Interpersonal Psychotherapy of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder for Veterans and Family Members: An Open Trial
Abstract
Objective:
Military service members and veterans have high rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as do military family members. Exposure-based, cognitive-behavioral approaches have received ample research, but other PTSD therapies require further empirical attention. Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) targets affective awareness, life circumstances, and social support. IPT has shown efficacy for civilians with PTSD but awaits rigorous testing among military personnel; only two small military pilot studies and two case reports have been published. Military family members have received minimal attention from clinical outcomes research. Addressing these gaps, this open trial examined IPT for PTSD among veterans, service members, and family members, including a patient subset with comorbid PTSD and depression.
Methods:
Fifty U.S. military service members, veterans, and family members (age ≥18 years) were offered 14 sessions of IPT for PTSD. Individuals with psychosis, bipolar disorder, moderate or severe substance use disorders, or high suicide risk were excluded. PTSD and depressive symptoms were assessed at baseline, midtreatment, posttreatment, and 3-month follow-up.
Results:
Clinician-assessed PTSD (Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale) and depression (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale) symptoms decreased over time in the full sample and the comorbid PTSD/depression subset (p<0.05). Service members, veterans, and family members had similar treatment responses.
Conclusions:
Patients receiving IPT showed reductions in PTSD and depressive symptoms. These open trial findings provide preliminary support for the utility of IPT in reducing PTSD symptoms among veterans and family members. This largest IPT trial to date for PTSD in military patients also bolsters the literature on treating military family members.
HIGHLIGHTS
•
U.S. veterans, military service members, and military family members with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) who received interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT), a well-tolerated nonexposure treatment, had decreased PTSD and depressive symptoms after the treatment.
•
Such symptom reductions were also observed among a subset of patients with comorbid PTSD and depression, a particularly hard-to-treat combination.
•
The results add to research supporting the value of IPT in treating PTSD among veterans and provide very preliminary support for IPT’s utility in treating PTSD in military family members, a high-risk yet understudied population.
American military veterans and service members face an elevated risk for trauma exposure and psychiatric illness. An estimated 21%−41% of veterans returning from recent conflicts have posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and 7%−15% have syndromal depression (1). The combination of PTSD and major depression is particularly difficult to treat. A compounding risk factor for poor outcomes among veterans is their reporting of adverse experiences before and after deployment (2, 3). Beyond the personal ramifications of PTSD and depression for veterans and service members, these disorders can affect military families through marital and parental dissatisfaction, disrupted child-parent relationships, caregiver burden, and domestic violence (4, 5). These issues, in addition to elevated rates of trauma exposure unrelated to military service among military spouses, help account for high rates of PTSD and depression among military spouses, family members, and caregivers (6–8). These manifold problems affecting veterans, service members, and military families require responsive interventions that can alleviate PTSD and depressive symptoms. This report describes an open trial of interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for treating military service members, veterans, and family members for PTSD with and without comorbid depressive disorder.
Available PTSD Treatment
Guidelines from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) primarily recommend exposure therapies for PTSD, including cognitive processing therapy and prolonged exposure (PE) (9). Although research supporting exposure therapy is extensive (10, 11), the limited range of available treatments for PTSD raises concerns. The very success of exposure therapies has resulted in insufficient study and clinical dissemination of other approaches. No treatment benefits everyone, and nonresponse and dropout occur even in the most robust interventions. Moreover, patients are more likely to experience improvement when given their preferred treatment (12, 13). Many clinicians and patients avoid exposure-based interventions, which ask traumatized patients to confront their worst fears. Dropout rates can be high, generally exceeding 20% (14, 15), and even though no direct comparison studies have been conducted, the outcomes of these interventions among veterans generally appear to be less favorable than among civilians (16–18). Hence, alternative treatments require investigation. Interventions targeting PTSD among military family members also need evaluation, because virtually no research has assessed mental health treatment for military family members despite well-recognized elevations in psychopathology among members of this group (7).
IPT for PTSD
IPT, a nonexposure, non–cognitive-behavioral therapy approach, focuses on affect, life circumstances, and interpersonal relationships and on the interpersonal consequences of trauma, rather than on the trauma itself, distorted cognitions, or behavioral habituation (19). IPT seeks to resolve interpersonal conflicts and mobilize social support. No homework is assigned; instead, IPT encourages self-agency and includes a time limit to press patients to act in interpersonal situations.
An advantage of IPT over cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for military and family populations is its targeted focus on bolstering social engagement and support and addressing feelings of isolation and estrangement to reduce psychopathology (19, 20). Military veterans and families often lack social support and feel isolated and estranged from civilians who lack military service history (21). Relocations and deployment cycles compound their social isolation and disrupt community support (5, 8). Such isolation, disconnection, and absence of social support contribute to adverse general medical and mental health and to the development and persistence of PTSD and depression (22–24). IPT and other research suggests that bolstering social support plays an important role in relieving these symptoms (19, 25).
IPT has established efficacy in treating major depressive disorder (26, 27), and numerous studies support its efficacy across other disorders and treatment populations (28). IPT for PTSD performed overall as well as PE in a randomized controlled civilian trial (29) and better than PE for patients with sexual trauma or comorbid major depressive disorder (29, 30). (Co-occurrence of PTSD and major depressive disorder is roughly 50% [31].) Patients also preferred IPT to PE (13). The VA has disseminated IPT to treat patients with major depressive disorder (32), and IPT appears in VA/DoD PTSD and depression treatment guidelines (9); however, the IPT research literature on veterans with either disorder comprises only two non-VA case reports (33, 34) and two small pilot studies of veterans with PTSD (35, 36). No previous studies of any individual psychotherapy exist for military family members.
Present Study
We prospectively conducted an open trial of IPT for PTSD delivered to service members, veterans, and military family members at a university-based Military Family Wellness Center (MFWC) (37). Independent evaluators assessed treatment tolerability and symptom change at midtreatment, posttreatment, and a 3-month follow-up. Exploratory analyses assessed differences in symptom change between veterans/service members and family members. We hypothesized that IPT would be well tolerated and that most patients would experience reductions in PTSD and depressive symptoms with the treatment. We recognized that our small sample (N=50) would have limited statistical power to reveal outcome differences between military and family member patients. Nonetheless, because PTSD treatment is thought to have poorer outcomes for military patients than for civilians and no research has directly compared these two populations, we explored between-group outcomes. We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine symptom change among the subset of patients with comorbid PTSD and depression, symptom change while controlling for pharmacotherapy use, and symptom change while controlling for treatment delivery modality (in-person therapy vs. teletherapy).
Methods
Participants
Fifty adult (ages ≥18 years) U.S. military service members and veterans (N=35), and individuals with close familial connections to a service member or veteran (“family members”; N=15) opted to enroll in IPT treatment at the MFWC between January 2016 and October 2019. Services were provided gratis. Patients had a primary diagnosis of PTSD and included those who did not qualify for or avoided VA care or who sought additional treatment. Exclusion criteria included a history of psychotic disorder, current unstable bipolar disorder, moderate or severe substance use disorder, and high suicide risk (plan and intent). Patients in the subsample with comorbid PTSD and syndromal depression met diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder or persistent depressive disorder (henceforth “depression”).
Measures
Most patients (N=38) were administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5–Research Version (SCID-5-RV) (38); the other patients (N=12) received the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview for DSM-IV (MINI) (39) before a clinic protocol change. The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) (40) was used to assess PTSD. Possible scores on the CAPS-5 range from 0 to 80, with higher scores indicating more severe PTSD symptoms. Depression severity was assessed by clinician-administered Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-item version (HAM-D) (41). Possible scores range from 0 to 54, with higher scores indicating more severe depression. Intraclass correlations indicated excellent interrater agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=0.99) for the CAPS-5 and acceptable agreement for the HAM-D (ICC=0.75).
Procedures
Patients underwent a 30-minute phone screen by a research assistant and then an in-person assessment by a licensed psychologist, postdoctoral fellow, or psychology extern. Assessments included a clinical interview and standardized clinician-administered and self-report measures. After clinical team review, patients were assigned to a therapist. Clinician and patient selected the treatment together. Patients were always offered multiple treatment options, typically CBT, PE, and IPT, with balanced descriptions of each treatment and its research support (13). Most opted for IPT. The institutional review board of the New York State Psychiatric Institute approved all procedures. Patients provided informed written consent before receiving treatment.
IPT for PTSD comprised 14 sessions of 50 minutes. Eight therapists delivered IPT following the IPT manual (19), with weekly supervision and review of videotaped sessions by its author; no other formal adherence ratings were conducted. Therapists included one early-career licensed psychologist, four postdoctoral fellows, two psychology externs, and a licensed social worker. Geographically remote patients or those having transportation difficulties were offered treatment via HIPAA-compliant video conferencing; 10 (20%) of the patients received partial or full teletherapy. When therapy was delivered remotely, research assistants aided patients in setting up the video-conferencing software before the first remote therapy session and thereafter as needed for technical support. In-person and remote treatment protocols were otherwise identical. Assessments were repeated at midpoint, posttreatment, and 3-month follow-up.
Thirty patients (60%) received concurrent pharmacotherapy. Most were already receiving long-established pharmacotherapy; an MFWC psychiatrist modified the regimen or prescribed new medication to 10 patients (20%). The modal medication was a serotonin reuptake inhibitor.
Data Analysis Plan
The data distributions contained no outliers. We used generalized estimating equation (GEE) analyses (by using SPSS, version 25) with unstructured correlation matrices, which use all available data points and can account for correlated, within-subject, repeated-measures data (42), to examine changes in PTSD and depression symptoms over time. Number of assessments completed (and thus included in the main GEE analyses) at baseline, midpoint, posttreatment, and 3-month follow-up were 50, 40, 36, and 26, respectively. We examined main effects of time (across the time points), status (veteran/service member vs. family member), and time × status interaction effects to detect whether symptom change differed between veterans/service members and family members. In post hoc sensitivity analyses testing the robustness of our main findings, we reran analyses on data from the subset of patients with comorbid PTSD and depression (the numbers of assessments at each time point were 37, 30, 27, and 21, respectively). Sensitivity analyses also included GEE models with teletherapy and MFWC pharmacotherapy added as covariates; these analyses were run for the full sample and for the subsample of patients with comorbid PTSD and depression.
Results
Patient Characteristics
The 50 patients had a mean±SD age of 43.0±13.0 years, 74% (N=37) were men, and the patients had diverse racial-ethnic backgrounds and trauma histories (Table 1). Twenty-four (48%) were veterans, five (10%) were active duty service members, five (10%) served in the Army Reserves, one (2%) was a military contractor, and 15 (30%) were family members. Family members comprised eight children, one step-child, two spouses, one ex-spouse, one sibling, one grandchild, and one close friend. Among veterans and service members, 12 (34%) received diagnoses of PTSD without syndromal depression, and 23 (66%) had diagnoses of comorbid PTSD and depression. All but one family member and all but one teletherapy patient had comorbid PTSD and depression. Teletherapy patients did not differ from in-person patients, nor did patients who received a new medication differ from other patients, on baseline CAPS-5 and HAM-D scores. Table 2 presents symptom scores for the full sample and the patients with comorbid PTSD and depression. As expected, baseline HAM-D scores were higher among patients with comorbid PTSD and depression than among patients with PTSD alone (t=−3.15, df=48, p=0.003). No other statistically significant clinical differences were observed.
| Veterans/service members (N=35) | Family members (N=15) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | N | % | N | % |
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 28 | 80 | 9 | 60 |
| Female | 5 | 14 | 6 | 40 |
| Prefer not to respond | 2 | 6 | 0 | — |
| Race | ||||
| White | 13 | 37 | 8 | 53 |
| Black/African American | 12 | 34 | 3 | 20 |
| Other | 10 | 29 | 4 | 27 |
| Educational degree | ||||
| No undergraduate degree | 11 | 31 | 5 | 33 |
| Associate's or bachelor's | 14 | 40 | 7 | 47 |
| Master's | 8 | 23 | 2 | 13 |
| Prefer not to respond | 2 | 6 | 1 | 7 |
| Employment status | ||||
| Full-time | 11 | 31 | 4 | 27 |
| Part-time | 3 | 9 | 0 | — |
| Student | 4 | 11 | 0 | — |
| Unemployed | 3 | 9 | 2 | 13 |
| Disabled | 4 | 11 | 3 | 20 |
| Retired | 7 | 20 | 2 | 13 |
| Prefer not to respond | 3 | 9 | 4 | 27 |
| Annual income ($) | ||||
| <30,000 | 10 | 29 | 7 | 47 |
| 30,000–59,999 | 9 | 26 | 1 | 7 |
| 60,000–89,999 | 9 | 26 | 4 | 27 |
| ≥90,000 | 4 | 11 | 3 | 20 |
| Prefer not to respond | 3 | 9 | 0 | — |
| Marital status | ||||
| Single or never married | 13 | 37 | 7 | 47 |
| Married | 8 | 23 | 6 | 33 |
| Divorced or separated | 11 | 31 | 3 | 20 |
| Widowed | 1 | 3 | 0 | — |
| Prefer not to respond | 2 | 6 | 0 | — |
| Eligible for VA services | ||||
| Yes | 32 | 91 | NA | — |
| No | 3 | 9 | NA | — |
| Prefer treatment in a non-VA environmenta | ||||
| Yes | 16 | 46 | NA | — |
| No | 19 | 54 | NA | — |
| Trauma typeb | ||||
| Combat or military related | 21 | 60 | 0 | — |
| Military sexual trauma | 5 | 14 | 0 | — |
| Interpersonal violence | 5 | 14 | 6 | 40 |
| Childhood physical abuse | 10 | 29 | 4 | 27 |
| Childhood sexual abuse | 6 | 17 | 4 | 27 |
| Traumatic loss | 11 | 31 | 3 | 20 |
| Terrorism or mass shooting | 3 | 9 | 2 | 13 |
| Diagnosis | ||||
| Major depressive disorder | 18 | 51 | 11 | 73 |
| Persistent depressive disorder | 9 | 26 | 6 | 40 |
| Other depressive disorder | 1 | 3 | 0 | — |
| Generalized anxiety disorder | 2 | 6 | 4 | 27 |
| Obsessive-compulsive disorder | 1 | 3 | 2 | 13 |
| Social anxiety disorder | 1 | 3 | 1 | 7 |
| Alcohol use disorder | 1 | 3 | 1 | 7 |
| Substance use disorder | 1 | 3 | 0 | — |
| Eating disorder | 1 | 3 | 1 | 7 |
| Adjustment disorder | 1 | 3 | 0 | — |
| Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder | 1 | 3 | 1 | 7 |
| Medication | ||||
| SSRI/SNRIc | 13 | 37 | 4 | 27 |
| Bupropion | 2 | 6 | 2 | 13 |
| Tetracyclic antidepressant | 1 | 3 | 0 | — |
| Stimulant | 4 | 11 | 1 | 7 |
| Sedative or anxiolytic | 6 | 17 | 4 | 27 |
| Antipsychotic | 3 | 9 | 0 | — |
| Narcotic | 0 | — | 1 | 7 |
| Gabapentin | 2 | 6 | 1 | 7 |
| Beta blocker | 2 | 6 | 2 | 13 |
| Prazosin | 3 | 9 | 0 | — |
| Lamotrigine | 0 | — | 1 | 7 |
a
NA, not applicable.
b
Criterion A trauma, indicated as most distressing during clinical interview. Patients could indicate one or more most distressing traumas.
c
SSRI, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor; SNRI, selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor.
| Full sample | Subset with comorbid PTSD and depression | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Veterans/service members (N=35) | Family members (N=15) | Veterans/service members (N=23) | Family members (N=14) | |||||
| Scale and time point | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD |
| CAPS-5a | ||||||||
| Pretreatment | 34.8 | 9.7 | 36.7 | 10.4 | 36.9 | 6.0 | 37.7 | 6.6 |
| Midpoint | 27.3 | 10.2 | 30.2 | 8.8 | 24.3 | 13.8 | 25.2 | 13.7 |
| Posttreatment | 20.2 | 14.3 | 21.9 | 14.8 | 20.4 | 13.8 | 21.6 | 14.0 |
| Follow-up | 18.9 | 10.1 | 21.7 | 9.3 | 23.2 | 15.1 | 23.2 | 15.1 |
| HAM-Db | ||||||||
| Pretreatment | 14.6 | 6.0 | 16.6 | 6.0 | 19.0 | 4.7 | 19.3 | 4.7 |
| Midpoint | 13.2 | 5.1 | 14.7 | 5.2 | 14.0 | 7.5 | 14.6 | 7.6 |
| Posttreatment | 11.1 | 7.4 | 12.7 | 7.2 | 9.5 | 6.2 | 10.4 | 6.9 |
| Follow-up | 9.4 | 6.4 | 10.9 | 6.8 | 9.6 | 6.1 | 9.6 | 6.1 |
a
CAPS-5, Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5. Possible scores range from 0 to 80, with higher scores indicating more severe PTSD symptoms.
b
HAM-D, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-item version. Possible scores range from 0 to 54, with higher scores indicating more severe depression. Assessments completed for veterans/service members at pretreatment, midpoint, posttreatment, and 3-month follow-up were 35, 26, 22, and 17, respectively, and for family members were 15, 14, 14, and 9, respectively. Assessments completed for veterans/service members with comorbid PTSD and depression at pretreatment, midpoint, posttreatment, and 3-month follow-up were 23, 17, 14, and 12, respectively, and for family members with comorbid PTSD and depression were 14, 13, 13, and 9, respectively.
Treatment Tolerability
Fourteen patients (28%) dropped out before completing the contractually agreed-upon number of sessions: 10 had comorbid PTSD and depression (nine veterans/service members and one family member); the other four were veterans/service members with PTSD alone. Chi-square analyses revealed significant attrition differences between veterans/service members and family members: overall, 37% (N=13) of veterans/service members and 7% (N=1) of family members dropped out (χ2=4.84, N=50, df=1, p=0.028). Among the subset with comorbid PTSD and depression, 39% (N=9) of veterans/service members and 7% (N=1) of family members dropped out of treatment (χ2=4.52, N=37, df=1, p=0.034).
Full Sample
PTSD change.
Overall, the mean CAPS-5 score for the full sample fell from 35.7±8.9 (indicating syndromal PTSD; N=50) to 20.4±11.9 (indicating subthreshold PTSD; N=26) from pretreatment to the 3-month follow-up (Figure 1A). GEE analysis yielded a main effect of time (Wald χ2=3.67, df=3, p<0.001); CAPS-5 scores decreased significantly for all patients between baseline and all time points (p≤0.001), and between midpoint and posttreatment (p=0.028) (Table 2).
FIGURE 1. Reductions in PTSD and depression symptoms among veterans, service members, and family members who received interpersonal psychotherapya
aCAPS-5, Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5; HAM-D, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-item version.
Depression change.
The mean HAM-D score fell from 16.0±6.0 (N=50) to 9.4±6.2 (N=26) from pretreatment to the 3-month follow-up. GEE analysis revealed a main effect of time on the HAM-D score (Wald χ2=45.27, df=3, p<0.001) (Figure 1B); like CAPS-5 scores, HAM-D scores declined significantly for all patients from baseline and between time points (p≤0.012), and between midpoint and posttreatment (p=0.001). No statistically significant interaction effect or main effect of status (veteran/service member vs. family member) was detected.
Sensitivity Analyses
Symptom change among patients with comorbid PTSD and depression.
Patients with comorbid PTSD and depression showed an improvement pattern similar to that of the overall sample. GEE analysis revealed a main effect of time on the CAPS-5 score (Wald χ2=43.50, df=3, p<0.001) (Figure 2A); scores decreased significantly for all patients across all time points (p≤0.001) and between midpoint and posttreatment (p=0.025) (Table 2). Likewise, GEE analyses revealed a main effect of time on the HAM-D score (Wald χ2=32.74, df=3, p<0.001) (Figure 2B); HAM-D scores decreased significantly for all patients between baseline and all time points and between midpoint and posttreatment (p≤0.012). Neither analysis yielded a statistically significant interaction effect or main effect of status.
FIGURE 2. Reductions in symptoms among veterans, service members, and family members with comorbid PTSD and depression who received interpersonal psychotherapya
aCAPS-5, Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5; HAM-D, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-item version.
Controlling for pharmacotherapy.
Controlling for pharmacotherapy did not alter the results of the main PTSD analysis or either comorbidity subanalysis. However, in an analysis of the sample of patients with depression that controlled for medication, a trend-level effect emerged for the status × time interaction (Wald χ2=7.84, df=3, p=0.050): HAM-D scores of family members decreased more steeply between baseline and midpoint (b=4.23, SEb=2.17, Wald χ2=3.80, df=1, p=0.051) and between pre- and posttreatment (b=5.73, SEb=2.13, Wald χ2=7.21, df=1, p=0.051) than did the scores of veterans/service members.
Controlling for teletherapy.
When added as a covariate to the main PTSD analysis, teletherapy significantly contributed to the model (b=16.39, SEb=7.86, Wald χ2=4.34, df=1, p=0.037). On average, CAPS-5 scores decreased over time in both groups, with the exception of no change between posttreatment and follow-up CAPS-5 scores among patients receiving in-person treatment (Figure 3). However, patients receiving teletherapy scored higher than those receiving in-person treatment on the CAPS-5 at pre-, mid-, and posttreatment (scores were roughly equivalent for both groups at the follow-up). Nevertheless, t tests did not indicate that these differences were statistically significant. We note that the assessment counts were low for the small sample of teletherapy patients (10, nine, eight, and seven at the four time points, respectively) and that the small sample size may have limited our ability to detect significant differences. Alternatively, veteran versus family member status may have confounded the outcomes analysis of teletherapy, because teletherapy patients comprised mostly veterans/service members (six, six, five, and five, at the four time points, respectively). When this status was removed from the analysis, teletherapy was no longer statistically significant.
FIGURE 3. PTSD symptom reduction among patients receiving in-person interpersonal psychotherapy versus via teletherapya
aCAPS-5, Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5.
Controlling for teletherapy did not alter findings of the comorbidity subanalysis but did yield a statistically significant effect of teletherapy (b=15.03, SEb=7.65, Wald χ2=3.86, df=1, p=0.049); t tests indicated higher CAPS-5 scores (i.e., less improvement) among teletherapy patients at midpoint (t=−2.74, df=28, p=0.011) and posttreatment (t=−2.30, df=25, p=0.030). Controlling for teletherapy did not alter the results of either HAM-D analysis; in neither instance was teletherapy associated with a change in HAM-D score (p>0.050).
Discussion
As hypothesized, veterans, service members, and family members receiving IPT in an open trial had improvements in PTSD and depression symptoms over time. These positive results replicate previous findings in a civilian population (29) and extend them to veterans in the largest study of IPT for PTSD among veterans to date (35, 36). The findings support the growing recognition that focused systematic exposure to reminders of trauma, while often useful, may not be essential to treat all patients with PTSD (43, 44).
This open trial is the first study to evaluate IPT—and, to our knowledge, any individual psychotherapy—for military family members. Extant research on military family members is scant and limited to couples or family interventions (45). This study is the first to directly compare clinical outcomes between veterans/service members and military family members receiving IPT. Previous literature hints that veterans fare less well than civilians in PTSD treatment studies (18), but we found comparable treatment responses among veterans/service members and quasi-civilian military family members. Attrition was higher for veterans/service members than for family members, consistent with trends reported in the larger PTSD treatment literature (15).
As previously found (13), patients with comorbid PTSD and depression who received IPT for PTSD experienced relief of their symptoms. PTSD-depression comorbidity is typically associated with clinical challenges, including treatment dropout and nonresponsivity (46, 47). Consistent with these complexities, the dropout rate among veterans with comorbid PTSD and depression was 39%, comparable to the 36% rate reported for veterans receiving other forms of PTSD treatment (15). However, attrition among family members with comorbid PTSD and depression was much lower (7%), lower even than observed among civilian patients with comorbid PTSD and depression in a previous study in which we compared IPT for PTSD (20%), PE (50%), and relaxation therapy (27%) (29). Because this study treated only 15 family members with PTSD-depression comorbidity, it is premature to draw conclusions regarding treatment tolerability. Among patients who remained in treatment, responses followed a similar improvement pattern, regardless of comorbid condition or veteran/service member versus family member status. The preliminary evidence for IPT’s popularity and durability among veterans, and among patients with diagnostically complex conditions, makes the case for further research on IPT’s utility in the VA system and other settings where veterans seek treatment. IPT’s tolerability among family members further suggests its potential value in broader settings, although the small sample size precludes definitive recommendations.
Although teletherapy was not the focus of the present study, we found that patients who selected teletherapy had somewhat more severe baseline symptoms. These patients also showed declines in PTSD and depression symptoms with treatment. Telehealth for mental health treatment, particularly video conferencing, had gained popularity because it is cost-effective and increases access to high-quality care for rural or incapacitated patients (48) even before its wholesale adoption in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic (49). Relevant to our sample, to veterans and to individuals with PTSD generally, teletherapy may benefit patients who avoid in-person treatment because of concerns about stigma (50). Yet, as in this study, telehealth may be a modality that patients with more severe symptomatology prefer, reflecting clinical symptoms of avoidance or behavioral withdrawal (which are often targets of treatment). Tele-IPT research is needed to address its costs and benefits.
Limitations of this open trial included small sample and subsample sizes, attrition, and lack of a control condition, which precludes drawing conclusions about causality. Selective attrition may have yielded inflated estimates of symptom improvement during the treatment. Lack of randomization (all patients had opted for IPT), and the fact that assessors were not blind to treatment or delivery modality, might have biased our findings. Some patients received modifications of their pharmacotherapy regimens, limiting conclusions about treatment outcomes. Some patients received teletherapy, whose equipotency to in-person IPT remains unestablished (49). Patients receiving tele-IPT appeared to benefit from the treatment, but our teletherapy analyses were likely underpowered. Our military sample findings may not generalize to nonveterans or to patients in VA settings. Future research should use a randomized controlled outcome design to compare IPT with other treatments for military patients. An as yet unpublished multisite randomized VA trial for PTSD and a planned randomized trial for military sexual trauma, both comparing IPT and PE treatments, should provide important comparative data on IPT for PTSD among veterans. Military family members deserve further treatment and research as well. Finally, our data were not well suited to address therapist effects on therapy outcomes; future studies should address these effects. These limitations notwithstanding, there is converging evidence that IPT for PTSD is well tolerated and effective, including for patients presenting diagnostically complex cases.
Conclusions
Among a combined sample of U.S. veterans, service members, and military family members who received IPT for PTSD in an open trial, both PTSD and depression symptoms were reduced after the IPT treatment. Symptom reductions were also observed among a subset of patients with comorbid PTSD and depression. These results add to research supporting the value of IPT in treating veterans for PTSD and provide very preliminary support for its utility in PTSD treatment of military family members. Larger, controlled clinical studies that expand on these promising findings will be clinically valuable.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the veterans and their family members who participated in this study.The granting agencies had no role in the design, analysis, interpretation, or publication of this study.
References
1.
Ramsey C, Dziura J, Justice AC, et al : Incidence of mental health diagnoses in veterans of Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, and New Dawn, 2001–2014. Am J Public Health 2017 ; 107 : 329 – 335
2.
Carlson EB, Garvert DW, Macia KS, et al : Traumatic stressor exposure and post-traumatic symptoms in homeless veterans. Mil Med 2013 ; 178 : 970 – 973
3.
Kelly UA, Skelton K, Patel M, et al : More than military sexual trauma: interpersonal violence, PTSD, and mental health in women veterans. Res Nurs Health 2011 ; 34 : 457 – 467
4.
Galovski T, Lyons JA : Psychological sequelae of combat violence: a review of the impact of PTSD on the veteran’s family and possible interventions. Aggress Violent Behav 2004 ; 9 : 477 – 501
5.
Renshaw KD, Allen ES, Rhoades GK, et al : Distress in spouses of service members with symptoms of combat-related PTSD: secondary traumatic stress or general psychological distress? J Fam Psychol 2011 ; 25 : 461 – 469
6.
Eaton KM, Hoge CW, Messer SC, et al : Prevalence of mental health problems, treatment need, and barriers to care among primary care-seeking spouses of military service members involved in Iraq and Afghanistan deployments. Mil Med 2008 ; 173 : 1051 – 1056
7.
Sheppard SC, Malatras JW, Israel AC : The impact of deployment on US military families. Am Psychol 2010 ; 65 : 599 – 609
8.
Verdeli H, Baily C, Vousoura E, et al : The case for treating depression in military spouses. J Fam Psychol 2011 ; 25 : 488 – 496
9.
VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Acute Stress Disorder. Washington, DC, US Department of Veterans Affairs, 2017. https://www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/MH/ptsd/VADoDPTSDCPGClinicianSummaryFinal.pdf
10.
Asmundson GJG, Thorisdottir AS, Roden-Foreman JW, et al : A meta-analytic review of cognitive processing therapy for adults with posttraumatic stress disorder. Cogn Behav Ther 2019 ; 48 : 1 – 14
11.
Rauch SA, Eftekhari A, Ruzek JI : Review of exposure therapy: a gold standard for PTSD treatment. J Rehabil Res Dev 2012 ; 49 : 679 – 687
12.
Lindhiem O, Bennett CB, Trentacosta CJ, et al : Client preferences affect treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome: a meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 2014 ; 34 : 506 – 517
13.
Markowitz JC, Meehan KB, Petkova E, et al : Treatment preferences of psychotherapy patients with chronic PTSD. J Clin Psychiatry 2016 ; 77 : 363 – 370
14.
Lewis C, Roberts NP, Gibson S, et al : Dropout from psychological therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Psychotraumatol 2020 ; 11 : 1709709
15.
Goetter EM, Bui E, Ojserkis RA, et al : A systematic review of dropout from psychotherapy for posttraumatic stress disorder among Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans. J Trauma Stress 2015 ; 28 : 401 – 409
16.
Najavits LM : The problem of dropout from “gold standard” PTSD therapies. F1000Prime Rep 2015 ; 7 : 43
17.
Rosen CS, Matthieu MM, Wiltsey Stirman S, et al : A review of studies on the system-wide implementation of evidence-based psychotherapies for posttraumatic stress disorder in the Veterans Health Administration. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res 2016 ; 43 : 957 – 977
18.
Steenkamp MM, Litz BT, Hoge CW, et al : Psychotherapy for military-related PTSD: a review of randomized clinical trials. JAMA 2015 ; 314 : 489 – 500
19.
Markowitz JC : Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016
20.
Markowitz JC, Milrod B, Bleiberg K, et al : Interpersonal factors in understanding and treating posttraumatic stress disorder. J Psychiatr Pract 2009 ; 15 : 133 – 140
21.
Wilson G, Hill M, Kiernan MD : Loneliness and social isolation of military veterans: systematic narrative review. Occup Med 2018 ; 68 : 600 – 609
22.
Guay S, Billette V, Marchand A : Exploring the links between posttraumatic stress disorder and social support: processes and potential research avenues. J Trauma Stress 2006 ; 19 : 327 – 338
23.
Pietrzak RH, Johnson DC, Goldstein MB, et al : Psychosocial buffers of traumatic stress, depressive symptoms, and psychosocial difficulties in veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom: the role of resilience, unit support, and postdeployment social support. J Affect Disord 2010 ; 120 : 188 – 192
24.
Paykel ES : Life events, social support and depression. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl 1994 ; 377 : 50 – 58
25.
Brewin CR, Andrews B, Rose S : Diagnostic overlap between acute stress disorder and PTSD in victims of violent crime. Am J Psychiatry 2003 ; 160 : 783 – 785
26.
Cuijpers P, Geraedts AS, van Oppen P, et al : Interpersonal psychotherapy for depression: a meta-analysis. Am J Psychiatry 2011 ; 168 : 581 – 592
27.
Cuijpers P, van Straten A, Andersson G, et al : Psychotherapy for depression in adults: a meta-analysis of comparative outcome studies. J Consult Clin Psychol 2008 ; 76 : 909 – 922
28.
Weissman MM, Markowitz JC, Klerman GL : The Guide to Interpersonal Psychotherapy. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2017
29.
Markowitz JC, Petkova E, Neria Y, et al : Is exposure necessary? A randomized clinical trial of interpersonal psychotherapy for PTSD. Am J Psychiatry 2015 ; 172 : 430 – 440
30.
Markowitz JC, Neria Y, Lovell K, et al : History of sexual trauma moderates psychotherapy outcome for posttraumatic stress disorder. Depress Anxiety 2017 ; 34 : 692 – 700
31.
Rytwinski NK, Scur MD, Feeny NC, et al : The co-occurrence of major depressive disorder among individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder: a meta-analysis. J Trauma Stress 2013 ; 26 : 299 – 309
32.
Stewart MO, Raffa SD, Steele JL, et al : National dissemination of interpersonal psychotherapy for depression in veterans: therapist and patient-level outcomes. J Consult Clin Psychol 2014 ; 82 : 1201 – 1206
33.
Karlin BE, Cross G : From the laboratory to the therapy room: national dissemination and implementation of evidence-based psychotherapies in the US Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System. Am Psychol 2014 ; 69 : 19 – 33
34.
Karlin BE, Ruzek JI, Chard KM, et al : Dissemination of evidence-based psychological treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder in the Veterans Health Administration. J Trauma Stress 2010 ; 23 : 663 – 673
35.
Krupnick JL, Melnikoff E, Reinhard M : A pilot study of interpersonal psychotherapy for PTSD in women veterans. Psychiatry 2016 ; 79 : 56 – 69
36.
Ray RD, Webster R : Group interpersonal psychotherapy for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder: a pilot study. Int J Group Psychother 2010 ; 60 : 131 – 140
37.
Lowell A, Lopez-Yianilos A, Ryba M, et al : A university-based mental health center for veterans and their families: challenges and opportunities. Psychiatr Serv 2019 ; 70 : 159 – 162
38.
First MB, Williams JBW, Karg RS, et al : Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Research Version SCID-5-RV. Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association, 2015
39.
Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Sheehan KH, et al : The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry 1998 ; 59 ( suppl 20 ): 22 – 57
40.
Weathers FW, Blake DD, Schnurr PP, et al : The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5). Washington, DC, US Department of Veterans Affairs, 2013. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/adult-int/caps.asp
41.
Hamilton M : A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1960 ; 23 : 56 – 62
42.
Ballinger GA : Using generalized estimating equations for longitudinal data analysis. Organ Res Methods 2004 ; 7 : 127 – 150
43.
Foa EB, McLean CP, Zang Y, et al : Effect of prolonged exposure therapy delivered over 2 weeks vs 8 weeks vs present-centered therapy on PTSD symptom severity in military personnel: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018 ; 319 : 354 – 364
44.
Resick PA, Galovski TE, Uhlmansiek MO, et al : A randomized clinical trial to dismantle components of cognitive processing therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder in female victims of interpersonal violence. J Consult Clin Psychol 2008 ; 76 : 243 – 258
45.
Monson CM, Taft CT, Fredman SJ : Military-related PTSD and intimate relationships: from description to theory-driven research and intervention development. Clin Psychol Rev 2009 ; 29 : 707 – 714
46.
Bryant RA, Moulds ML, Guthrie RM, et al : Imaginal exposure alone and imaginal exposure with cognitive restructuring in treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder. J Consult Clin Psychol 2003 ; 71 : 706 – 712
47.
Chard KM, Schumm JA, Owens GP, et al : A comparison of OEF and OIF veterans and Vietnam veterans receiving cognitive processing therapy. J Trauma Stress 2010 ; 23 : 25 – 32
48.
Hilty DM, Ferrer DC, Parish MB, et al : The effectiveness of telemental health: a 2013 review. Telemed J E Health 2013 ; 19 : 444 – 454
49.
Markowitz JC, Milrod B, Heckman TG, et al : Psychotherapy at a distance. Am J Psychiatry (Epub ahead of print, Sep 25, 2020)
50.
Zinzow HM, Britt TW, McFadden AC, et al : Connecting active duty and returning veterans to mental health treatment: interventions and treatment adaptations that may reduce barriers to care. Clin Psychol Rev 2012 ; 32 : 741 – 753
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 17 May 2020
Revision received: 4 August 2020
Revision received: 11 October 2020
Accepted: 22 October 2020
Published online: 9 February 2021
Published in print: August 01, 2021
Keywords
Authors
Funding Information
This work was supported by grants from the New York–Presbyterian Hospital, Stand for the Troops Foundation, and Acorn Hill Foundation (Dr. Neria) and from the Bob Woodruff Foundation (Drs. Neria and Lowell). Dr. Pickover received support from a National Institute of Mental Health award (5T32-MH-020004-20). Drs. Neria and Markowitz receive salary support from the New York State Psychiatric Institute.Dr. Markowitz receives royalties from American Psychiatric Publishing, Basic Books, and Oxford University Press. Dr. Neria receives royalties from Cambridge University Press and Springer Books. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).