The cognitive behavior conjoint therapy program is a program that targets war veterans, their spouses and the community. The program has been adopted by National Center for PTSD. The ultimate focus is to improve PTSD symptoms and make it easy for the participant to adjust to intimate relationship. The goals of the program are; to eliminate PTSD in Lock Heaven for war veterans using assessment and treatment, to provide psychological and affectionate support to the family of the veterans, and to help people who are suffering from other forms of stress not related to PTSD.
The objectives of the program are; to sensitize the community on the importance of psychological support and to make sure that everyone understands the need for psychological support. Another is to carry out psychological screening for stress and related problems. Other objectives are, to utilize data gathered to formulate tailor-made group and personal therapy for the community and to identify individuals who have or likely to develop PTSD. Lastly, the other objectives are; to offer psychological and psychiatric care for the affected and to ensure that programs and projects are carried out in a professional manner that promotes human dignity and ethical behavior (McKenzie, et al., 2012; Shnaider, et al., 2014).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The cognitive behavior conjoint therapy program focuses to improve PTSD symptoms and to enhance intimate relationships between the affected parties. A three phase treatment each with a significant impact on the patient provides empirical data to support the program. The first step offers psychoeducation on the influence of PTSD symptoms and relationship functions to enhance positive behavior. The second phase employs behavioral methods that promote satisfaction in relationships by addressing avoidance. The last phase of the program deals with specific trauma appraisals and cognitions that maintain PTSD and relationship problems (Shnaider, et al., 2014).
The authors of the article have done a previous evaluation of a similar program on another paper. In their assessment, they identified several emotional, behavior and cognition disturbances that contribute to PTSD. According to the article, the therapy is conjoint interventions aimed at reducing PTSD and enhances an intimate relationship. To achieve this, it utilizes behavioral intervention to improve conflict management and communication. It also involves cognitive interventions that identify and challenge trauma-related symptoms (McKenzie, et al., 2012; Shnaider, et al., 2014).
The primary evaluation questions for the program are, describe your medical condition before and after the therapy. Can you describe your current relationship with your loved ones? How does your current behavior compare to the pre-treatment period? These questions will try to identify the changes that have taken place from the time the individual started the therapy to date. It will determine whether the expended effort and its contribution. Has the treatment led to the reduction in the post-trauma effects? All the questions are outcome and impact (McKenzie, et al., 2012; Shnaider, et al., 2014).
Findings
Individuals in the CBCT for the PTSD treatment exhibited better improvement than those not in the program on all symptoms cluster measures of the CAPs as well as cognitive measures. A majority of the subscales of the TRGI and PBRS among group sizes suggested above common effect for CBCT for PTSD compared to the rest of the outcomes. However, the evaluation as used in the article is time-consuming but produces better results because it is detailed and captures different aspects of the respondent. It can also be influenced by biased responses (Shnaider, et al., 2014).
Mini evaluation plan
The project manager will coordinate with the team to implement the program within two years. The qualitative and quantitative research will be carried out to identify individuals with PTSD and other suffering from other forms of stress. The process will be ongoing and will involve interns and volunteers as data collectors. Data will be analyzed continuously and participants engaged in the program (Issel, 2014).
Before the start of the project, the question what do want to do should be asked. Within the first two months, the whole program should be running with five percent of the targeted population having been reached. Data analysis should start at the end of the second month. The responsibility will be on the analyst and project manager. At this point, the questions what data should be collected and what is the expected output for the research should be asked. The next step is to incorporate identified people in the program. This should take three weeks. Liaison Manager will be in charge. At this point the question should be, what should be done and by who and within what time frame? (McKenzie, et al., 2012).
Therapy will be administered to the incorporated individuals. Responsibility should be to the therapist. Once treatment has been conducted the next question should be what results do we want to see? Finally, the people are taken back to the society. At this stage, we should ask the question; did we achieve the desired outcome? What needs to be changed in future (Britton, 2010; McKenzie, et al., 2012).
References
Britton, A. (2010). Evaluating interventions: experimental study designs in health promotion. Evaluating Health Promotion, 42-55. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199569298.003.0004
Issel, L. M. (2014). Health program planning and evaluation: a practical and systematic approach for community health . Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
McKenzie, J. F., Neiger, B. L., & Thackeray, R. (2012). Planning, implementing, & evaluating health promotion programs: A Primer (6th edition) (6th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Company, Subs of Addison Wesley Longman.
Shnaider, P., Pukay-Martin, N. D., Fredman, S. J., Macdonald, A., & Monson, C. M. (2014). Effects of Cognitive-Behavioral Conjoint Therapy for PTSD on Partners’ Psychological Functioning. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 27 (2), 129-136. doi:10.1002/jts.21893
