4. Discussion
MDD, PTSD
In this open-label pilot study, G-TEP was found to significantly decrease symptoms of PTSD, especially those relating to disturbances in self-organization, in a group of migrant participants who completed the intervention. This improvement was accompanied by a significant decrease in the functional impact of PTSD symptoms. Symptoms of MDD also decreased, although non-significantly. Notably, this decrease almost reached statistical significance (The proposed intervention consisted of 6 weekly 2-hour sessions. This framework is consistent with the one used in other studies investigating the clinical interest of G-TEP EMDR (for a review, see [Two specificities of the intervention proposed herein should be discussed. First, the sessions were conducted with a high number of practitioners, two psychiatrists and a psychologist. It may have been possible to deliver this intervention with only two practitioners. Secondly, each participant was accompanied by a volunteer who was always the same throughout the intervention. This was done to provide social support during the difficult desensitization process and to encourage session attendance. Since only three participants missed only one session each, these objectives can be considered as having been achieved, and the final attrition rate was 10%. The support provided by the volunteers was intensive, and this may have influenced the results concerning the GTEP intervention. Nevertheless, because of social, administrative, and cultural issues they face, migrants have more difficulties in accessing health care, and stronger support is necessary.There are some limitations to the present study. The analyzed sample was small, which drastically decreased the statistical power of the study. Because of the limited number of participants, the diagnostic features of the ITQ could not be used. Moreover, this study did not include a control group, and there was no follow-up assessment after the intervention. Thus, the expectancy bias and the natural evolution of the symptoms were not controlled. There was a large heterogeneity concerning the clinical responses to G-TEP, with clear beneficial effects in some participants (e.g., participants 5 and 9) but no benefits at all for other participants (e.g., participant 3). The size of the sample did not allow us to investigate potentially predictive markers of response.