P.698 DNA methylation correlates of Narrative Exposure Therapy for Forensic Offender Rehabilitation in trauma-exposed men with appetitive aggression

Narrative-based autobiographical memory interventions for PTSD: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

“…In terms of treatment protocols, it is also helpful to note that NBIs typically require fewer sessions than other established treatments (e.g., NET requires 10 sessions, Schauer et al, 2011 ; CBT requires 12 sessions, Ehlers, 2013 ; CPT requires more than 12 sessions, Resick et al, 2017 ), which may provide more utility in clinical settings. Additionally, included studies from this analysis showed that NBIs outperformed active controls, in which Womersley et al (2020) used CBT (mean difference in Hedges’ g = 0.67) and Sloan et al (2018) used CPT (mean difference in Hedges’ g = 0.67). Another included study, Sloan et al (2022) , used CPT as an active control, but showed a stronger effect for CPT than WET (mean difference in Hedges’ g = −2.57).…”

“…More so, Morath et al (2014a , b) found that NBIs for PTSD (NET) were not only superior to active controls, but that they actually aided in repairing DNA breakage and improving immunological functioning, both of which are often disrupted during PTSD onset. Additionally, Womersley et al (2020) showed that FORNET was associated with an increase in DNA methylation, which the authors theorized may be a mediator of the beneficial effects in symptom reduction, although further studies are needed to understand this potential mechanism. To further this line of evidence, Wilker et al (2023) investigated the epigenetic expression of PTSD onset and recovery, particularly examining the methylation at CpG site cg25535999, which was found to be inversely related to PTSD symptoms.…”

“…To be as conservative as possible and to improve the reliability of our results, we made the following adjustments: (1) for Al-Hadethe et al (2015) , we used the Emotional Freedom Therapy (EFT) intervention as the control group instead of the no treatment group; (2) for Neuner et al (2004) , we used the Supportive Counseling (SC) intervention as the control group instead of Psychoeducation (PE); (3) for Neuner et al (2008) , we used the Trauma Counseling (TC) intervention as the control group instead of the monitoring group; (4) for Sloan et al (2022) , we used the intent-to-treat data instead of the per-protocol data; (5) for McIntire (2014) , we pooled the results from the trauma-assigned and the trauma-spontaneous writing groups; (6) for Zang et al (2014) , we pooled the results from the NET and the NET-Revised groups; (7) for Gray et al (2017) , we only used the results reported from the PSS-I assessment and excluded the results from the PCL-M assessment; (8) for Brady et al (2021) , we used the CAPS-5 measurements instead of the PCL-5; (9) for Womersley et al (2020) , we used the Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) group as the control instead of the waitlist group; (10) for Zang et al (2013) , the symptom scores from each symptom cluster were added within each group in order to derive the total IES-r mean score per the IES-r protocol ( Horowitz et al, 1979 ) and then a corrected standard deviation was calculated by taking the square root of the sum of squared variances in each symptom cluster for each group using the following formula:…”

“…There is also a high degree of potential heterogeneity with regards to the "trauma load" in participants included in this analysis, which refers to the build-up of previous traumas throughout the lifetime prior to the onset of clinically diagnosable PTSD (Neuner et al, 2004). However, Schneider et al (2020) showed that the effect of NET on PTSD symptom reduction is independent of trauma load, but that individuals with a higher exposure to past traumatic events may require more sessions or additional treatment time in order to have the same total symptom reduction as other participants.…”