大带桥铁路事故:乘客和遇难者家属的创伤后应激反应。

Ask Elklit, Lea Katrine Jørgensen
{"title":"大带桥铁路事故:乘客和遇难者家属的创伤后应激反应。","authors":"Ask Elklit,&nbsp;Lea Katrine Jørgensen","doi":"10.5055/ajdm.2022.0429","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify the trauma sequelae after a major train disaster on the Great Belt Bridge in 2019 and to compare two different trauma measures.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Five (T1) and 13 (T2) months after the disaster, a questionnaire included both the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and the new The International Classifications of Diseases (ICD-11) criterion stand-ards for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Also, anxiety and depression were measured on both occasions.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>All surviving passengers (N = 133) and the bereaved families (N = 8) were invited to participate through an electronic mailbox. At T1, 58 and 46 at T2 filled out all the questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary study outcome measures were the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire (HTQ) and the International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At T1, the HTQ screened 19 percent positive for PTSD, while the ITQ screened 15.5 percent. At T2, the numbers were 26 percent for the HTQ and 10.9 percent for the ITQ. At T1, 22.8 percent were screened positive for moderate or severe depression and 8.6 percent fulfilled the criteria for an anxiety diagnosis. The numbers at T2 were 19.5 percent for depression and 10.9 percent for anxiety.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a remarkable lack of train accident/disaster passenger studies. A large subgroup suffered from several psychological disorders both 5 and 13 months after the disaster. The two diagnostic systems used (DSM-IV and ICD-11) both -identified a considerable number of passengers in need of treatment; the latter identifying fewer than the former. Effective outreach procedures are recommended in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":40040,"journal":{"name":"American journal of disaster medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Great Belt Bridge railway accident: Post-traumatic stress reactions among passengers and bereaved family members.\",\"authors\":\"Ask Elklit,&nbsp;Lea Katrine Jørgensen\",\"doi\":\"10.5055/ajdm.2022.0429\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify the trauma sequelae after a major train disaster on the Great Belt Bridge in 2019 and to compare two different trauma measures.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Five (T1) and 13 (T2) months after the disaster, a questionnaire included both the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and the new The International Classifications of Diseases (ICD-11) criterion stand-ards for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Also, anxiety and depression were measured on both occasions.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>All surviving passengers (N = 133) and the bereaved families (N = 8) were invited to participate through an electronic mailbox. At T1, 58 and 46 at T2 filled out all the questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary study outcome measures were the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire (HTQ) and the International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At T1, the HTQ screened 19 percent positive for PTSD, while the ITQ screened 15.5 percent. At T2, the numbers were 26 percent for the HTQ and 10.9 percent for the ITQ. At T1, 22.8 percent were screened positive for moderate or severe depression and 8.6 percent fulfilled the criteria for an anxiety diagnosis. The numbers at T2 were 19.5 percent for depression and 10.9 percent for anxiety.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a remarkable lack of train accident/disaster passenger studies. A large subgroup suffered from several psychological disorders both 5 and 13 months after the disaster. The two diagnostic systems used (DSM-IV and ICD-11) both -identified a considerable number of passengers in need of treatment; the latter identifying fewer than the former. Effective outreach procedures are recommended in the future.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":40040,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of disaster medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of disaster medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5055/ajdm.2022.0429\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of disaster medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5055/ajdm.2022.0429","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨2019年大带大桥重大列车事故后的创伤后遗症,并比较两种不同的创伤措施。设计:灾难发生后5个月(T1)和13个月(T2),问卷调查包括精神障碍诊断和统计手册(DSM-IV)和新的国际疾病分类(ICD-11)创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)标准。此外,在两种情况下都测量了焦虑和抑郁。参与者:通过电子邮箱邀请所有幸存乘客(N = 133)和遇难者家属(N = 8)参与。T1时58和T2时46填写了所有问卷。主要评价指标:主要评价指标为哈佛创伤问卷(HTQ)和国际创伤问卷(ITQ)。结果:在T1时,HTQ筛查出19%的PTSD阳性,而ITQ筛查出15.5%。T2时,HTQ为26%,ITQ为10.9%。在T1时,22.8%的人被筛查为中度或重度抑郁症阳性,8.6%的人符合焦虑诊断标准。在T2阶段,抑郁症患者占19.5%,焦虑症患者占10.9%。结论:对火车事故/灾难乘客的研究明显缺乏。一大群人在灾难发生后的5个月和13个月都出现了几种心理障碍。使用的两种诊断系统(DSM-IV和ICD-11)都确定了大量需要治疗的乘客;后者的识别比前者少。建议今后采取有效的外展程序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Great Belt Bridge railway accident: Post-traumatic stress reactions among passengers and bereaved family members.

Objective: To identify the trauma sequelae after a major train disaster on the Great Belt Bridge in 2019 and to compare two different trauma measures.

Design: Five (T1) and 13 (T2) months after the disaster, a questionnaire included both the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and the new The International Classifications of Diseases (ICD-11) criterion stand-ards for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Also, anxiety and depression were measured on both occasions.

Participants: All surviving passengers (N = 133) and the bereaved families (N = 8) were invited to participate through an electronic mailbox. At T1, 58 and 46 at T2 filled out all the questionnaires.

Main outcome measures: The primary study outcome measures were the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire (HTQ) and the International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ).

Results: At T1, the HTQ screened 19 percent positive for PTSD, while the ITQ screened 15.5 percent. At T2, the numbers were 26 percent for the HTQ and 10.9 percent for the ITQ. At T1, 22.8 percent were screened positive for moderate or severe depression and 8.6 percent fulfilled the criteria for an anxiety diagnosis. The numbers at T2 were 19.5 percent for depression and 10.9 percent for anxiety.

Conclusions: There is a remarkable lack of train accident/disaster passenger studies. A large subgroup suffered from several psychological disorders both 5 and 13 months after the disaster. The two diagnostic systems used (DSM-IV and ICD-11) both -identified a considerable number of passengers in need of treatment; the latter identifying fewer than the former. Effective outreach procedures are recommended in the future.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American journal of disaster medicine
American journal of disaster medicine Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: With the publication of the American Journal of Disaster Medicine, for the first time, comes real guidance in this new medical specialty from the country"s foremost experts in areas most physicians and medical professionals have never seen…a deadly cocktail of catastrophic events like blast wounds and post explosion injuries, biological weapons contamination and mass physical and psychological trauma that comes in the wake of natural disasters and disease outbreak. The journal has one goal: to provide physicians and medical professionals the essential informational tools they need as they seek to combine emergency medical and trauma skills with crisis management and new forms of triage.
期刊最新文献
Protection enhancement strategies of potential outbreaks during Hajj. Perceptions regarding second wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among Indian adults: A cross-sectional study. Agile response to critical need for clinical trial accessibility during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. Pediatric disaster preparedness curriculum across emergency medicine residencies. Advanced Surgical Skills for Exposure in Trauma (ASSET) course improves military surgeon confidence.
×
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