Mind-Body Medicine›Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR)

Sub-technique

Recent Traumatic Episode Protocol (R-TEP)

An adaptation of the standard EMDR protocol for very recent trauma, in which the target memory is conceptualized as the entire episode from the traumatic event to the present rather than a single incident memory.

1 study · 1 modality · 1 technique · 2 traditions · 5 conditions

Studies about Recent Traumatic Episode Protocol (R-TEP) in Akasha →

Studies about Recent Traumatic Episode Protocol (R-TEP)

1 study · newest first

Early intervention with eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy to reduce the severity of post-traumatic stress symptoms in recent rape victims: a randomized controlled trial.

Milou L V Covers et al. (2021) · European journal of psychotraumatology

This randomized controlled trial with 57 recent rape victims explored whether early eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy reduces post-traumatic stress more effectively than watchful waiting, the standard wait-and-monitor approach used at Dutch sexual assault centres. EMDR is a trauma-focused psychotherapy in which a therapist guides bilateral eye movements while the person recalls a distressing memory, aiming to reduce the memory's vividness and emotional charge. Watchful waiting, by contrast, involves brief check-ins, psychoeducation, and emotional support without active trauma processing. About 40% of rape victims develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) within three months, making the timing and content of early support clinically significant. Fifty-seven participants (56 women, one man; average age about 26) were randomly assigned, between two and four weeks after a rape, to either two sessions of EMDR therapy (3.5 hours total, using a protocol adapted for very recent trauma) or two brief supportive phone calls with a case manager. Symptoms were measured before treatment, right after treatment, and again at 8 and 12 weeks using clinician-rated and self-report scales covering post-traumatic stress (CAPS-5, PCL-5), anxiety and depression (HADS), dissociation (DTS), general psychological symptoms (BSI), and sexual functioning (FSFI, AOPFS). Both groups improved substantially over the 12 weeks (large effect sizes, Cohen's d around 1.5, meaning both approaches were followed by a large drop in symptoms), but EMDR was not more effective than watchful waiting for post-traumatic stress symptoms at any time point (no statistically significant difference, p > .05 throughout). EMDR did show a short-lived edge over watchful waiting on anxiety (a 2.25-point lower score on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale immediately after treatment, p = .023) and on dissociative symptoms (p = .013), but both advantages faded by the 12-week follow-up. No meaningful differences emerged between the two approaches for depression, general psychological symptoms, sexual functioning, or feelings of guilt and shame. By 12 weeks, fewer EMDR participants still met PTSD diagnostic criteria than watchful-waiting participants (16% versus 35%), though this difference was not formally tested for significance. One EMDR participant left the study after an increase in suicidal thoughts and received care; the treatment was otherwise well tolerated. The authors conclude that two sessions of early EMDR conferred no lasting advantage over watchful waiting for recent rape victims and, given its lower cost, state that the findings support existing guidance favoring watchful waiting as the default early response. The comparison involved an active watchful-waiting condition rather than no treatment, so the trial cannot show whether either approach outperforms natural recovery. The sample was small, mostly female, and experienced considerable dropout (21 of 57 participants), limiting how far the results generalize to other populations. The authors call for further research into watchful waiting's own effectiveness as an early intervention.

Read summary →Full text available