Julianne C Flanagan1, Melanie S Fischer1, Christal L Badour2, Gili Ornan3, Therese K Killeen1, Sudie E Back1,4. 1. a Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences , Medical University of South Carolina , Charleston , South Carolina , USA. 2. b Department of Psychology , University of Kentucky , Lexington , Kentucky , USA. 3. c Case Western Reserve University , Cleveland , Ohio , USA. 4. d Ralph H. Johnson Veterans Affairs Medical Center , Charleston , South Carolina , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Identifying factors that influence treatment outcomes of emerging integrated interventions for co-occurring posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance use disorder is crucial to maximize veterans' health. Dyadic adjustment suffers among individuals with PTSD and substance use disorder and may be an important mechanism of change in treatment. This exploratory study examined the association between dyadic adjustment and treatment outcomes in individual integrated treatment for co-occurring PTSD and substance use disorder. METHODS:Participants were treatment-seeking veterans (N = 15) participating in a larger randomized controlled trial examining the efficacy of a novel integrated treatment for co-occurring PTSD and substance use disorder. Multiple regression analyses controlling for baseline symptom severity and independent sample t-tests were used to examine the relation between dyadic adjustment and treatment outcome variables including PTSD, substance use disorder, and depression symptom severity. RESULTS: Baseline dyadic adjustment was associated with session 12 PTSD symptom severity as measured by both the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) and PTSD Checklist (PCL), such that participants with high dyadic adjustment had significantly lower session 12 CAPS and PCL scores compared to participants with low dyadic adjustment. Baseline dyadic adjustment was not associated with session 12 depression symptoms or frequency of substance use. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that while the primary determinant of treatment outcome in this sample is the application of an evidence-based intervention, dyadic adjustment may play a role in individual treatment outcome for some treatment-seeking veterans. Data from this study were derived from clinical trial NCT01365247.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Identifying factors that influence treatment outcomes of emerging integrated interventions for co-occurring posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance use disorder is crucial to maximize veterans' health. Dyadic adjustment suffers among individuals with PTSD and substance use disorder and may be an important mechanism of change in treatment. This exploratory study examined the association between dyadic adjustment and treatment outcomes in individual integrated treatment for co-occurring PTSD and substance use disorder. METHODS:Participants were treatment-seeking veterans (N = 15) participating in a larger randomized controlled trial examining the efficacy of a novel integrated treatment for co-occurring PTSD and substance use disorder. Multiple regression analyses controlling for baseline symptom severity and independent sample t-tests were used to examine the relation between dyadic adjustment and treatment outcome variables including PTSD, substance use disorder, and depression symptom severity. RESULTS: Baseline dyadic adjustment was associated with session 12 PTSD symptom severity as measured by both the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) and PTSD Checklist (PCL), such that participants with high dyadic adjustment had significantly lower session 12 CAPS and PCL scores compared to participants with low dyadic adjustment. Baseline dyadic adjustment was not associated with session 12 depression symptoms or frequency of substance use. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that while the primary determinant of treatment outcome in this sample is the application of an evidence-based intervention, dyadic adjustment may play a role in individual treatment outcome for some treatment-seeking veterans. Data from this study were derived from clinical trial NCT01365247.
Authors: Candice M Monson; Steffany J Fredman; Alexandra Macdonald; Nicole D Pukay-Martin; Patricia A Resick; Paula P Schnurr Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Christal L Badour; Julianne C Flanagan; Daniel F Gros; Therese Killeen; Irene Pericot-Valverde; Kristina J Korte; Nicholas P Allan; Sudie E Back Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2017-03
Authors: Stephen T Chermack; Regan L Murray; Jamie J Winters; Maureen A Walton; Brenda M Booth; Frederic C Blow Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Robert H Pietrzak; Marc B Goldstein; James C Malley; Douglas C Johnson; Steven M Southwick Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2009 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Casey T Taft; Danny G Kaloupek; Jeremiah A Schumm; Amy D Marshall; Jillian Panuzio; Daniel W King; Terence M Keane Journal: J Abnorm Psychol Date: 2007-08