ReviewBMJ mental health2026
De-implementing treatments from the healthcare system: trauma-focused versus non-trauma-focused therapy of post-traumatic stress disorder as an example.
Review in BMJ mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, a proposal was made to de-implement ineffective or harmful psychotherapeutic treatments from the healthcare system. Given the potential wide-ranging implications of this proposal, a critical review is warranted. As an example of an 'implementation failure', the authors of the proposal discussed non-trauma-focused treatments of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). For this reason, we reviewed the evidence for non-trauma-focused psychotherapies compared with trauma-focused or exposure-based psychotherapies of PTSD in adults, published in the recent 7 years. We focused on efficacy and safety as the central criteria for potential (de-)implementation. The majority of meta-analytical results showed non-trauma-focused psychotherapies to be non-inferior to trauma-focused psychotherapies. In only a few analyses, non-inferiority was not found or exposure therapy achieved statistically significantly better effect sizes, which, however, were small and not clinically significant. Furthermore, non-trauma-focused psychotherapies were found to be safe and well-tolerated with low dropout. Hence, key criteria for de-implementation are not met. The results question the claim that non-trauma-focused therapies constitute an implementation failure. Thus, the example of trauma-focused versus non-trauma-focused psychotherapy of PTSD highlights fundamental problems associated with the proposal to de-implement specific treatments from the healthcare system. The reviewed results suggest that researcher allegiance may have an important impact on (de-)implementation decisions and needs to be rigidly controlled for. Several open questions remain, including consented criteria on which de-implementation decisions would be based, who decides about the actors responsible for making these decisions and, crucially, the mechanisms by which those in positions of authority are held accountable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.