@article{ref1,
title="Do we really need two sessions? The use of a structured interview as a trauma cue reactivity paradigm",
journal="International journal of methods in psychiatric research",
year="2023",
author="DeGrace, Sarah and Romero-Sanchiz, Pablo and Yakovenko, Igor and Barrett, Sean P. and Tibbo, Philip and Cosman, Tessa and Atasoy, Pars and Stewart, Sherry H.",
volume="ePub",
number="ePub",
pages="ePub-ePub",
abstract="OBJECTIVES: Derived from classical conditioning theory and rooted in motivational mechanisms, cue reactivity paradigms (CRPs) are used in addictions research to measure participants' propensities for substance-relevant responses (e.g., craving) during exposure to substance-relevant cues (e.g., drug paraphernalia). CRPs are also useful in PTSD-addiction comorbidity research, allowing the study of affective and substance-relevant responses to trauma cues. However, studies using traditional CRPs are time-consuming with high attrition rates due to repeat testing. Thus, we sought to test whether a single session semi-structured trauma interview could serve as a CRP in terms of eliciting theorized cue exposure effects on craving and affect measures. <br><br>METHOD: Fifty regular cannabis users with trauma histories provided detailed descriptions of their most traumatic lifetime experience, and a neutral experience, according to an established interview protocol. Linear mixed models examined the effect of cue type (trauma vs. neutral) on affective and craving responses. <br><br>RESULTS: As hypothesized, the trauma interview elicited significantly greater cannabis craving (and alcohol craving among the drinkers), and, greater negative affect among those with more severe PTSD symptoms, compared to the neutral interview. <br><br>CONCLUSION: Results suggest an established semi-structured interview may function effectively as a CRP for use in trauma and addictions research.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1049-8931",
doi="10.1002/mpr.1979",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1979"
}