Objective Many patients dropout of treatments for Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and some clinicians believe that ‘trauma focused’ treatments increase dropout. Method We conducted a meta-analysis of dropout among active treatments in clinical trials for PTSD (42 studies; 17 direct comparisons). Results The average dropout rate was 18%, but it varied significantly across studies. Group modality and greater number of sessions, but not trauma focus, predicted increased dropout. When the meta-analysis was restricted to direct comparisons of active treatments, there were no differences in dropout. Differences in trauma focus between treatments in the same study did not predict dropout. However, trauma focused treatments resulted in higher dropout as compared to Present Centered Therapy (PCT) – a treatment originally designed as a control, but now listed as a research supported intervention for PTSD. Conclusion Dropout varies between active interventions for PTSD across studies, but differences are primarily driven by differences between studies. There do not appear to be systematic differences across active interventions when they are directly compared in the same study. The degree of clinical attention placed on the traumatic event does not appear to be a primary cause of dropout from active treatments. However comparisons of PCT may be an exception to this general pattern, perhaps due to a restriction of variability in trauma focus among comparisons of active treatments. More research is needed comparing trauma focused interventions to trauma avoidant treatments such as PCT.

In this article, we examine the science and policy implications of the common factors perspective (CF; Frank & Frank, 1993; Wampold, 2007). As the empirically supported treatment (EST) approach, grounded in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), is the received view (see Baker, McFall, & Shoham, 2008; McHugh & Barlow, 2012), we make the case for the CF perspective as an additional evidence-based approach for understanding how therapy works, but also as a basis for improving the quality of mental health services. Finally, we argue that it is time to integrate the 2 perspectives, and we challenge the field to do so.

To examine the evidence for present-centered therapy (PCT) as a treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 5 randomized clinical trials that compared PCT to an existing evidence-based treatment for PTSD were reviewed. A meta-analysis was used to estimate between-treatment differences on targeted measures, secondary measures, and dropout. PCT was found to be as efficacious as the comparison evidence-based treatment in 3 of the 5 trials, and in the 2 cases where a no-treatment condition was included, PCT was superior, with large effect sizes for targeted variables (d = 0.88, 0.74, and 1.27). When results were aggregated using meta-analysis, effects for PCT versus an evidence-based treatment for both targeted and secondary measures were small and nonsignificant (d = 0.13 and d = 0.09, respectively). As well, the dropout rate for PCT was significantly less than for the comparison evidence-based treatments (14.3% and 31.3%, respectively). It appears that PCT is an efficacious and acceptable treatment for PTSD.

No abstract