Combat PTSD is one of the most studied applications of tapping, and one of the most consequential to get right. I've watched this research grow for most of the twenty years I've spent teaching this work: nearly 50 published records now touch veteran-specific PTSD, randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, a gene-expression study, case reports, telehealth trials. I'm going to walk you through the strongest of them, plainly, including the parts that complicate a clean story. I'm not going to call anything a cure. I'm going to tell you what was actually measured.
If you're a veteran in crisis right now, please reach out before reading further: Veterans Crisis Line, dial 988 then press 1, or text 838255. Free, confidential support is available 24/7, whether or not you're enrolled in VA care.
For a personal account of what this can look like in practice, see a veteran's story of healing and transformation. For a narrower look at two of the specific trials discussed below, our companion piece A Tale of Two Trials goes deeper on the head-to-head data.
The strongest single trial: Church et al., 2013
The most-cited veteran-specific study in this body of research is a randomized controlled trial published in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. Church, Hawk, Brooks and colleagues randomized 59 veterans already receiving VA mental health services to either EFT or a waitlist control.
Church, Hawk, Brooks et al., 2013: 59 veterans, VA mental health services, waitlist control.
After treatment, 90% of the EFT group no longer met clinical criteria for PTSD, versus 4% of the waitlist group (p<.0001). At 6-month follow-up, after the waitlist group had crossed over into EFT, 80% across the full study no longer met criteria. That's the study's own language: no longer met clinical criteria, at the time of that assessment. The study doesn't claim a cure, and neither will I. Full record.
To me, this trial, along with its companion publication from the same randomized wait-list design, is the backbone of the veteran-specific evidence base. In the earlier companion report, after 3 EFT sessions 70% of participants scored PTSD-negative (mean score dropping from 62 to 44); after 6 sessions, 87% scored PTSD-negative (mean score 35); and all 13 participants who completed the 3-month follow-up scored PTSD-negative (mean 31). Full record. A separate controlled pilot with 32 veterans and family members found similar numbers: 87% PTSD-negative after 6 sessions, gains maintained at 3 months, no improvement in the wait-list group. Full record.
Free. The best place to start.
Want to learn tapping from the people who know it best?
The Tapping World Summit has taught tapping to people all over the world since 2009. Ten days, 24 of the world's leading tapping teachers, 100% free.
Join the free summitThe two meta-analyses, and the critique that complicates them
Two meta-analyses pool multiple veteran and civilian PTSD trials into a single effect estimate. Sebastian and Nelms, 2017, pooled 247 participants across 7 RCTs (veterans, NHS patients, and trauma survivors) and found a large effect for EFT versus usual care or waitlist, with no significant difference against EMDR or CBT head-to-head. Full record. Stapleton and colleagues published a 2023 update in Frontiers in Psychology, pooling 280 participants across 6 trials, including Church 2013 and 2016 and Geronilla 2016 among veteran populations, and again found large effects versus waitlist that shrank to non-significant differences against active treatments like EMDR, narrative exposure therapy, and CBT. Full record.
This is the part I want to slow down on. A 2024 published critique by Pfund, Boness and Tolin raised a specific methodological concern with the Sebastian 2017 effect size: they argue it was calculated from within-arm pre-post change rather than a true between-group contrast, which can inflate the apparent effect. The same commentary raised related methodological questions about study inclusion in the Stapleton 2023 update. Both meta-analyses pool small trials from the same research group. The pooled effects are real signals worth taking seriously, and I want you to know they've been challenged.
Beyond self-report: the gene-expression study
Most of this evidence relies on symptom scales people fill in themselves. This study looked at biology. One study adds a different kind of data. Church, Yount, Rachlin, Fox and Nelms, 2018, ran a randomized pilot with 16 veterans with clinical PTSD, published in the American Journal of Health Promotion. PTSD symptoms fell 53% in the EFT group (p<.0001), maintained at follow-up, and gene-expression testing found 6 of 93 examined PTSD-related genes were significantly differently expressed before versus after treatment. Full record. Sixteen people, so treat it as an early signal. But it's a genuine differentiator: objective biological data sitting alongside the self-report.
More of the evidence base, plainly
Hartung & Stein, 2012: phone delivery versus in-person, 49 veterans.
A randomized trial with a delayed-treatment control comparing EFT delivered by phone to EFT delivered in person. Both worked. At 6-month follow-up, 91% of the office-treated group and 67% of the phone-treated group no longer met PTSD diagnostic criteria (p<.05). Full record.
Stein & Brooks, 2011: coaches versus licensed practitioners, 59 veterans.
A randomized trial comparing EFT delivered by trained coaches (33 veterans) against licensed mental health practitioners (26 veterans). After 6 sessions, 17% of coach-treated and 10% of practitioner-treated participants still met PTSD criteria, sustained at 3 months. The difference favoring licensed practitioners wasn't statistically significant, suggesting EFT can scale through trained lay coaches without much loss of effectiveness. Full record.
Church, Sparks & Clond, 2016: subclinical, at-risk veterans, n=21.
A randomized trial with veterans whose PTSD symptoms were elevated but not yet diagnostic. Scores declined 39 to 25, a 64% drop (p<.0001), maintained at 3 and 6 months, suggesting a possible prevention role for veterans before symptoms reach full clinical severity. Full record.
Minewiser, 2017: a single case, illustrative only.
One young Marine Reservist who served in Iraq, part of a larger replication study. PTSD score dropped from 60 to 40 after 6 sessions, to 22 at 6-month follow-up, alongside reduced insomnia and pain. One person's outcome. I'm including it because it's a vivid, specific account, not because a single case proves anything on its own. Full record.
The limits of this evidence base
Nearly all of the veteran-specific studies above trace back to the same research program, led by Dawson Church and close collaborators, someone I've learned a great deal from over the years. Research programs build real depth over years, and that's exactly what's happened here. But it does mean this hasn't been independently replicated the way, say, decades of CBT research has. I'd genuinely like to see more research groups outside that program run their own veteran-specific trials, and I'll update this page as that happens.
Most of the trials here are also small by clinical-research standards, ranging from 16 to 59 participants, though several used proper randomized, controlled designs rather than uncontrolled pre-post measurement.
FAQ
What does the research say about tapping (EFT) for veterans with PTSD?
Nearly 50 published records touch veteran-specific PTSD, including several randomized controlled trials and two meta-analyses. The strongest single trial, Church et al. 2013 in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, found 90% of the EFT group no longer met clinical PTSD criteria versus 4% of a waitlist control. Two meta-analyses pooling multiple trials found large effects versus usual care, though a 2024 published critique raises real questions about how those effect sizes were calculated.
Does tapping cure PTSD?
No. The research describes symptom reduction and, in several trials, participants no longer meeting diagnostic criteria for PTSD at the time they were assessed, which is a specific, measured outcome, not a cure. PTSD can resurface, and the studies here track symptoms over months, not a lifetime. Treat tapping as a well-evidenced tool, not a guaranteed or permanent fix.
What did the Church 2013 veterans study actually find?
Church, Hawk, Brooks and colleagues randomized 59 veterans receiving VA mental health services to EFT or a waitlist control. After treatment, 90% of the EFT group no longer met clinical criteria for PTSD, compared to 4% of the waitlist group. At 6-month follow-up, after the waitlist group had crossed over to receive EFT, 80% across the study no longer met criteria. That's the study's own language: no longer met criteria, not cured.
Is the veteran-specific tapping research independently replicated by researchers outside The Tapping Solution or Dawson Church's program?
Mostly not yet. Nearly all of the veteran-specific studies in this body of research trace back to the same research program, led by Dawson Church and collaborators. That doesn't invalidate the findings, but it does mean this isn't yet independently replicated by outside researchers, and we'd like to see more research groups outside that program run their own trials.
Veterans Crisis Line: if you or a veteran you know is in crisis, dial 988 then press 1, or text 838255, for free, confidential support 24/7. This page summarizes published research for educational purposes. It is not medical advice, and tapping is not a replacement for professional PTSD treatment. Please involve a licensed provider, including the VA, in any treatment decision.
If you want to feel what these studies are actually testing, not just read about it, Intro to Tapping (Start Here) is a free session in The Tapping Solution App.
