Adolescent dating violence may lead to adverse health behaviors. We examined associations between sexual teen dating violence victimization (TDVV) and sexual risk behaviors among U.S. high school students using 2013 and 2015 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey data (combined n = 29,346). Sex-stratified logistic regression models were used to estimate these associations among students who had dated or gone out with someone during the past 12 months (n = 20,093). Among these students, 10.5% experienced sexual TDVV. Sexual TDVV was positively associated with sexual intercourse before age 13, four or more lifetime sexual partners, current sexual activity, alcohol or drug use before last sexual intercourse, and no pregnancy prevention during last sexual intercourse. Given significant findings among both sexes, it is valuable for dating violence prevention efforts to target both female and male students.

This study examined individual and partner characteristics that contribute to the propensity for physical violence in couples. In a sample of 171 heterosexual dating couples, each partner completed measures assessing experienced childhood abuse, alcohol use, alcohol expectancies, attachment, and relationship length. Physically violent men reported more abuse from each parent, greater alcohol use, anxious attachment, and a longer relationship. Their female partner reported more childhood abuse by the father and reciprocal perpetrated violence. Physically violent women reported more abuse from the father, greater alcohol use, aggressive alcohol expectancies, and a longer relationship. Their male partner reported greater abuse from the mother, greater alcohol use, and reciprocal perpetrated violence. This study demonstrates the importance of considering how each individual’s characteristics within a dyad contribute to increased propensity for dating violence.

A large proportion (11%–60%) of people with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) also suffer from substance use disorder (SUD). As the high cooccurrence of PTSD and SUD leads to a worsening of psychopathological severity, development and evaluation of integrated treatments become highly valuable for individuals presenting with both diagnoses. Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy may fit these needs. This article summarized all studies that investigated EMDR treatment for SUD, to clarify whether EMDR might be a useful approach. A comprehensive Title/Abstract/Keyword search was conducted on PsycInfo, PsychArticle, PubMed, and Scopus databases. A total of 135 articles were retrieved, and 8 articles met inclusion/exclusion criteria. One RCT and one case study evaluated trauma-focused EMDR; one clinical RCT, one non-clinical RCT, one cross-over study, and one case study evaluated addiction-focused EMDR; and one quasi-experimental and one multiphase case study evaluated the combination of addiction-focused and trauma-focused EMDR. Results show that EMDR treatment consistently reduces posttraumatic symptoms, but that its effects on SUD symptoms are less evident. Although EMDR should be considered as a promising tool for this population due to its possible potential to improve SUD outcomes, further research is needed to see whether EMDR therapy, either trauma-focused or addiction-focused, is effective for SUD. We conclude with suggestions for future research and clinical practice in this area.

This article introduces the “Flashforward procedure,” which is a specific application of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR). It is used for the treatment of irrational fears, for example, when a persisting fear continues after the core memories of past events have been fully processed. A theoretical background is presented, and the procedure is explained, together with 2 illustrative case studies. We describe psychological conditions and mental health problems for which the use of EMDR aimed at client’s flashforward might be appropriate, as well as indicating which stage in the therapeutic process is most applicable for the use of this procedure. Furthermore, the Flashforward procedure is compared with other EMDR applications and similar procedures in other therapies. Some implications are discussed.

Cet article présente la technique éclair, une nouvelle technique utilisée pendant la phase de préparation de la thérapie EMDR (désensibilisation et retraitement par les mouvements oculaires) pour faciliter le traitement de souvenirs traumatiques intenses auxquels les patients hésiteraient autrement à accéder. Les premières données, demeurant à confirmer, suggèrent que cette technique pourrait permettre aux patients d’accéder à ces souvenirs d’abord de manière la moins perturbante possible, réduisant leur intensité émotionnelle, afin de pouvoir ensuite les aborder plus pleinement et les traiter à l’aide de la thérapie EMDR. La technique semble aisément tolérée par les patients de tous âges, y compris les enfants ; elle paraît rapide et relativement indolore pour les patients, même ceux qui possèdent des souvenirs cibles particulièrement perturbants ; elle s’enseigne facilement aux cliniciens. Elle se distingue par le fait que les patients qui évitent un souvenir terriblement perturbant peuvent se voir offrir une façon de le traiter sans devoir le ramener clairement à l’esprit. Quatre exemples de cas, dans lesquels quatre cliniciens différents ont utilisé la technique, sont présentés brièvement. Des suggestions sont formulées pour des études à venir. Cet article présente des hypothèses pour expliquer divers mécanismes d’action et évoque les effets en termes de la théorie de reconsolidation mnésique.

The comparative treatment efficiency of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy and prolonged exposure (PE) therapy for the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was tested for 20 participants diagnosed with PTSD. Efficiency was operationalized as the total exposure time to traumatic memories during and between sessions; the number of trauma memories processed over the course of therapy; how many sessions were required to resolve the primary trauma; and lower subjective units of disturbance (SUD) levels after the initial treatment session. Participants were randomized to each condition and received 12 90-minute sessions of therapy over 6 weeks. Symptoms were assessed by treatment-blind assessors at posttreatment, and at 3 and 6 months follow-up. Results demonstrated a significant decrease in symptoms posttreatment for PTSD (d = .64), depression (d = .46), anxiety (d = .52) and stress (d = .57) for both groups, which was maintained at 3 months. At 6 months there was a small increase in symptoms compared to the 3-month time point on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) but no significant change in any self-report symptoms EMDR was significantly more efficient than PE. EMDR participants had less total exposure time to traumatic memories when homework hours were included (d = .66), reported lower SUD scores after the first session (d = .45), required fewer sessions for the target memory to decrease to near zero distress levels (d = .84), and processed more traumatic memories.

Healthcare workers and mental health clinicians are at heightened risk for mental health issues while they support their communities during the COVID-19 pandemic, and early psychological intervention is crucial to protect them. The Self-Care Traumatic Episode Protocol (STEP) is a computerized intervention adapted from the Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Group Traumatic Episode Protocol (EMDR G-TEP). This study evaluated the effectiveness of STEP for mental health clinicians in the context of COVID-19. Thirty-four mental health clinicians were randomly allocated to treatment (n = 17) or waitlist (n = 17). The Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) and Depression and Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21) were completed by the treatment group at baseline and 1-week follow-up postintervention and by the waitlist group at baseline, preintervention, and 1-week follow-up postintervention. Pre–post comparisons showed a significant decrease in depression, anxiety, and stress for Immediate Treatment, t(15) = −3.64, p < .01, d = .73, and for Delayed Treatment, t(15) = −3.53, p < .01, d = .68, There was also a significant increase in general self-efficacy for Immediate Treatment, t(15) = 2.87, p < .05, d = .46, and Delayed Treatment, t(15) = 3.72, p < .01, d = .56. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) indicated that STEP may be effective in increasing general self-efficacy and reducing symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress among mental health clinicians in the context of COVID-19. Further research investigating the potential of utilizing the STEP intervention on a larger scale and with other populations is needed.