Page 91 - Post-traumatic stress disorder in adults with mild intellectual disability: Screening, assessment, and brief intensive EMDR therapy

Brief intensive EMDR therapy for PTSD
DSM-5-TR PTSD diagnostic status
Table 5 presents the DSM-5-TR PTSD diagnostic status per participants
by different phases. Among the 11 participants, nine no longer met the
diagnostic criteria for PTSD one week after the start of treatment. Participant
8 was reclassified as having PTSD at the first follow-up measurement,
but this classification was no longer present at the second follow-up. In
participants 2 and 5, the PTSD classification persisted throughout the study.
Table 5. DSM-5-TR PTSD classification (DITS-ID).
Phase P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 Baseline start Baseline end Intervention Post-intervention Follow-up I Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No Yes No No Yes No No No No No No
No Yes No No Yes No No No No No No
No Yes No No yes No No Yes No No No
Follow-up II No Yes- No - No No No No No No
Follow-up III No Yes - No - No No No No No No
P8 P9 P10 P11
Note. P = participant; baseline start = start baseline; baseline end = end baseline; intervention
= after one week of treatment; post-intervention = three weeks after treatment; follow-up I = six
weeks after intervention; follow-up II = nine weeks after intervention; follow-up III = four month
after intervention.
Participants’ safety
One participant stayed in a crisis shelter during the baseline and intervention
phases but actively participated in the therapy. After the intervention,
he returned home. Crisis placement was considered unrelated to the
intervention, as confirmed by both the participant and the professional
caregiver. No other adverse events were reported in the participants’
electronic records.
4
Secondary outcome measures
Adaptive behaviour
The NAP values for the GAS scores indicated that the differences
between A and B ranged from a weak effect to medium and one large
effect (Table 6). The randomisation test was not statistically significant
(observed Mdifference = 8.81, p = .712). Participant 1 was excluded from both
analyses due to too many missing values (87%).
89