout from “gold standard” PTSD therapies

Open access
Najavits, Lisa M.·2015·F1000Prime Reports
DOI 10.12703/p7-43PMC PMC4447050
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Understanding of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has increased substantially in the past several decades. There is now more awareness of the many different types of trauma that can lead to PTSD, greater refinement of diagnostic criteria, and the development and testing of various treatments for it. As implementation of PTSD therapies has increased, there is also increased attention to the key issues of retention and dropout. Retention refers to the percentage of patients who stay in a treatment for its intended dose, and dropout is the opposite (the percentage who leave prior to the intended dose); both of which have major implications for treatment outcomes. The two PTSD therapies most studied in relation to retention and dropout are Prolonged Exposure and Cognitive Processing Therapy, which have been the subject of massive, formal, multi-year dissemination roll-outs. Both of these evidence-based treatments are defined as gold-standard therapies for PTSD and showed positive outcomes and reasonable retention of patients in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). But an emerging picture based on real-world practice indicates substantial dropout. Such real-world studies are distinct from RCTs, which have consistently evidenced far lower dropout rates, but under much more restricted conditions (e.g. a more selective range of patients and clinicians). In this paper, the phenomena of retention and dropout are described based on real-world studies of Prolonged Exposure and Cognitive Processing Therapy, including rates, characteristics of patients, clinicians, and programs in relation to retention and dropout, and identification of clinical issues and future research on these topics. It is suggested that the term "gold-standard" evidence-based treatments should be reserved for treatments that evidence both positive results in RCTs but also feasibility and strong retention in real-world settings.

Overview

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 · 10.12703/p7-43

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 49 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 259

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Najavits, L. M.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Najavits, Lisa M.
ORCID
Najavits, Lisa M.
Venue
F1000Prime Reports
Publisher
Faculty Opinions Ltd
Published
2015-04-02
Volume
7
Pages
43-43
ISSN
2051-7599 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.12703/p7-43
PMC
PMC4447050
OpenAlex
W2321666626
Cited by
258
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 7
FWCI
2.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • F1000Prime Reports (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
post-traumatic stress disorder, treatment discontinuation, treatment retention, prolonged exposure, cognitive processing therapy, evidence-based treatment, real-world implementation, treatment feasibility, psychotherapy adherence

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