TRTP Feasibility Study

This page summarises the first formal study of The Richards Trauma Process (TRTP).

TRTP has developed through a practice-informed research pathway. Before this feasibility study was conducted, TRTP had already been protocolised, taught to practitioners and delivered in community settings. Earlier practice-based outcomes reporting had also provided preliminary signals that supported the need for formal study.

This feasibility study represents the next step on that pathway: moving from practice-based delivery and preliminary outcomes reporting into structured feasibility research.

The purpose of the study was not to provide proof of effectiveness. Its purpose was to examine whether TRTP could be studied safely, consistently and practically in routine clinical practice, and whether the early findings supported progression to a larger controlled trial.

TRTP is following a practice-informed research pathway:

Practice development → Protocolisation / manualisation → Practitioner training → Real-world clinical use → Practice-based outcomes reporting →  feasibility study → pilot study → Controlled trials

This page represents the feasibility study stage.

The article states that TRTP had already been protocolised and delivered in the community before the study began. It also describes the pilot as an early step in determining whether TRTP can and should be evaluated in a larger randomised trial.

This places the pilot after earlier practice-based outcomes reporting and before larger controlled trials.

Current research stage: early formal evidence-building.

This study was designed to test whether TRTP could be studied formally in a community psychotherapy setting.

More specifically, it examined whether:

• participants could be recruited and retained;
• standardised outcome measures could be collected within routine clinical practice;
• the intervention appeared acceptable and safe;
• early outcome patterns supported the case for a larger trial.

The study used a before-and-after single-arm feasibility design. This means all participants received TRTP, and their outcomes were measured from baseline to one-month follow-up.

Outcomes were measured using the DASS 21, which assesses depression, anxiety and stress, and the PCL-5, which measures PTSD symptoms.

This matters because the study added structure beyond earlier practice-based outcomes reporting. It included a defined feasibility framework, standardised measures, a one-month follow-up point and trauma-specific symptom measurement.

The feasibility study reported that:

• 23 of 40 new adult clients were eligible, consented and commenced TRTP;
• 20 of 23 participants completed therapy and one-month follow-up;
• participants who completed therapy received an average of 3.2 sessions, totalling approximately 6.1 hours of therapy;
• 11 of 15 feasibility criteria were met;
• 18 of 20 treatment completers showed clinically meaningful improvement on at least one distress measure;
• no clinically meaningful deterioration was observed among treatment completers in the paired outcome data.

These findings supported the study’s conclusion that a larger controlled trial would be warranted.

Among treatment completers, 18 of 20 participants showed clinically meaningful improvement on at least one distress measure, with no clinically meaningful deterioration observed in the paired outcome data.

The article also reports that 12 of 23 participants were above the threshold for likely PTSD at baseline, while none of the 20 treatment completers were above that threshold at one-month follow-up.

These are promising early findings. They should be read as pilot-level outcome signals, not as definitive proof of effectiveness.

Earlier practice-based outcomes reporting helped ask:

Is there enough real-world signal to justify formal research?

This pilot study helped ask the next question:

Can TRTP be studied credibly in a structured research setting?

At the feasibility level, the answer was yes.

The study showed that TRTP could be evaluated in a community setting, that recruitment and retention were achievable, that standardised measures could be collected, and that the early findings supported progression to a larger controlled trial.

This makes the study an important transition point in TRTP’s research pathway: from practice-based evidence into formal research evaluation.

This study was a feasibility trial, not an effectiveness trial.

Because there was no control group and no randomisation, the study cannot prove that TRTP caused the improvements observed. It also cannot show that TRTP is superior to other therapies, or that the same findings would necessarily generalise across all therapists, settings or client populations.

The correct reading is more precise:

This feasibility study provides early formal evidence that TRTP can be studied in community practice, with promising preliminary outcome signals that justify larger and more rigorous research.

The article reports that TRTP appeared acceptable and safe in this feasibility sample.

Among treatment completers, no clinically meaningful deterioration was observed in the paired outcome data. The study also reports that all 15 treatment completers who chose to provide written comments said the therapy was helpful, although feedback was not captured from the three participants who did not complete therapy.

The manuscript also notes one in-session adverse event and two non-serious adverse events reported after completion of therapy, while still concluding that the method appeared acceptable and safe in this pilot context.

This is the right level of claim: acceptable and safe in this feasibility study, not a blanket statement that all safety questions are settled.

Study title
The Richards Trauma Process: A Before-After Single-Arm Feasibility Trial of a Novel Psychotherapy

Study design
Before-and-after single-arm feasibility trial

Setting
Community psychotherapist practice in Brisbane, Australia

Measures used
DASS 21
PCL-5
SUDS

Follow-up point
One month after therapy

Trial registration
ACTRN12625001423404

The next step is a larger and more rigorous evaluation.

The article concludes that a larger randomised controlled trial would be warranted. Future research should also include longer-term follow-up and continue examining TRTP across different practitioners, settings and client groups.

This is how a responsible evidence pathway develops: practice-based signal first, feasibility research next, then larger controlled trials.

This feasibility study marks an important formal research milestone for TRTP.

It shows that TRTP has moved beyond community delivery and preliminary practice-based outcomes reporting into structured feasibility research. The study found that TRTP could be evaluated in a community psychotherapy setting, that the early outcome signals were encouraging, and that a larger controlled trial would be warranted.

The honest message is not that the evidence journey is complete.

The honest message is stronger than that:

TRTP has entered formal research evaluation, and the first pilot study supports progression to larger controlled trials.