Dissociative Identity Disorder Treatment: Psychotherapy and Evidence
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 9, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Dissociation & Dissociative Disorders · Written by Artificial Sapiens
Dissociative identity disorder (DID) treatment is a structured clinical process aimed at reducing distressing dissociation, strengthening safety and continuity in everyday life, improving emotional regulation, and helping a person regain control over choices, relationships, work, and health. Psychotherapy is the central treatment approach described in specialist guidance. Clinicians may combine skills-based care, careful work with traumatic experiences when relevant, and rehabilitation. The pace and techniques depend on an individualized assessment rather than the number of identity states someone reports. The International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD) guidelines describe a phase-oriented approach; recent research offers promising results alongside substantial uncertainty about which components are most effective. For a related clinical perspective, see Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID): Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Treatment.
The essential evidence distinction is between a treatment model recommended by expert consensus and a treatment shown superior to alternatives in rigorous clinical trials. A 2025 systematic review of 19 treatment studies found improvements across several psychotherapy approaches, but emphasized the need for well-powered controlled trials. A 2026 systematic review of randomized studies reported that the two trials involving DID-focused samples did not show a between-group advantage on dissociative symptom outcomes. This does not mean treatment cannot help; it specifies what the comparative evidence has and has not demonstrated.
This article examines DID-specific psychotherapy and its evidence, including stabilization, trauma work, identity-state cooperation, functional integration, psychotherapy modalities, medication, risks, outcomes, and questions to ask a clinician. The broader diagnosis and symptom criteria are covered in our DID clinical overview. Information here supports informed care discussions and does not establish an individual diagnosis or treatment plan.
What does treatment for dissociative identity disorder involve?
DID is a recognized dissociative disorder involving disruptions in identity and agency, with related discontinuities in memory and experience. Its presentation varies, and some people seek care for depression, anxiety, self-harm, sleep disturbance, amnesia, or interpersonal difficulties before dissociative symptoms are identified. The American Psychiatric Association identifies psychotherapy as the principal treatment, while the World Health Organization's ICD-11 clinical manual provides an international diagnostic framework. DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 have different diagnostic formulations; the treating clinician uses the applicable system and considers the full clinical picture.
Treatment ordinarily begins with diagnostic clarification, a shared formulation of difficulties, and assessment of immediate risks. This may include exploration of episodes of lost time, dissociative intrusions, depersonalization, changes in sense of agency, voice-hearing experiences, trauma symptoms, medical conditions, substance effects, and current functioning. An online checklist, social-media identification with a DID description, or a dissociation screening score cannot substitute for a qualified clinical evaluation. An inaccurate formulation can lead to poorly matched treatment and missed medical or psychiatric needs.
A useful plan specifies concrete goals that matter to the person: fewer dangerous gaps in awareness; improved safety and sleep; less distress from intrusive experiences; the ability to remain oriented during difficult conversations; better coordination of daily activities; and restored educational, occupational, and social functioning. Symptom change is assessed repeatedly rather than inferred from a single striking session. The same person may need different forms of support at different points.
What are realistic therapy goals?
Goals can include reducing dissociative amnesia and loss of continuity, responding to identity-related experiences without escalating conflict, increasing present-moment awareness, managing intense feelings, and improving cooperation around responsibilities. When PTSD, depression, substance problems, eating problems, or chronic pain coexist, clinicians consider them within the treatment plan without treating them as interchangeable with DID itself.
Some clinical traditions describe final fusion or unification of identity states as one possible outcome. Other patients and clinicians emphasize stable cooperation, shared awareness, and functioning without requiring a particular subjective account of identity. The ISSTD guidance discusses integration in a broader sense of coordinated mental functioning. The evidence does not establish that every patient must pursue one specific identity outcome to improve.
The phase-oriented approach: what its three phases mean
Specialist recommendations often organize care into three overlapping therapeutic tasks: establishing safety and stabilization, processing relevant traumatic experiences when clinically appropriate, and strengthening integration and rehabilitation. These are planning principles, not compulsory stages on a fixed calendar. People can revisit earlier skills during later work, and some treatment courses emphasize one task more than another. The 2011 ISSTD guideline is influential expert consensus but predates important treatment studies, so it should be read alongside newer evidence.
Phase 1: safety, stabilization, and daily functioning
Early care often focuses on building a reliable therapeutic relationship, identifying current sources of danger, making an individualized safety plan, improving sleep and routines, recognizing dissociative warning signs, and learning methods of emotional regulation. For a person who loses awareness under stress or has episodes of self-injury, developing reliable support and practical safeguards can take precedence over examining traumatic material.
Orientation exercises, paced attention to the environment, predictable session structure, and personalized coping plans may help some individuals remain engaged. A clinician evaluates whether a specific grounding or body-focused exercise actually helps the patient; for some people, inward attention or particular sensory practices can increase distress. Stabilization should be functional and collaborative, measured through safety, self-management, and participation in life.
Therapy may address how different self-states express needs, fears, memories, or preferences. A clinician can work respectfully with the person's reported experiences while avoiding leading questions, pressure to produce identities, or certainty about mechanisms that research has not settled. The objective is safer coordination, continuity, and agency, rather than dramatic demonstrations of switching.
Phase 2: carefully paced work with traumatic experiences
Some patients have symptoms linked to adverse experiences and may benefit from trauma-focused interventions once there is sufficient capacity to tolerate the work safely. Treatment may involve discussing emotions, meanings, avoidance patterns, grief, shame, or persistent expectations of danger. A clinician determines the degree of exposure and whether to modify or defer it based on current safety, dissociation, and medical or psychiatric instability.
Evidence in PTSD populations supports several trauma-focused therapies, but those effects should not be transferred automatically to DID. The 2026 randomized-trial synthesis found differences between DID-focused trials and studies in PTSD or borderline presentations; these groups varied in diagnoses and baseline severity. Clinicians need direct DID evidence before declaring one trauma-processing protocol superior.
Trauma work is also not a search for hidden historical facts. Memories may arise during therapy and deserve sensitive attention, but their appearance or emotional intensity does not independently verify an event. Therapists should avoid suggestive memory-recovery techniques, leading questions, and interpretations that present uncertain recollections as established history. The person can receive care for current distress without being required to discover a particular narrative of childhood trauma.
Phase 3: integration, rehabilitation, and a sustainable life
Later goals may include reducing compartmentalization of everyday tasks, improving continuity in relationships and decision-making, developing a coherent sense of personal responsibility, and resuming valued activities. Rehabilitation may address employment, education, parenting, financial organization, community participation, and maintenance of skills following setbacks. These outcomes matter even when some dissociative experiences persist.
Functional integration means greater coordination and access to information or choices across experiences that once felt disconnected. In some treatment frameworks it may lead to a more unified sense of self; in others the individual works toward stable cooperation. Recovery is best judged by safety, quality of life, impairment, distress, and sustained functioning rather than by a prescribed count of identity states.
Does phase-oriented treatment actually work?
The Griffiths and colleagues 2025 systematic review screened a large literature and included 19 studies involving adults diagnosed with DID or closely related specified dissociative disorders. It reported improvement in dissociation, other psychiatric symptoms, and functioning across phase-oriented care and other psychological interventions. Only three included studies were categorized as delivering phase-oriented treatment in the review's specific analysis. The authors emphasized limited controlled comparative evidence and called for larger rigorous trials.
This finding supports a cautious, precise conclusion: people in published treatment cohorts often improved, and psychological treatment is a reasonable area of clinical care and ongoing research. It does not show that improvement was caused solely by the named protocol; symptoms can change with time, co-interventions, therapeutic relationship, regression to the mean, or selective retention of participants who remain in treatment.
An earlier systematic review focused on psychodynamically informed treatment included 35 reports: seven prospective longitudinal publications, 13 case series, and 15 case studies. Results were encouraging at the observational-descriptive level. The authors did not identify a high-certainty experimental base demonstrating superiority of psychodynamically informed psychotherapy over other forms of care.
What did randomized trials find?
The strongest design for estimating treatment-specific benefit usually compares well-defined interventions through random assignment, adequate sample size, validated outcomes, and follow-up. Research on DID has historically relied more on uncontrolled cohorts and case reports. A 2026 systematic review located 17 randomized trials for a broader analysis of dissociation outcomes, but only two addressed DID-centered samples. In those two, dissociative symptom measures did not differ significantly between trial arms. Some other outcomes improved, and trials involving PTSD or borderline presentations sometimes showed differential reductions in dissociation. These results cannot be merged into a single claim that a treatment cures DID.
One important study is Brand and colleagues' Finding Solid Ground randomized trial. It involved 291 outpatients across several trauma-related and dissociative diagnoses, not exclusively DID. Participants continued their existing psychotherapy and were randomized to immediate access to an adjunctive online psychoeducational program or a six-month waitlist. At six months, the immediate-access group showed better emotion regulation, PTSD symptoms, self-compassion, and adaptive capacities. This supports an additional skills-based program for a mixed clinical population; it is not evidence that an online program alone resolves DID or that dissociative symptoms necessarily decrease more than in comparison care.
Why study quality matters
DID trials face challenges of recruitment, clinical complexity, variation in diagnostic assessment, coexisting disorders, differing therapist expertise, long follow-up requirements, and the difficulty of blinding psychotherapy participants. Outcomes vary from self-reported dissociation scores to independently rated functioning, risk events, memory continuity, and diagnostic status. A program can improve one outcome without changing another.
Research also needs systematic measurement of dropout, symptom exacerbation, treatment satisfaction, hospitalization, self-harm events, and adverse experiences. Reports of change among participants who completed therapy may overestimate benefits if those who left early had different outcomes. Future trials should pre-register primary endpoints, specify treatment fidelity, use appropriately active comparators, and assess durable functional gains.
Which psychotherapies are used for DID?
The word psychotherapy covers multiple approaches with distinct methods and unequal levels of DID-specific evidence. Clinical experience with a modality in PTSD or borderline personality disorder provides a rationale for studying it in DID, while a verified benefit in those other disorders is not equivalent to DID effectiveness. A 2025 treatment research review by Bachrach and Huntjens describes emerging adaptations and the need for replication.
Psychodynamically informed and integrative psychotherapy
Longer-term individual psychotherapy has been central in many specialized services. It may emphasize the therapeutic relationship, emotional regulation, understanding defensive patterns, maintaining continuity, and working with difficult experiences at a tolerable pace. Different practitioners combine psychodynamic, cognitive, interpersonal, and trauma-informed techniques. The 2024 psychodynamic treatment systematic review describes positive reports yet concludes that the literature remains observational.
The label integrative does not identify one standardized package. Readers can ask a therapist which components are used, what goals are measured, how risk is assessed, and what evidence supports decisions. Treatment quality depends on individualized formulation and collaborative monitoring, not on brand names alone.
Cognitive behavioral approaches and adapted trauma therapy
Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) methods may target avoidance, appraisals, mood, distress tolerance, daily routines, and behavioral patterns that reinforce instability. Some DID-focused applications are emerging through case reports and small exploratory studies. The Bachrach and Huntjens review notes promising early findings but emphasizes that robust DID-specific comparisons are still needed.
Exposure-based methods, cognitive processing, and other trauma treatments require careful assessment of clinical suitability and pacing. A therapist should explain how treatment addresses dissociation during sessions, how progress is monitored, and what happens if a person becomes disoriented or overwhelmed. A patient's current diagnosis and safety needs guide the plan rather than an assumption that every dissociative symptom comes from one unprocessed event.
Dialectical behavior therapy skills and emotion regulation
Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) skills can inform work on emotion regulation, distress tolerance, interpersonal effectiveness, and immediate safety. These skills may be useful when intense emotions, self-injury, or coexisting difficulties complicate treatment. However, a DBT evidence base for borderline personality disorder does not by itself establish a stand-alone DID treatment. The DID-specific research base consists of limited adapted applications and small studies, as summarized in the 2025 evidence review.
Skills work can have value even when dissociation scores change little. For instance, improved ability to contact support, interrupt escalating risk, or maintain a daily routine is clinically meaningful. Such changes should be described as improvements in those outcomes rather than as proof that the underlying dissociative disorder has remitted.
EMDR and other trauma-processing methods
Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is studied extensively in PTSD, but people with DID may have severe memory discontinuity, distress, and concurrent problems that affect how trauma-processing interventions are applied. Expert guidance recommends careful assessment and adaptation in complex dissociative presentations. There are too few high-quality DID-specific comparative trials to claim that standard EMDR protocols are universally safe or uniquely effective for DID.
If trauma work is proposed, patients can ask how the therapist will assess readiness, respond to worsening dissociation, distinguish remembered events from verified facts, and review outcomes. Effective informed consent includes discussion of the benefits expected and the uncertainties specific to DID rather than relying solely on evidence from PTSD trials.
Schema therapy and other developing approaches
Schema therapy and adapted cognitive treatments are being investigated as alternatives to long-established phase-oriented approaches. Early repeated-case and pilot findings described by Bachrach and Huntjens suggest possible improvement, but very small samples, nonrandomized designs, and unpublished work prevent reliable conclusions about relative effectiveness or long-term outcomes.
Clinicians and patients can welcome promising innovations while asking whether their results have been independently replicated, whether dropout was reported, how the diagnosis was verified, and which outcomes improved. A strong case report can generate a testable idea; it cannot tell us how well a method works across a diverse population.
Hypnosis: clinical use and special cautions
Some clinicians employ hypnosis or focused attention techniques to manage distress, improve regulation, or support therapeutic work. Hypnosis has a complicated historical relationship with DID assessment and treatment. Its use is not an objective method for verifying memories, uncovering presumed hidden identities, or proving trauma occurred. Heightened suggestibility and expectancy effects warrant safeguards, especially where a patient is vulnerable or uncertain.
The American Psychiatric Association's patient information mentions hypnosis as a possible therapeutic technique. That statement should not be interpreted as high-quality proof of DID-specific superiority. Any use should be clinically justified, transparent, consensual, and free of pressure to produce specific recollections.
How do therapists work with identity states or alters?
Some people with DID describe distinct identity states, different access to memories, or changes in agency and preferences. Those descriptions help the clinician understand lived distress and patterns that affect safety. A therapist may help the patient notice triggers, establish internal cooperation, share practical information across states, and develop a coherent plan for relationships, medication, and daily responsibilities.
Clinicians should neither dismiss reports outright nor reinforce elaborate identity narratives by suggestion. Therapy does not require assuming that each state is a physically separate person or that every variation in emotion is a new identity. Respectful language can coexist with cautious diagnostic practice. The goal is coordinated functioning and safety in the context of the patient's experiences.
Reports of switching, voice phenomena, or amnesia also require differential assessment. Hallucination-like experiences may occur in several psychiatric and medical conditions, and an amnestic period can reflect sleep, substance effects, neurological illness, seizures, or other mechanisms. Clinicians should revise the formulation when observations warrant it. The central question is what help fits the verified clinical problem.
Is medication useful for DID?
There is no medication with established, disorder-specific efficacy that directly treats identity disruption in DID. The American Psychiatric Association describes medication as potentially useful for associated symptoms or coexisting disorders, such as depression. Prescribing decisions follow an assessment of the individual psychiatric and medical presentation, including benefits, adverse effects, interactions, and dependence risks.
Antidepressants, sleep treatments, or other medicines may be considered for specific diagnosed problems. Antipsychotic treatment for severe symptoms does not itself establish that a person has schizophrenia. Likewise, a patient's reported improvement in anxiety with medication is not evidence that DID has been pharmacologically cured.
A 2019 systematic review of pharmacotherapy for dissociative disorders identified only five randomized trials with 214 participants across dissociative disorder categories. Its pooled effect was statistically uncertain; the results cannot establish a broadly reliable DID treatment. Medication changes require appropriate clinical supervision, particularly when withdrawal, sedation, or cognition could complicate assessment of dissociation.
Safety, crisis support, and adverse effects during treatment
DID and related severe dissociative presentations can occur alongside depression, suicidal thoughts, nonsuicidal self-injury, substance problems, and significant impairment. Clinicians should assess current risk directly and revisit safety plans as circumstances change. The Finding Solid Ground trial deliberately included people with complex safety needs, illustrating that clinical research can study such populations while retaining active care and support.
Warning signs needing prompt review include escalating self-injury, suicidal intent, severe insomnia, marked confusion, loss of ability to care for basic needs, or a sustained deterioration following sessions. Sudden neurological deficits, first-time seizures, acute intoxication, serious head injury, or abrupt disorientation warrant urgent medical evaluation rather than presuming an episode is dissociative. The urgency follows current risks and medical findings, not the DID label alone.
A treatment plan should specify how to contact the clinical team, what support is available between visits, how to respond to increasing dissociation, and when emergency services are appropriate. People in immediate danger should use local emergency services or the nearest emergency department. Therapists should respond to risk with practical continuity of care, documentation, and proportionate follow-up.
Can psychotherapy make dissociation worse?
Any psychotherapy can involve temporary distress; poorly paced interventions may overwhelm someone whose orientation or self-regulation is fragile. Risks can arise from pressure to recall traumatic events, suggestive interpretations, abrupt exposure, inadequate crisis planning, or clinician behavior that strengthens rather than reduces confusion. An isolated report cannot establish the population-level frequency of these events; systematic adverse-event monitoring remains a research gap.
One prospective-study analysis reported improvement rather than worsening in selected identity-related experiences during specialized care, but the design could not definitively rule out harm for particular patients or establish comparative safety. Clinical care should make room for patient feedback, second opinions, treatment adaptation, and discontinuation of methods that repeatedly cause destabilization without benefit.
Why recovered-memory caution matters
Memory is reconstructive, and clinical symptoms alone cannot determine whether a particular event happened. Some events are remembered continuously, some are recalled after a period of limited access, and some apparent recollections can be distorted by suggestion and expectations. A clinician can help a person manage distressing images, uncertainty, and meaning without treating therapeutic narrative as forensic evidence.
In practical terms, the therapist should avoid communicating certainty about unverified abuse, pursuing presumed hidden memories as a predetermined goal, or encouraging accusations based solely on therapy-generated material. When historical verification matters, independent evidence and qualified procedures are relevant. This safeguards the patient, potential third parties, and the integrity of treatment.
How long does DID treatment take?
There is no validated universal duration for DID psychotherapy. Treatment length reflects symptom severity, current safety, comorbidity, access to care, therapeutic fit, interpersonal stressors, and the goals selected with the patient. Specialist accounts often describe extended courses, but those observations are not proof that every patient requires several years or that duration predicts effectiveness.
Progress may begin with better sleep, fewer dangerous episodes, improved regulation, and increased ability to remain engaged in ordinary routines. Later gains may include reduced dissociation or impairment. Some people progress steadily; others require reassessment, more focused treatment of coexisting problems, or changes in provider. Follow-up should track both subjective experiences and independently meaningful functioning.
A reasonable review plan records baseline difficulties and returns to specific outcomes at agreed intervals. Repeated measures can help but must be interpreted alongside context. Changes in a self-report dissociation scale are informative observations, not by themselves diagnostic proof or a certificate of recovery.
What does recovery from DID mean?
Recovery can mean safer daily life, improved continuity of memory and decisions, less distressing detachment, fewer high-risk behaviors, stronger relationships, and greater participation in work or study. In clinical literature, some researchers also report no longer meeting diagnostic criteria. These are distinct endpoints. A patient may improve substantially while reporting identity-related experiences, and someone may describe a subjective sense of unity while retaining other symptoms.
The 2025 systematic treatment review found positive results across several domains but variable residual symptoms and methodological limits. Prognosis depends on more than treatment label. Clinicians should avoid promising permanent symptom elimination, claiming inevitable deterioration, or imposing one normative account of identity on everyone.
The longer-term evidence remains comparatively sparse, particularly for large representative DID samples followed after treatment ends. Meaningful remission research requires transparent diagnostic reassessment, employment and relationship outcomes, ongoing safety measures, and independent replication.
Finding a qualified therapist and planning care
A suitable provider is a licensed mental-health clinician working within their legal scope, with experience in differential diagnosis, trauma-related conditions, dissociation, and management of complex risk. The relevant question is how they assess and treat a particular patient's presentation, rather than whether they use a popular online DID label. Training claims are worth checking directly with recognized licensing and professional bodies.
During a consultation, ask how the diagnosis will be evaluated; whether structured interviews or validated measures will be used as appropriate; how other medical and psychiatric explanations will be considered; what the proposed goals and methods are; and how change, adverse effects, and safety will be monitored. A clinician should be able to explain the available DID-specific evidence and which recommendations rely chiefly on expert consensus.
Collaborative care may involve a primary therapist, prescribing clinician, primary-care professional, and other services when needed. Coordination should protect privacy and autonomy, clarify who manages medication and emergencies, and reduce contradictory advice. The best initial step for someone uncertain about symptoms is a comprehensive clinical assessment rather than adopting an intensive protocol based on an online diagnosis.
Frequently asked questions about DID treatment
Can dissociative identity disorder be treated?
Psychological treatment is available, and published studies report improvements in dissociation, distress, and functioning among people with DID and related disorders. The evidence is still developing, especially for head-to-head comparisons and durable remission rates. The 2025 systematic review supports a measured account of potential benefit rather than a guaranteed cure.
What is the best therapy for DID?
There is no single psychotherapy with high-certainty evidence of superiority for every patient with DID. Specialist guidelines commonly recommend individualized, phase-oriented care, while small studies are testing cognitive, schema-based, and other adaptations. Choosing care involves diagnostic accuracy, safety, patient preferences, clinician competence, and response monitoring.
Is trauma therapy required for everyone with DID?
A patient may benefit from addressing trauma-related symptoms, but a clinician assesses history and present difficulties rather than assuming a particular cause or insisting on memory retrieval. Trauma processing can be delayed, adapted, or omitted when unsuitable. Immediate attention to safety, functioning, and coexisting problems may be essential regardless of etiological formulation.
Can DID be cured by integrating all alters?
Some treatment frameworks describe fusion or a unified identity experience; others prioritize stable cooperation and functional integration. Neither a required number of identity states nor a universally successful procedure is established by rigorous trials. The clinically important outcomes are sustained safety, reduction in impairment, and increased agency.
Does EMDR work for DID?
EMDR has an established literature for PTSD, but high-quality DID-specific comparative evidence remains limited. It may be considered with clinical adaptation and careful monitoring when appropriate. Benefits demonstrated in PTSD should not be stated as proven DID outcomes.
Can medication stop switching or memory gaps?
No medication has established direct efficacy for DID identity switching or dissociative amnesia. Medication may treat coexisting depression, anxiety, sleep disorders, or other clinically identified problems. Reported switching or memory gaps also deserve differential assessment rather than immediate pharmacological attribution.
Is online therapy or an app enough?
Some digital psychoeducation can help as an adjunct. The 291-participant Finding Solid Ground trial added an online program to continuing outpatient psychotherapy and found improvements in regulation and other capacities. It did not demonstrate that stand-alone apps replace diagnostic assessment or specialist care.
Does treatment create identity states?
The relationship between clinical practices, patient expectations, reported identity states, and DID presentation is debated. Suggestion is a genuine clinical risk; however, observational improvement during therapy cannot by itself settle either an exclusively trauma-based or an exclusively sociocognitive explanation. Good care avoids leading the patient, monitors outcomes, and respects reported experiences without enforcing a predetermined narrative.
Are memory gaps proof of childhood abuse?
No. Memory gaps need contextual clinical assessment and sometimes medical evaluation. They do not independently establish a particular past event, and memories reported during psychotherapy do not automatically verify history. Treatment can address distress and impairment while maintaining appropriate uncertainty about external facts.
When should a person seek urgent help?
Urgent evaluation is warranted for active suicidal intent, severe self-injury, inability to remain safe, abrupt confusion, a suspected seizure, or new neurological symptoms. A sudden medical change should be assessed as a potential medical problem even when someone previously received a dissociative diagnosis.
Related Articles
See the published English articles linked here for broader diagnostic and trauma-related context. DID psychotherapy remains the distinct subject of this page.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.; DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Association Publishing.
American Psychiatric Association. (n.d.). What are dissociative disorders? American Psychiatric Association.
Bachrach, N., & Huntjens, R. J. C. (2025). Recent evidence-based developments in the treatment of DID. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 16, 1650164. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1650164.
Brand, B. L., Classen, C. C., McNary, S. W., & Zaveri, P. (2009). A review of dissociative disorders treatment studies. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 197(9), 646–654. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e3181b3afaa.
Brand, B. L., et al. (2019). An online educational program for individuals with dissociative disorders and their clinicians: 1-year and 2-year follow-up. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. PubMed record.
Brand, B. L., et al. (2025). A randomized controlled trial assists individuals with complex trauma and dissociation in Finding Solid Ground. Psychological Trauma, 17(8), 1717–1727. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001871.
Griffiths, T. A., Dimitrova, L. I., Linington, M., Terhune, D. B., & Reinders, A. A. T. S. (2025). Effectiveness of phase-oriented treatment for trauma-related dissociative disorders: A systematic review. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 16(1), 2545734. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2025.2545734.
International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation. (2011). Guidelines for treating dissociative identity disorder in adults, third revision. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 12(2), 115–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2011.537247.
Miño-Reyes, V., Larenas-Matta, P., Quijada-Leyton, M. J., & Nvo-Fernández, M. (2026). Dissociative symptoms as a treatment outcome in dissociative identity disorder and in posttraumatic and borderline presentations: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, advance online publication. Publisher record.
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. WHO.
Yeates, C., et al. (2024). A systematic review and narrative analysis of the evidence for individual psychodynamically informed psychotherapy in the treatment of dissociative identity disorder in adults. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2023.2293802.