↓ Skip to main content

The Progressive Approach to EMDR Group Therapy for Complex Trauma and Dissociation: A Case-Control Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Progressive Approach to EMDR Group Therapy for Complex Trauma and Dissociation: A Case-Control Study
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02377
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana I. Gonzalez-Vazquez, Lucía Rodriguez-Lago, Maria T. Seoane-Pillado, Isabel Fernández, Francisca García-Guerrero, Miguel A. Santed-Germán

Abstract

Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing is a psychotherapeutic approach with recognized efficiency in treating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which is being used and studied in other psychiatric diagnoses partially based on adverse and traumatic life experiences. Nevertheless, there is not enough empirical evidence at the moment to support its usefulness in a diagnosis other than PTSD. It is commonly accepted that the use of EMDR in severely traumatized patients requires an extended stabilization phase. Some authors have proposed integrating both the theory of structural dissociation of the personality and the adaptive information processing model guiding EMDR therapy. One of these proposals is the Progressive Approach. Some of these EMDR procedures will be evaluated in a group therapy format, integrating them along with emotional regulation, dissociation, and trauma-oriented psychoeducational interventions. Patients presenting a history of severe traumatization, mostly early severe and interpersonal trauma, combined with additional significant traumatizing events in adulthood were included. In order to discriminate the specific effect of EMDR procedures, two types of groups were compared: TAU (treatment as usual: psychoeducational intervention only) vs. TAU+EMDR (the same psychoeducational intervention plus EMDR specific procedures). In pre-post comparison, more variables presented positive changes in the group including EMDR procedures. In the TAU+EMDR group, 4 of the 5 measured variables presented significant and positive changes: general health (GHQ), general satisfaction (Schwartz), subjective well-being, and therapy session usefulness assessment. On the contrary, only 2 of the 5 variables in the TAU group showed statistically significant changes: general health (GHQ), and general satisfaction (Schwartz). Regarding post-test inter-group comparison, improvement in subjective well-being was related to belonging to the group that included EMDR procedures, with differences between TAU and TAU+EMDR groups being statistically significant [χ2(1) = 14.226;p< 0.0001]. In the TAU+EMDR group there was not one patient who got worse or did not improve; 100% experienced some improvement. In the TAU group, 70.6% referred some improvement, and 29.4% said to have gotten worse or not improved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Other 10 8%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 39 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 59 48%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 5%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 41 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,820,359
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,355
of 30,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,331
of 446,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#131
of 541 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,265 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,047 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 541 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.