How do veterans make sense of their disengagement from traditional exposure therapy and their subsequent engagement in a non-exposure based therapy for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder?

Research psychologists often complain that practitioners disregard research evidence whilst practitioners sometimes accuse researchers of failing to produce evidence with sufficient ecological validity. The tension that thus arises is highlighted, using the specific illustrative examples of two treatment methods for post-traumatic disorder (PTSD): Eye-Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) and exposure based interventions. Contextual reasons for the success or failure of particular treatment models that are often only tangentially related to the theoretical underpinnings of the models are discussed. Suggestions regarding what might be learnt from these debates are put forward and implications for future research are discussed.

Name dc:type.qualificationname

DCounsPsych

Level dc:type.qualificationlevel

Doctoral

Grantor dc:publisher.institution

University of Wolverhampton

Year dc:date.issued

2012

Author dc:creator

• Mills, Sarah

Advisor dc:contributor.advisor

• Hulbert-Williams, L.

• Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
• Combat
• dropout
• engagement
• efficacy
• effectiveness
• Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)
• exposure therapy

Licence

• https://wlv.dspace7.openrepository.com/bitstreams/75b639eb-2f4e-464f-8cfd-baf447d6133d/download