Skip to main content
. 2016 Oct 11;2016(10):CD012371. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012371

Chemtob 2002.

Methods Randomised trial of individual therapy vs group therapy or wait list
Participants Included (n = 248)
Children in grades 2 to 6 who met criteria for disaster exposure measured by a score at or above the 94th percentile for trauma symptom severity on the Kauai Recovery Index. Age: 6 to 12 years (mean, 8.2 years). Female: 61.4%. Hawaiian or part‐Hawaiian 30.1%; white 24.9%; Filipino 19.7%; Japanese 9.2%. 88% met DSM‐IV criteria for self reported PTSD
Excluded
Not reported
Setting
Ten elementary public schools on a Hawaiian island 2 years after a major hurricane, 1995 to 1996
Interventions Individual therapy
Therapists were provided a standard box of art and play materials, and therapy was guided by treatment manuals. The 4 weekly sessions covered safety and helplessness, loss, mobilising competence, issues of anger and ending and going forward. Themes were explored through a combination of play, expressive art and talk
Group therapy
As for individual therapy, except that co‐operative play and discussion were used in group sessions of 4 to 8 children
Therapists
Therapists were 3 school counsellors and 1 social worker experienced at working with children in schools who received 4 ½ days of training and 3 hours of supervision each week
Outcomes PTSD symptoms
Scale: Kauai Recovery Index (24‐item)
Rater: child
When
At 1 and 12 months
Notes Sample numbers were not reported, and these data could not be obtained from study authors
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk SPSS used to generate randomisation sequence. Randomised to 1 of 3 cohorts, then randomised to group or individual treatments
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not reported
Blinding of participants (performance bias High risk Participants probably were aware of whether they had been allocated to individual or group therapy or wait list
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Outcome assessment could not be blinded, as the only measure was self reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Loss to follow‐up not clear
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All outcomes appear to have been reported
Other bias Low risk No other bias was apparent