Effectiveness of Virtual Delivery of EMDR G-TEP in Ukraine

Effectiveness of Virtual Delivery of EMDR G-TEP in Ukraine (Effectiveness of Virtual Delivery of EMDR G-TEP in Ukraine)

Cindy Palen (1), Olya Zaporozhets (1) Lisa Compton (1), Marilyn Luber (2)

1 Regent University, 2 Private Practice

Translated by: Specialist Psychologist Gizem Pozam

 

Background

• The mental health crisis in Ukraine calls for prompt and effective interventions


• EMDR G-TEP is a group protocol that can easily be adapted for virtual delivery

Aims

• Determine the effectiveness of virtual EMDR G-TEP in reducing wartime psychological distress in Ukrainian mental health professionals who are still experiencing a traumatic event such as war


• Analyze whether significant results are maintained at the 6-week follow-up after the posttest

Participants

• Mental health professionals in Ukraine during the Russian-Ukrainian War (N= 63).


• Age 24-64 (N= 63, M = 42.67, SD = 8.92)


• Gender: Female, n = 59 (93.7%); Male, n = 4 (6.3%)

Methods

• Participants were randomly assigned to an intervention group (n = 33) or a waitlist control group (n = 30).


• Wartime psychological distress was measured using the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and the Subjective Units of Disturbance Scale (SUDS).


• The study measured improvement across three time points (pretest, posttest, and six-week follow-up).


• After participants completed the pretests, the intervention group received two 60-minute online EMDR G-TEP sessions on two consecutive days; the control group received no intervention. All participants were reassessed at the six-week follow-up.


• Data were analyzed using the Friedman test to analyze the within-subject effect of the median rank scores of the three measures. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze the median rank scores of the three measures between the control and intervention groups at three time points.

Results

• PCL-5: Intervention Group: x2(2) = 22.32, p < .001

Control Group: x2(2) = 3.30, p = .19

• PHQ-9: Intervention Group: x2(2) = 21.14, p < .001

Control Group: Control Group: x2(2) = 3.47, p = 18

• SUDS: Intervention Group: x2(2) = 46.34 p < .001

Control Group: x2(2) = 1.96, p = 38

The intervention group experienced significant improvement in all three measures across all three time points (p < .001), whereas the control group did not.

Conclusions

The study was conducted during the Russian-Ukrainian War, at a time when participants lacked a post-trauma window of safety and were scattered across Ukraine. At posttest, 7 intervention participants who had a preliminary PTSD diagnosis no longer met the criteria for PTSD, and four of these 7 maintained the positive results at the 6-week follow-up.

This research suggests that virtual delivery of EMDR G-TEP may be effective as an early intervention to reduce psychological distress in participants who are still experiencing a traumatic event such as war.

 

 

 

 

 

Effectiveness of Virtual Delivery of EMDR G-TEP in Ukraine

 

Cindy Palen (1), Olya Zaporozhets (1)  Lisa Compton (1), Marilyn Luber (2)

1 Regent University, 2 Private Practice

 

 

Background

• Mental health crisis in Ukraine warrants prompt and effective interventions


• EMDR G-TEP is a group protocol that is easily modified for virtual delivery

 

Aims

• Determine the effectiveness of virtual EMDR G-TEP in reducing wartime psychological distress in Ukrainian mental health professionals who are still experiencing a traumatic episode such as war


• Analyze the sustainability of significant results for a 6-week follow-up post-test

Participants

 

• Mental Health Professionals in Ukraine during the Russian-Ukrainian War (N= 63).


• Age 24-64 (N= 63, M = 42.67, SD = 8.92)


• Gender: Female, n = 59 (93.7%); Male, n = 4 (6.3%)

 

Methods

• Participants were randomly placed in an intervention group (n = 33) or a waitlist control group (n = 30).


• Wartime psychological distress was measured using the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and the Subjective Units of Disturbance Scale (SUDS).


• The study measured improvement across three time points (pretest, posttest, and six-week follow-up).


• After participants completed the pretests, the intervention group received two 60-minute online sessions of EMDR G-TEP on two consecutive days; the control group received no intervention. All participants were reassessed at a six-week follow-up.


• Data was analyzed using the Friedman test to analyze the within-subject effect of the median rank scores of the three measures. The Mann Whitney-U Test was used to analyze the median rank scores of the three measures between the control and intervention groups at three time points.

Results

• PCL-5: Intervention Group: x2(2) = 22.32, p < .001

Control Group: x2(2) = 3.30, p = .19

• PHQ-9: Intervention Group: x2(2) = 21.14, p < .001

Control Group: Control Group: x2(2) = 3.47, p = 18

• SUDS: Intervention Group: x2(2) = 46.34 p < .001

Control Group: x2(2) = 1.96, p = 38

 

The intervention group experienced significant improvement in all three measures across three time points (p < .001), whereas the control group did not.

 

 

Conclusions

The study was conducted during the Russian-Ukrainian War when participants were without a post-trauma window of safety and were scattered across Ukraine. At posttest 7 intervention participants who had a preliminary PTSD diagnosis no longer met the criteria for PTSD, and of those 7, four retained the positive results to the 6-week follow-up.

This research suggests that virtual delivery of EMDR G-TEP can be effective as an early intervention to reduce psychological distress in participants still experiencing a traumatic episode such as war.