A longitudinal follow-up study of Oklahoma City bombing survivors in the first quarter century after the disaster.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY Annals of Clinical Psychiatry Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.12788/acp.0095
Carol S North, Katy McDonald, David E Pollio
{"title":"A longitudinal follow-up study of Oklahoma City bombing survivors in the first quarter century after the disaster.","authors":"Carol S North,&nbsp;Katy McDonald,&nbsp;David E Pollio","doi":"10.12788/acp.0095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study is one of the longest postdisaster prospective longitudinal studies of disaster-related psychopathology, completed nearly a quarter century after a terrorist bombing, and the longest follow-up study ever conducted using full diagnostic assessment in highly exposed disaster survivors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Oklahoma City bombing survivors (87% injured) were randomly selected from a state survivor registry and interviewed approximately 6 months postdisaster (N = 182; 71% participation) and again nearly 25 years later (N = 103; 72% participation). Interviews were conducted using the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (a structured interview assessing full diagnostic criteria) for panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and substance use disorder at baseline and also for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) at follow-up. The Disaster Supplement assessed disaster trauma exposure and subjective experience.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At follow-up, 37% of participants exhibited bombing-related PTSD (34% at baseline) and 36% had MDD (23% at baseline). More new cases of PTSD than MDD developed over time. Nonremission rates were 51% for bombing-related PTSD and 33% for MDD. One-third of participants reported long-term nonemployability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The presence of long-term medical problems among survivors parallels the persistence of psychopathology. Ongoing medical problems might have contributed to psychiatric morbidity. Because no major variables predicted remission from bombing-related PTSD and MDD, all survivors with postdisaster psychopathology likely need access to long-term evaluation and care.</p>","PeriodicalId":50770,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Clinical Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Clinical Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12788/acp.0095","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study is one of the longest postdisaster prospective longitudinal studies of disaster-related psychopathology, completed nearly a quarter century after a terrorist bombing, and the longest follow-up study ever conducted using full diagnostic assessment in highly exposed disaster survivors.

Methods: Oklahoma City bombing survivors (87% injured) were randomly selected from a state survivor registry and interviewed approximately 6 months postdisaster (N = 182; 71% participation) and again nearly 25 years later (N = 103; 72% participation). Interviews were conducted using the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (a structured interview assessing full diagnostic criteria) for panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and substance use disorder at baseline and also for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) at follow-up. The Disaster Supplement assessed disaster trauma exposure and subjective experience.

Results: At follow-up, 37% of participants exhibited bombing-related PTSD (34% at baseline) and 36% had MDD (23% at baseline). More new cases of PTSD than MDD developed over time. Nonremission rates were 51% for bombing-related PTSD and 33% for MDD. One-third of participants reported long-term nonemployability.

Conclusions: The presence of long-term medical problems among survivors parallels the persistence of psychopathology. Ongoing medical problems might have contributed to psychiatric morbidity. Because no major variables predicted remission from bombing-related PTSD and MDD, all survivors with postdisaster psychopathology likely need access to long-term evaluation and care.

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
对俄克拉荷马城爆炸案幸存者在灾难发生后的前25年进行的纵向跟踪研究。
背景:本研究是灾后最长的灾难相关精神病理学的前瞻性纵向研究之一,在恐怖主义爆炸发生近四分之一世纪后完成,也是对高度暴露的灾难幸存者进行全面诊断评估的最长随访研究。方法:俄克拉荷马城爆炸案幸存者(87%受伤)从州幸存者登记处随机抽取,并在灾后约6个月进行访谈(N = 182;71%的参与者),并在近25年后再次进行(N = 103;72%的参与)。访谈采用诊断访谈表(一种评估完整诊断标准的结构化访谈)进行,基线时为惊恐障碍、广泛性焦虑障碍和物质使用障碍,随访时为创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)和重度抑郁症(MDD)。灾害增刊评估了灾害创伤暴露和主观经验。结果:在随访中,37%的参与者表现出与爆炸相关的PTSD(基线时为34%),36%的参与者表现出重度抑郁症(基线时为23%)。随着时间的推移,PTSD的新病例比重度抑郁症的新病例要多。爆炸相关PTSD的不缓解率为51%,重度抑郁症的不缓解率为33%。三分之一的参与者报告长期失业。结论:幸存者中长期医疗问题的存在与精神病理的持续存在相似。持续的医疗问题可能导致精神疾病。因为没有主要的变量预测爆炸相关的创伤后应激障碍和重度抑郁症的缓解,所有灾后精神病理的幸存者可能需要长期的评估和护理。
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
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
47
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The ANNALS publishes up-to-date information regarding the diagnosis and /or treatment of persons with mental disorders. Preferred manuscripts are those that report the results of controlled clinical trials, timely and thorough evidence-based reviews, letters to the editor, and case reports that present new appraisals of pertinent clinical topics.
期刊最新文献
Posttraumatic stress disorder comorbidity in patients undergoing ECT for major depressive disorder. Clinical characteristics of trichotillomania. Development of a mobile monitoring program for anxiety and depression in pregnancy and evaluation of 3-month results. Problematic internet use and suicidal behavior in adolescents: A review. Protest behaviors among patients placed in seclusion in a psychiatric emergency service.
×
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