Recent posts

#1

General Discussion / Sperm cells carry past trauma ...

Last post by mensfe_admin - 2025-02-07 12:03

Story by Devika Rao,
Generational wounds may live in our genes. New research suggests that childhood trauma leads to a difference in the epigenetics of a sperm cell, which can impact a child's development and also be passed on by that child via epigenetic inheritance. According to the new study, a parent's particular experiences and behaviours may significantly affect future generations more than previously assumed.
 drinking or smoking behaviours. The study said these results "provide further evidence that early life stress influences the paternal germline epigenome and supports a possible effect in modulating the development of the central nervous system of the next generation. "
Generation after generation
While the study found epigenetic changes in the sperm cells of those who experienced distress as children, "the inheritance of these findings has not yet been proven, so further research is needed," University of Turku Professor Emeritus Hasse Karlsson, who worked on the study, said in a press release. "Next, we want to study childhood maltreatment, epigenome of sperm, and offspring characteristics together," added Tuulari in the press release. "Demonstrating epigenetic inheritance in humans would rewrite the rules of inheritance, which highlights the need for further research."
Scientists have long been interested in how the behaviour and experiences of parents genetically affect their children, especially when it comes to the sperm cell. "There must be a huge component of the pathogenesis which is not simply explained by genetic predisposition," Raffaele Teperino, a physiologist and pharmacologist at Helmholtz Munich, said to The Scientist. For example, a 2024 study found that paternal diet and weight can affect their offspring's metabolic health — even if the offspring has a healthy diet.

#2

Research / Reason for lower cancer risk i...

Last post by mensfe_admin - 2024-12-10 13:35

by Dr Catherine Turnbull

How ageing induces iron insufficiency, reduces stem cell renewal and tumour formation has been discovered.

The risk of developing cancer increases until around 80 years of age. This is thought to be associated with the accumulation of mutations within different cells of the body, including stem cells and pluripotent cells. However, as we age, these cells lose their ability to regenerate and divide effectively which offsets any amassed tumour-promoting mutations. Now, researchers studied the effects of stem cells in the lungs of older mice that had lung cancer mutations introduced via an adenovirus.

'As with many types of cancer, lung cancer is diagnosed in most people around age 70... But once you get to 80 or 85, the incidence rate starts to come down again,' said Dr Xueqian Zhuang from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre in New York, and first author of the study. 'Our research helps show why... Ageing cells lose their capacity for renewal and therefore for the runaway growth that happens in cancer.'

Mice at around two years old were used as they resembled the age of 65-70 year old people; the most common age that lung cancer is diagnosed. The lung stem cells were isolated from the mice to measure their self-renewal capacities and gene expression was analysed using single-cell RNA sequencing. DNA methylation patterns were also studied to determine any epigenetic changes linked to ageing.

Publishing their findings in Nature, the researchers have shown that ageing suppresses the ability of lung stem cells to form tumours. The aged mouse stem cells had increased gene expression of Nupr1, through age-accumulated epigenetic modifications to their DNA, resulting in high amounts of the NUPR1 protein, a specific transcription factor involved in iron insufficiency.

'The ageing cells actually have more iron, but for reasons we don't yet fully understand, they function like they don't have enough,' Dr Zhuang said.

NUPR1 makes the cells function as if they are iron deficient, and subsequently have a reduced ability for regeneration, which is directly linked to the older mice developing fewer tumours. However, this effect could be reversed, which the researchers achieved by giving the older mice additional iron or by reducing the amount of NUPR1 in their cells.

Furthermore, the researchers discovered that disrupting this pathway in young cells induced cell death caused by too much iron. Thus, reinforcing the age-specific role of Nupr1.

'What our data suggests in terms of cancer prevention is that the events that occur when we're young are probably much more dangerous than the events that occur later,' said Dr Tuomas Tammela from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre, and senior author of the study. 'So, preventing young people from smoking, or from tanning, or from other obvious carcinogenic exposures are probably even more important than we thought.'

#3

General Discussion / Re: Friends' genetic traits ma...

Last post by mensfe_admin - 2024-11-02 10:52

On a genetic level, recent research shows that genes influencing brain behaviours operate within "contextually responsive regulatory networks," meaning that they adapt to environmental inputs. This adaptability is vital to brain development and social behaviour. However, conventional genome-wide association studies (GWAS) often miss this complexity, as they isolate genetic markers without factoring in environmental influences—especially in humans, where controlling for variables like upbringing and social context is difficult.
This gene-environment interplay is especially significant for donor-conceived individuals, who may inherit genetic traits from a donor they've never met but develop within their unique family environments.

A better understanding of these interactions could help address the developmental needs of these individuals more effectively.

PR

#4

General Discussion / Re: Stepingstones

Last post by mensfe_admin - 2024-10-10 10:14

We shall not cease from exploration
And at the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time

(but heard, half heard, in the stillness
Between two waves of the sea.)
From TS Elliot  Four quartets

#5

General Discussion / Stepingstones

Last post by mensfe_admin - 2024-10-10 10:10

Travelling backwards
The train rolls on
And I continue my journey -backwards.
I am sitting here facing with my back to the direction of travel
(its meant to be safer in the event of a crash)
Ironic
I am travelling forward, facing the past

I've had to leave my mate
Somewhere in a port in Scotland
I've run out of time
And couldn't continue our adventure

Home summons me,
Sues embraces and the children's laughs and cuddles.
I resume the longer voyage; and as much as I love and accept that journey
I look forward to my next adventure

#6

General Discussion / Friends' genetic traits may in...

Last post by mensfe_admin - 2024-09-24 08:01

by Dr Jenny Lange

The genetic predisposition for psychiatric and substance abuse disorders of a person's peer group may have long-term effects on their own risk of developing these disorders.

Sociogenomics is an emerging field that studies if a person's genetic makeup can affect the observable traits of another person. Using an anonymised database with information collected from 1.5 million people born in Sweden between 1980 and 1998 to Swedish parents, researchers used computer modelling to calculate genetic risk scores. They then assessed whether a person's genetic susceptibility could affect their peers' likelihood of experiencing depression, anxiety or substance abuse disorders themselves.

'We find that the genetic predispositions of peers, especially school-based peers in later adolescence, are associated with risk for developing psychiatric and substance use disorders in young adulthood,' Dr Jessica Salvatore, associate professor at the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical school, New Jersey, and lead author of the study, said.

In the study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, the researchers mapped geographic and school location during teenage years, and referred to medical, pharmacy and legal registries to collect data on psychiatric conditions and substance abuse disorders. Peer family genetic risk scores appeared to increase the risk of a person developing the same condition; which was more pronounced for substance abuse disorders than major depressive disorder or anxiety. School environment had a greater impact than geographic location, and within school groups the strongest effects were observed in upper secondary school peers. People with a higher family genetic risk score appeared to be more susceptible to their peers' influence.

Family genetic risk scores were calculated based on the prevalence of these conditions within a person's relative circle. However due to the anonymised nature of the data cohort, no actual genetic information was collected and genetic predisposition could not be confirmed. While socioeconomic factors were accounted for, the lack of confirmed genetic risk variants within the cohort does not exclude social determinants in the family history of the psychiatric disorders studied.

'There's no reason to claim that genes are responsible for this... genes are like a musical score – our health and our activities are the music, and this is strongly dependent on the environment in which we live,' said Professor David Ussery from the University of Arkansas, who is not affiliated with the study. 'The "music of life" is played and controlled not by our genes, but instead in the larger context of our cells and how they interact with each other, and influenced by our life history and events. It is not pre-determined.'

Due to the nature of the study, it does not address the complex interplay of genetics, epigenetics and social factors. More research is needed to gain an understanding of what drives the connections between peer genetic predisposition and psychiatric disorders, and confirm the long-term impact on health outcomes. This could have implications on health interventions and the need for these to be based within social networks.

#7

General Discussion / Donor identifiability from bir...

Last post by mensfe_admin - 2024-09-11 11:59

by Dr Sophie Zadeh

In November 2023, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) published a report and recommendations from its consultation (see BioNews 1185) on the main UK law governing fertility treatment and embryo research (the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Acts 1990 and 2008) (see BioNews 1216a and 1216b).

The scope of the consultation included the issue of access to donor information, and within that, the proposal that the Act be amended to incorporate a two-track system, offering 'parental and donor choice to opt for anonymity until age 18 (as now) or identifiable information on request after the birth of a child'. The HFEA's recommendation, post-consultation, is that all donors in the UK be identifiable to parents from the birth of their child.

The HFEA received 6803 responses to the consultation, and of the 955 patient and professional/patient respondents, eight percent – or 76 people – were donor-conceived adults. Responses to the specific question about the 'two-track' system among those who are donor conceived were as follows: 47 percent agree; 33 percent disagree, and 20 percent were unsure or had no response. No further detail about these responses was provided. However, the figures suggest that more information is required to understand donor-conceived people's perspectives on this issue.

In 2020, we began the Young Adults Study, a UK-based, multi-method, psychological research study conducted by researchers at the University of Sussex. The study focuses on the lived experiences and wellbeing of donor-conceived people, with a focus on young adults aged between 18-32 years.

As part of this research, we have been responsive to contemporary issues in donor-assisted conception, including for example, commercial DNA testing, and, more recently, the HFEA consultation. We conducted in-depth interviews with 33 young adults conceived through anonymous sperm donation, and a nationwide survey that included responses from 88 donor-conceived people (of whom 41 were young adults). Our focus groups, conducted with 20 donor-conceived young adults between November and December 2023, sought to understand in greater depth perspectives on policy and practice among this cohort.

We asked focus group participants about the proposed two-track system for donor identifiability. Most participants were in fact supportive of maintaining the current legislation – of donor identifiability at age 18. The two-track system was dismissed on grounds that it would deepen existing inequalities among different groups of donor-conceived people, and afford too much choice to future parents (rather than their children).

The participants in the Young Adults Study also described the current legislation as age-appropriate, with arguments against earlier identification including that donor-conceived individuals are, by age 18, sufficiently mature to process donor-identifying information; that the role of a donor does not include involvement in family life; and that such a change in law would mean that donor information no longer belonged to a child, nor would it be at the discretion of adult children to access. Regarding the latter point, it is noteworthy that the HFEA has considered Gillick competency and it will be interesting to see how discussions on this point proceed.

While few participants advocated donor identifiability from birth, those who did suggested that for individuals who are very interested in donor-identifying information, 18 years is a long time to wait; that this progressive proposal could reflect a paradigm shift towards a relational model (much in the way that other historical trends, such as non-disclosure, are now understood to be unethical); that it would simply bring law in line with practice (given uses of commercial DNA testing); that it might encourage more parents to disclose their use of donor gametes to their donor-conceived children; and that it might overcome some of the issues with identifiable-from-18 legislation, such as those relating to insufficient medical information and out-of-date contact information.

More generally, participants in both our individual and focus group interviews were supportive of the 2005 legislation, regardless of whether they were interested in accessing information about the donor themselves. Some participants suggested that the release of information at age 16 would be more appropriate. A minority advocated for the retrospective removal of anonymity, and a minority advocated for the reinstatement of the possibility of entirely anonymous donation.

Given this breadth of perspectives, it is perhaps difficult to make policy recommendations that could be said to 'generally reflect' the views of those who are donor conceived. However, there were areas of clear consensus among the participants in the Young Adults Study: about the desire for greater access to medical information, and for parental disclosure of donor conception to children at an early age. These research findings echo some of what has been found in previous studies conducted in the UK and elsewhere.

It is therefore disappointing that the scope of the HFEA's consultation did not allow for substantive engagement with either of these issues (although notably, the matter of medical information was raised by a patient in their response to the consultation):

'We are also concerned that the state holds data that is fundamental to the health of donor adults but does not forward that information to the NHS and to donor-conceived adults' healthcare workers. This means that the state is not properly informing GPs and other medical practitioners of the health circumstances of donor-conceived adults and thus hindering their ability to effectively advise on health issues.' [Patient]

Given that the HFEA has stated that its proposals for identifiability from birth are subject to further consideration of various points, including the 'continued respect of donor anonymity for pre-2005 donors and no retrospective early removal of anonymity for post-2005 donors', it is hoped that these matters will be discussed in the near future as the recommendations take further shape.

Finally, it is worth acknowledging that the participants in our study, who were primarily recruited to the research via the social media channels of Donor Conception Network and Donor Conceived UK, had very little knowledge of the HFEA overall. Several participants simply stated that they did not know what the HFEA is, and these individuals are highly unlikely to have responded to the consultation. Moreover, it remains the case that an indeterminate number of people do not know that they are donor conceived. These individuals are clearly also unlikely to share their views, either with the HFEA, or with academic researchers.

PET (the Progress Educational Trust) has exclusivity on the findings from the Young Adults Study, which are currently being prepared for academic publication.

#8

Research / Donor identifiability from bir...

Last post by mensfe_admin - 2024-09-11 11:58

 Findings of the Young Adults Study
by Dr Sophie Zadeh

In November 2023, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) published a report and recommendations from its consultation (see BioNews 1185) on the main UK law governing fertility treatment and embryo research (the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Acts 1990 and 2008) (see BioNews 1216a and 1216b).

The scope of the consultation included the issue of access to donor information, and within that, the proposal that the Act be amended to incorporate a two-track system, offering 'parental and donor choice to opt for anonymity until age 18 (as now) or identifiable information on request after the birth of a child'. The HFEA's recommendation, post-consultation, is that all donors in the UK be identifiable to parents from the birth of their child.

The HFEA received 6803 responses to the consultation, and of the 955 patient and professional/patient respondents, eight percent – or 76 people – were donor-conceived adults. Responses to the specific question about the 'two-track' system among those who are donor conceived were as follows: 47 percent agree; 33 percent disagree, and 20 percent were unsure or had no response. No further detail about these responses was provided. However, the figures suggest that more information is required to understand donor-conceived people's perspectives on this issue.

In 2020, we began the Young Adults Study, a UK-based, multi-method, psychological research study conducted by researchers at the University of Sussex. The study focuses on the lived experiences and wellbeing of donor-conceived people, with a focus on young adults aged between 18-32 years.

As part of this research, we have been responsive to contemporary issues in donor-assisted conception, including for example, commercial DNA testing, and, more recently, the HFEA consultation. We conducted in-depth interviews with 33 young adults conceived through anonymous sperm donation, and a nationwide survey that included responses from 88 donor-conceived people (of whom 41 were young adults). Our focus groups, conducted with 20 donor-conceived young adults between November and December 2023, sought to understand in greater depth perspectives on policy and practice among this cohort.

We asked focus group participants about the proposed two-track system for donor identifiability. Most participants were in fact supportive of maintaining the current legislation – of donor identifiability at age 18. The two-track system was dismissed on grounds that it would deepen existing inequalities among different groups of donor-conceived people, and afford too much choice to future parents (rather than their children).

The participants in the Young Adults Study also described the current legislation as age-appropriate, with arguments against earlier identification including that donor-conceived individuals are, by age 18, sufficiently mature to process donor-identifying information; that the role of a donor does not include involvement in family life; and that such a change in law would mean that donor information no longer belonged to a child, nor would it be at the discretion of adult children to access. Regarding the latter point, it is noteworthy that the HFEA has considered Gillick competency and it will be interesting to see how discussions on this point proceed.

While few participants advocated donor identifiability from birth, those who did suggested that for individuals who are very interested in donor-identifying information, 18 years is a long time to wait; that this progressive proposal could reflect a paradigm shift towards a relational model (much in the way that other historical trends, such as non-disclosure, are now understood to be unethical); that it would simply bring law in line with practice (given uses of commercial DNA testing); that it might encourage more parents to disclose their use of donor gametes to their donor-conceived children; and that it might overcome some of the issues with identifiable-from-18 legislation, such as those relating to insufficient medical information and out-of-date contact information.

More generally, participants in both our individual and focus group interviews were supportive of the 2005 legislation, regardless of whether they were interested in accessing information about the donor themselves. Some participants suggested that the release of information at age 16 would be more appropriate. A minority advocated for the retrospective removal of anonymity, and a minority advocated for the reinstatement of the possibility of entirely anonymous donation.

Given this breadth of perspectives, it is perhaps difficult to make policy recommendations that could be said to 'generally reflect' the views of those who are donor conceived. However, there were areas of clear consensus among the participants in the Young Adults Study: about the desire for greater access to medical information, and for parental disclosure of donor conception to children at an early age. These research findings echo some of what has been found in previous studies conducted in the UK and elsewhere.

It is therefore disappointing that the scope of the HFEA's consultation did not allow for substantive engagement with either of these issues (although notably, the matter of medical information was raised by a patient in their response to the consultation):

'We are also concerned that the state holds data that is fundamental to the health of donor adults but does not forward that information to the NHS and to donor-conceived adults' healthcare workers. This means that the state is not properly informing GPs and other medical practitioners of the health circumstances of donor-conceived adults and thus hindering their ability to effectively advise on health issues.' [Patient]

Given that the HFEA has stated that its proposals for identifiability from birth are subject to further consideration of various points, including the 'continued respect of donor anonymity for pre-2005 donors and no retrospective early removal of anonymity for post-2005 donors', it is hoped that these matters will be discussed in the near future as the recommendations take further shape.

Finally, it is worth acknowledging that the participants in our study, who were primarily recruited to the research via the social media channels of Donor Conception Network and Donor Conceived UK, had very little knowledge of the HFEA overall. Several participants simply stated that they did not know what the HFEA is, and these individuals are highly unlikely to have responded to the consultation. Moreover, it remains the case that an indeterminate number of people do not know that they are donor conceived. These individuals are clearly also unlikely to share their views, either with the HFEA, or with academic researchers.

PET (the Progress Educational Trust) has exclusivity on the findings from the Young Adults Study, which are currently being prepared for academic publication.

#9

General Discussion / The impact of artificial wombs...

Last post by mensfe_admin - 2024-09-11 11:54

 A look at the potential benefits and challenges
by Philippa Kemp

Birth is a universal experience. Every person has been born from the body of another. The development of artificial wombs will change this.

Artificial wombs are medical devices that mimic the environment of the womb during pregnancy. This technology will allow a human to be gestated in an artificial womb instead of in a human body.

In recent decades there have been significant research breakthroughs in the development of artificial wombs for animals. In 2017, premature lamb fetuses were successfully gestated for up to four weeks in artificial wombs. The lambs not only survived but developed: they gained weight, grew wool coats, and opened their eyes. Artificial wombs have now been tested on hundreds of lambs, pigs, and mice. This animal research has laid the groundwork for the next stage: human trials.

It is expected that the first human trials for artificial wombs will be for premature babies. Babies that are born prematurely have not finished growing and may have health issues associated with their interrupted growth. Babies born as early as 25 weeks have good chances for survival if they receive intensive medical care, but many will develop severe health conditions including problems with breathing and feeding. These health conditions could be prevented or minimised if premature babies can finish growing inside artificial wombs. These devices may also give premature babies a stronger chance of survival, as many babies do not survive after premature birth. Artificial wombs designed specifically for premature babies have been developed and some are on the cusp of human trials (see BioNews 1210).

Countries have distinct legal and ethical requirements that must be satisfied before new medical technology can be tested in humans. In the UK, approval must be obtained from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), according to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. In the USA, an exemption must be granted by the Food and Drug Agency (FDA). The FDA has already started to consider this new technology, and if an exemption is granted, it is possible that human trials may start in the USA as early as this year, according to MIT Technology Review.

Artificial wombs could also provide an alternative method for having children. A woman could intentionally end her pregnancy – at any stage – by removing the fetus and transferring it to an artificial womb to grow to full term. This would allow someone to have a child even if they are unable to carry a pregnancy to full term or if they develop a condition that prevents them from continuing their pregnancy safely, such as an ectopic pregnancy. It could also be an option for those who simply no longer want to be pregnant but do not want to have a termination via abortion, either because they still want to have the baby, or they would prefer the baby to be adopted.

Artificial womb technology could be further developed to allow a human to be entirely grown within an artificial womb: from embryo to birth. This would provide another method for people to have children without experiencing pregnancy at all, in addition to the current options of adoption and surrogacy, for those who cannot or do not want to become pregnant.

Societal expectations for women may change if they are no longer seen as exclusive child-bearers, potentially leading to increased gender equality. For example, expectations for taking time off work to care for children may no longer primarily fall on women. There is also a finite age range during which a woman is fertile and able to have a child. The use of artificial wombs will provide more flexibility about at what age someone chooses to have a child, which may alter societal expectations about when we choose to have children.

The treatment of premature babies and introduction of new reproductive choices are beneficial changes which may be easily accepted in society. The social use of artificial wombs has been portrayed in films such as The Pod Generation (see BioNews 1235), which follows a couple having a baby via a portable artificial womb called a 'pod' in a technologically advanced society. Science fiction films such as I Am Mother have even touted artificial wombs as a method of creating new humans if humanity becomes extinct. However. the use of artificial wombs also presents several challenges.

It is unclear what legal status should be assigned to humans that reside within artificial wombs. A baby is recognised as a legal person under UK law once it has been born alive. Before birth, an unborn fetus has no legal status. UK law does not provide a clear definition for those residing in artificial wombs, as they do not clearly fit within the born or unborn definitions. Similarly, legal parenthood is assigned based on birth as the birth mother automatically becomes the legal parent. These rules do not currently apply to a baby born from an artificial womb.

The imminence of human trials means that artificial womb technology will become available within the present political and social climate. It could help alleviate politically charged issues about reproduction such as declining birthrates and overseas surrogacy arrangements (see BioNews 1208), as it would allow humans to be created without requiring the reproductive labour of women's bodies. Commercial applications of this technology may also be desirable, such as growing livestock for farmers.

Artificial wombs also raise ethical questions. Concerns have been expressed about the initial safety of artificial wombs because of the difficulties of moving from animal trials to human trials, and there are fears that babies will be negatively affected if they are grown 'without a mother's touch'. Legal systems may also have to consider whether limits should be placed on the number of children that can be born using this technology (or other reproductive methods) after a surrogacy agency in Georgia received requests from parents who wanted up to 1000 babies, Unreported World reported.

The availability of artificial wombs for humans is imminent, and this technology will fundamentally impact society over the next few decades in many ways – from changing the landscape of reproduction, to altering social attitudes about gender roles.

#10

Research / Study finds psychotherapy as e...

Last post by mensfe_admin - 2024-08-08 09:10

Psychotherapy is an effective treatment for adults with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following exposure to multiple traumatic events, according to new research from the University of East Anglia.
The efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions, or talking therapies, for treating PTSD in adults has been well-documented in various studies.
However, until now, it had not been established whether the benefit of psychotherapeutic interventions varies depending on whether the disorder is caused by one single event - for example, a traffic accident - or by multiple traumatic events such as during warfare or repeated incidents of sexual or physical violence.
An international team of researchers carried out a meta-analysis, based on data from around 10,600 patients, which has now been published in the journal Lancet Psychiatry.
The work was led by psychologists Dr Thole Hoppen and Prof Nexhmedin Morina from the Department for Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy at the University of Münster, alongside Prof Richard Meiser-Stedman from the University of East Anglia, Dr Ahlke Kip from the University of Münster, and Prof Marianne Skogbrott Birkeland from the Research Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies in Norway.
PTSD can be a devastating reaction to trauma.
Talking therapies (e.g. trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy) are effective treatments for adults with PTSD.
However, such therapies typically involve detailed discussion of trauma, with some mental health professionals being concerned that this approach may not work when people have suffered multiple traumas, such as combat or sexual abuse.
In our review of over 130 clinical trials we found that adults whose PTSD stemmed from multiple trauma experiences gained the same degree of benefit as adults with single-event-related PTSD.
We hope this evidence will encourage therapists and adults suffering from PTSD, regardless of what type of experiences they have had, to consider trying this powerful treatment."
Richard Meiser-Stedman, Professor of Clinical Psychology, Norwich Medical School
These results had, to date, only been reported for the treatment of children and adolescents with PTSD. Now, this study confirms that it also applies in the treatment of PTSD in adults.
The researchers said this was "very encouraging news" for both patients and therapists.
Around four per cent of the global population suffers from PTSD as a result of traumatic events.
The characteristic symptoms of PTSD include distressing intrusive traumatic memories, avoidance behavior and difficulty with emotional regulation.
The new findings have implications for the clinical practice and training of psychotherapists and mental health professionals more generally.
"Our data helps remove treatment barriers for patients with a history of multiple traumatic events," said Prof Hoppen.
"In addition to patients' fear of talking about their traumatic experiences, some psychotherapists hesitate to directly address traumatic experiences during treatment.
"However, trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy - a form of psychotherapy which helps process the traumatic memories - is not only very effective according to the accumulated data but more effective than non-trauma-focused interventions."
As a result, trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy is the first line of
Prof Hoppen added that future research requires longer-term data to enable a more solid estimation of the long-term efficacy of the treatment.
'The efficacy of psychological interventions for adult posttraumatic stress disorder following exposure to single versus multiple traumatic events: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials' is published in The Lancet Psychiatry.
Source:
University of East Anglia
Journal reference:
Hoppen, T. H., et al. (2024) The efficacy of psychological interventions for adult post-traumatic stress disorder following exposure to single versus multiple traumatic events: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. The Lancet