The Effectiveness of Imagery Rescripting Interventions for Military Veterans With Nightmares and Sleep Disturbances: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Imagery rescripting interventions improve sleep quality in military veterans, but their effect on nightmare frequency is not statistically significant. A meta-analysis of 15 studies with 658 participants found that veterans receiving imagery rescripting showed significantly greater improvements in sleep quality compared to control groups. However, no significant difference was found for nightmare frequency. The review included studies with poor methodological quality and considerable heterogeneity, so findings should be interpreted cautiously. Further research with larger, more diverse veteran samples is needed.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Imagery rescripting (ImRs) interventions have been found effective in improving sleep outcomes, although research has mostly focused on civilian, rather than military, samples. The aim of this review was to estimate the overall effectiveness of ImRs interventions for military veterans on primary outcomes of nightmare frequency and sleep quality. A systematic search was conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycArticles, PsycINFO, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection and the PTSDpubs database and was completed on 1 November 2021. Randomised controlled trials, nonrandomised trials and pre-post studies of ImRs interventions in veterans with sleep disturbances or nightmares were included. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) tool, and meta-analysis was performed using Stata. Nineteen articles from 15 empirical studies were included in the review, and data from the 15 studies (involving 658 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis findings indicated that ImRs interventions are associated with significant positive changes from pretreatment to posttreatment for nightmare and sleep quality. Significantly greater improvements were found in ImRs interventions compared to control groups for sleep quality (Hedges' g = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.20, -0.10]) but not for nightmare frequency (Hedges' g = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.14]). Overall, the meta-analysis included a relatively small number of studies with poor methodological quality and considerable heterogeneity; therefore, findings should be cautiously interpreted. Further research should focus on veteran participants with larger samples and from a broader range of sources to determine effectiveness more confidently.