Prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder in orthopedic trauma patients and a call to implement the Injured Trauma Survivor Screen as a prospective screening protocol in the United States

Victoria J. Nedder, Mary A. Breslin, Vanessa P. Ho, Heather A. Vallier
{"title":"Prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder in orthopedic trauma patients and a call to implement the Injured Trauma Survivor Screen as a prospective screening protocol in the United States","authors":"Victoria J. Nedder, Mary A. Breslin, Vanessa P. Ho, Heather A. Vallier","doi":"10.20408/jti.2023.0068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is prevalent and is associated with protracted recovery and worse outcomes after injury. This study compared PTSD prevalence using the PTSD Check-list for DSM-5 (PCL-5) with the prevalence of PTSD risk using the Injured Trauma Survivor Screen (ITSS). Methods: Adult trauma patients at a level I trauma center were screened with the PCL-5 (sample 1) at follow-up visits or using the ITSS as inpatients (sample 2). Results: Sample 1 (n=285) had significantly fewer patients with gunshot wounds than sample 2 (n=45) (8.1% vs. 22.2%, P=0.003), nonsignificantly fewer patients with a fall from a height (17.2% vs. 28.9%, P=0.06), and similar numbers of patients with motor vehicle collision (40.7% vs. 37.8%, P=0.07). Screening was performed at a mean of 154 days following injury for sample 1 versus 7.1 days in sample 2. The mean age of the patients in sample 1 was 45.4 years, and the mean age of those in sample 2 was 46.1 years. The two samples had similar proportions of female patients (38.2% vs. 40.0%, P=0.80). The positive screening rate was 18.9% in sample 1 and 40.0% in sample 2 (P=0.001). For specific mechanisms, the positive rates were as follows: motor vehicle collisions, 17.2% in sample 1 and 17.6% in sample 2 (P>0.999); fall from height, 12.2% in sample 1 and 30.8% in sample 2 (P=0.20); and gunshot wounds, 39.1% in sample 1 and 80.0% in sample 2 (P=0.06). Conclusions: The ITSS was obtained earlier than PCL-5 and may identify PTSD in more orthopedic trauma patients. Differences in the frequency of PTSD may also be related to the screening tool itself, or underlying patient risk factors, such as mechanism of injury, or mental or social health.","PeriodicalId":52698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trauma and Injury","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trauma and Injury","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20408/jti.2023.0068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is prevalent and is associated with protracted recovery and worse outcomes after injury. This study compared PTSD prevalence using the PTSD Check-list for DSM-5 (PCL-5) with the prevalence of PTSD risk using the Injured Trauma Survivor Screen (ITSS). Methods: Adult trauma patients at a level I trauma center were screened with the PCL-5 (sample 1) at follow-up visits or using the ITSS as inpatients (sample 2). Results: Sample 1 (n=285) had significantly fewer patients with gunshot wounds than sample 2 (n=45) (8.1% vs. 22.2%, P=0.003), nonsignificantly fewer patients with a fall from a height (17.2% vs. 28.9%, P=0.06), and similar numbers of patients with motor vehicle collision (40.7% vs. 37.8%, P=0.07). Screening was performed at a mean of 154 days following injury for sample 1 versus 7.1 days in sample 2. The mean age of the patients in sample 1 was 45.4 years, and the mean age of those in sample 2 was 46.1 years. The two samples had similar proportions of female patients (38.2% vs. 40.0%, P=0.80). The positive screening rate was 18.9% in sample 1 and 40.0% in sample 2 (P=0.001). For specific mechanisms, the positive rates were as follows: motor vehicle collisions, 17.2% in sample 1 and 17.6% in sample 2 (P>0.999); fall from height, 12.2% in sample 1 and 30.8% in sample 2 (P=0.20); and gunshot wounds, 39.1% in sample 1 and 80.0% in sample 2 (P=0.06). Conclusions: The ITSS was obtained earlier than PCL-5 and may identify PTSD in more orthopedic trauma patients. Differences in the frequency of PTSD may also be related to the screening tool itself, or underlying patient risk factors, such as mechanism of injury, or mental or social health.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
创伤后应激障碍在骨科创伤患者中的流行情况以及在美国实施创伤幸存者筛查作为前瞻性筛查协议的呼吁
目的:创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)很普遍,与受伤后的长期恢复和不良后果有关。本研究比较了使用 DSM-5 创伤后应激障碍检查表(PCL-5)的创伤后应激障碍患病率和使用创伤幸存者筛查(ITSS)的创伤后应激障碍风险患病率。研究方法在复诊时使用 PCL-5(样本 1)或在住院时使用 ITSS(样本 2)对一级创伤中心的成年创伤患者进行筛查。结果显示样本 1(n=285)的枪伤患者人数明显少于样本 2(n=45)(8.1% vs. 22.2%,P=0.003),高处坠落患者人数明显少于样本 2(17.2% vs. 28.9%,P=0.06),机动车碰撞患者人数相似(40.7% vs. 37.8%,P=0.07)。样本 1 的筛查平均在受伤后 154 天进行,而样本 2 为 7.1 天。样本 1 患者的平均年龄为 45.4 岁,样本 2 患者的平均年龄为 46.1 岁。两个样本中女性患者的比例相似(38.2% 对 40.0%,P=0.80)。样本 1 的筛查阳性率为 18.9%,样本 2 为 40.0%(P=0.001)。具体机制的阳性率如下:机动车碰撞,样本 1 为 17.2%,样本 2 为 17.6%(P>0.999);高处坠落,样本 1 为 12.2%,样本 2 为 30.8%(P=0.20);枪伤,样本 1 为 39.1%,样本 2 为 80.0%(P=0.06)。结论:ITSS 比 PCL-5 更早获得,可识别更多骨科创伤患者的创伤后应激障碍。创伤后应激障碍发生率的差异也可能与筛查工具本身或潜在的患者风险因素(如受伤机制、精神或社会健康状况)有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
A starry night: a case report of severe liver injury due to a close-range shotgun blast in Argentina. Acute irreducible anterior shoulder dislocation due to interposition of the subscapularis muscle and the lesser tuberosity: a case report. Purtscher retinopathy following isolated chest compression: a case report. Endoscopic transorbital approach for the removal of a frontal lobe foreign body: a case report. Experience of vascular injuries at a military hospital in Korea.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1