When the attention control condition works: A systematic review of attention control training for posttraumatic stress disorder.
Saved in:
| Title: | When the attention control condition works: A systematic review of attention control training for posttraumatic stress disorder. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Clauss, Kate (AUTHOR), Cheney, Tamara (AUTHOR), Somohano, Vanessa C. (AUTHOR), Hannon, Sara (AUTHOR), DeGutis, Joseph (AUTHOR), Esterman, Michael (AUTHOR), Constans, Joseph (AUTHOR), O'Neil, Maya (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Journal of Traumatic Stress. Feb2025, Vol. 38 Issue 1, p16-28. 13p. |
| Subjects: | Control (Psychology), Attentional bias, Post-traumatic stress disorder, Attention control, Data libraries |
| Abstract: | Attentional bias and deficits in attentional control are associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. Attention control training (ACT) may address these factors. We reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ACT for PTSD to address unanswered questions about ACT's effectiveness, tolerability, and implementation. Studies were included if they were an RCT that used an adult sample, recruited participants with a PTSD diagnosis, and had ACT as at least one treatment arm. The PTSD Trials Standardized Data Repository (PTSD‐Repository) and additional databases were searched to identify PTSD RCTs published through May 2024. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria (N = 407). The effect size for ACT versus a comparison condition on PTSD symptoms was large, but the confidence interval (CI) overlapped with 0, g = 0.75, 95% CI [‐0.63, 2.12]. The same pattern was observed for attention bias variability, g = 1.04, 95% CI [‐0.90, 2.98]. There was a significant within‐group effect of ACT on self‐reported PTSD symptoms, g = ‐1.43, 95% CI [‐2.83, ‐0.03]. Risk of bias varied, with high risk of bias being primarily due to bias in the measurement of the outcome. These effects should be interpreted cautiously given the significant heterogeneity and wide confidence intervals observed. It remains unclear for whom and under what conditions ACT may be most effective. Future studies should move beyond response time measures, employ an inactive comparator, and examine the mechanism of action to determine whether ACT could be a viable intervention for PTSD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Traumatic Stress is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Attentional bias and deficits in attentional control are associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. Attention control training (ACT) may address these factors. We reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ACT for PTSD to address unanswered questions about ACT's effectiveness, tolerability, and implementation. Studies were included if they were an RCT that used an adult sample, recruited participants with a PTSD diagnosis, and had ACT as at least one treatment arm. The PTSD Trials Standardized Data Repository (PTSD‐Repository) and additional databases were searched to identify PTSD RCTs published through May 2024. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria (N = 407). The effect size for ACT versus a comparison condition on PTSD symptoms was large, but the confidence interval (CI) overlapped with 0, g = 0.75, 95% CI [‐0.63, 2.12]. The same pattern was observed for attention bias variability, g = 1.04, 95% CI [‐0.90, 2.98]. There was a significant within‐group effect of ACT on self‐reported PTSD symptoms, g = ‐1.43, 95% CI [‐2.83, ‐0.03]. Risk of bias varied, with high risk of bias being primarily due to bias in the measurement of the outcome. These effects should be interpreted cautiously given the significant heterogeneity and wide confidence intervals observed. It remains unclear for whom and under what conditions ACT may be most effective. Future studies should move beyond response time measures, employ an inactive comparator, and examine the mechanism of action to determine whether ACT could be a viable intervention for PTSD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 08949867 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/jts.23104 |
