Patterns of reduction of distress in clinical conditions using eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR).

Abstract

patterns, severe personality patterns, depressive constructs, other clinical syndromes, severe clinical syndromes and dissociation following EMDR treatment. Thirty-two people, ranging from 23 to 65 years old, underwent the full EMDR protocol treatment for up to three traumas. The findings regarding clinical personality patterns revealed that EMDR is most effective in reducing the symptoms of dependent personality pattern because 76% of participants with clinically significant dependent personality pattern before EMDR treatment no longer had a clinically significant score (>75) on the MCMI-III at the end of EMDR treatment; compared to 75% with masochistic personality pattern, 77% with negativistic personality pattern, 69% with avoidant personality pattern, 40% with depressive personality pattern and 29% with schizoid personality pattern. These gains were maintained on the MCMI-III at follow-up by 76% with dependent personality pattern, 64% with masochistic personality pattern, 46% with negativistic personality pattern, 38% with avoidant personality pattern, 30% with depressive personality pattern and 29% with schizoid personality pattern. The analysis of the severe personality patterns at the end of EMDR treatment revealed that the scores on the MCMI-III reduced from within one standard deviation above the mean (60-74) to below the mean (<60) for 84% of participants with borderline personality pattern, compared to 68% with paranoid personality pattern and 52% with schizotypal personality pattern. These gains were maintained on the MCMI-III at follow-up by 84% with borderline personality pattern, 68% with paranoid personality pattern and 48% with schizotypal personality pattern. The analysis of the depressive constructs revealed that EMDR is most effective in reducing symptoms of major depression as 86% of participants with clinically significant major depression before EMDR treatment no longer had a clinically significant score (>75) on the MCMI-III at the end of EMDR treatment; compared to 73% with dysthymia and 40% with depressive personality pattern. These gains were maintained on the MCMI-III at followup by 86% with major depression, 58% with dysthymia, and 33% with depressive personality pattern. The findings regarding the other clinical syndromes revealed that 91% of participants with clinically significant post traumatic stress before EMDR treatment, no longer had a clinically significant score (>75) on the MCMI-III at the end of EMDR treatment, compared to 75% of participants with anxiety. These gains were maintained on the MCMI-III at followup by 91% of participants with post traumatic stress and 69% of participants with anxiety. The analysis of the severe clinical syndromes at the end of EMDR treatment revealed that the scores on the MCMI-III reduced from within one standard deviation above the mean (60-74) to below the mean (<60) for 78% of participants with delusional disorder, compared to 67% with thought disorder, 32% with bipolar (manic), 28% with alcohol dependence and 28% with drug dependence. These gains were maintained on the MCMI-III at follow-up by 67% of participants with delusional disorder, compared to 63% with thought disorder, 53% with bipolar (manic), 48% with alcohol dependence and 57% with drug dependence. The analysis of the effects of EMDR on dissociation revealed that there was a significant decrease in symptoms of dissociation on the DES at the end of EMDR treatment and these gains were maintained at the follow-up measurement at the end of the study. Whilst the findings of the present study cannot be generalised due to the small sample size, the findings do suggest that EMDR is successful in the treatment of a number of clinical conditions in addition to post traumatic stress; with further research being strongly indicated in order to further explicate the efficacy of EMDR across different psychiatric conditions.