Background: There is emerging literature regarding the efficacy of trauma-focussed writing therapies (TF-WTs) for posttraumatic stress. Such therapies have the potential to reduce posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) in a brief time frame and can be delivered remotely. There remains a need for further research assessing the efficacy of different types of TF-WTs, as well comparing them to alternative control conditions not previously assessed. The present study assessed two TF-WTs that had differing writing instructions in comparison to an intervention that involved writing about positive experiences.
Methods: Adult community participants (n = 83) with subthreshold or clinical PTSD symptoms were randomized to one of three conditions (two of which involved trauma-focussed writing, and the other involved writing about positive experiences). All conditions involved three weekly telehealth-delivered writing appointments. Outcomes were measured using the PTSD Checklist (PCL-5) and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS-21), and were evaluated at baseline, one-week post-intervention, and five-weeks post-intervention. This trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR Protocol 12620001065987).
Results: There was no evidence that the two TF-WTs were more efficacious in reducing PTSS or producing clinically meaningful change in comparison to positive experiences writing. Instead, a significant reduction from baseline to follow-up in PTSS, depression, anxiety and stress was observed in all three conditions.
Limitations: The results should be interpreted with consideration of the modest sample size and absence of longer-term follow-up.
Conclusions: Three-session trauma-focussed writing delivered via telehealth may not be superior to writing about positive experiences.
Keywords: Post-traumatic stress symptoms; Psychological intervention; Randomized controlled trial; Writing therapy.
Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.