所有创伤后应激障碍病例都是复杂的创伤后应激障碍吗?潜在剖面分析结果

IF 1.9 Q3 PSYCHIATRY European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-09 DOI:10.1016/j.ejtd.2024.100494
Bertin F , Clarys D , Tapia G , Chami L , El-Hage W , Vancappel A
{"title":"所有创伤后应激障碍病例都是复杂的创伤后应激障碍吗?潜在剖面分析结果","authors":"Bertin F ,&nbsp;Clarys D ,&nbsp;Tapia G ,&nbsp;Chami L ,&nbsp;El-Hage W ,&nbsp;Vancappel A","doi":"10.1016/j.ejtd.2024.100494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Recently, the ICD-11 has proposed the existence of both posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and Complex PTSD (C-PTSD). However, empirical studies present conflictual results regarding a clear distinction between PTSD and C-PTSD. The aim of this study is to replicate previous works to shed light on the debate related to the distinction between PTSD and C-PTSD.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>We recruited 115 patients (97 women, 18 men) suffering from PTSD consecutively during consultations at the trauma center. After providing consent, they filled out multiple questionnaires, including the International Trauma Questionnaire, the PTSD Checklist Scale, and the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) identified four distinct latent classes that differed primarily in terms of the intensity of symptoms rather than the presence of specific symptoms. The classes were: (1) Severe C-PTSD, (2) Moderate C-PTSD, (3) Imbalanced C-PTSD, and (4) Low PTSD symptoms.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Within our sample, we did not successfully distinguish patients suffering from PTSD and C-PTSD. Every patient seemed to suffer from C-PTSD except those with low PTSD symptoms. This supports a more dimensional understanding of patients suffering from PTSD.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":29932,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation","volume":"9 1","pages":"Article 100494"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are all PTSD cases complex PTSD? Results from a latent profile analysis\",\"authors\":\"Bertin F ,&nbsp;Clarys D ,&nbsp;Tapia G ,&nbsp;Chami L ,&nbsp;El-Hage W ,&nbsp;Vancappel A\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejtd.2024.100494\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Recently, the ICD-11 has proposed the existence of both posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and Complex PTSD (C-PTSD). However, empirical studies present conflictual results regarding a clear distinction between PTSD and C-PTSD. The aim of this study is to replicate previous works to shed light on the debate related to the distinction between PTSD and C-PTSD.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>We recruited 115 patients (97 women, 18 men) suffering from PTSD consecutively during consultations at the trauma center. After providing consent, they filled out multiple questionnaires, including the International Trauma Questionnaire, the PTSD Checklist Scale, and the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) identified four distinct latent classes that differed primarily in terms of the intensity of symptoms rather than the presence of specific symptoms. The classes were: (1) Severe C-PTSD, (2) Moderate C-PTSD, (3) Imbalanced C-PTSD, and (4) Low PTSD symptoms.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Within our sample, we did not successfully distinguish patients suffering from PTSD and C-PTSD. Every patient seemed to suffer from C-PTSD except those with low PTSD symptoms. This supports a more dimensional understanding of patients suffering from PTSD.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":29932,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 100494\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468749924001170\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468749924001170","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近,ICD-11提出了创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)和复杂创伤后应激障碍(C-PTSD)的存在。然而,关于PTSD和C-PTSD的明确区分,实证研究呈现出矛盾的结果。这项研究的目的是重复以前的工作,以阐明与PTSD和C-PTSD之间的区别有关的争论。方法在创伤中心连续会诊的115例PTSD患者中,女性97例,男性18例。在表示同意后,他们填写了多份调查问卷,包括国际创伤调查问卷、创伤后应激障碍检查表和儿童创伤调查问卷。结果潜势分析(LPA)确定了四种不同的潜在类别,其主要区别在于症状的强度,而不是特定症状的存在。分类为:(1)重度C-PTSD,(2)中度C-PTSD,(3)不平衡型C-PTSD,(4)轻度PTSD症状。在我们的样本中,我们没有成功区分PTSD和C-PTSD患者。除了那些创伤后应激障碍症状较轻的患者外,每个患者似乎都患有c型PTSD。这有助于对患有创伤后应激障碍的患者进行更全面的了解。
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
Are all PTSD cases complex PTSD? Results from a latent profile analysis

Introduction

Recently, the ICD-11 has proposed the existence of both posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and Complex PTSD (C-PTSD). However, empirical studies present conflictual results regarding a clear distinction between PTSD and C-PTSD. The aim of this study is to replicate previous works to shed light on the debate related to the distinction between PTSD and C-PTSD.

Method

We recruited 115 patients (97 women, 18 men) suffering from PTSD consecutively during consultations at the trauma center. After providing consent, they filled out multiple questionnaires, including the International Trauma Questionnaire, the PTSD Checklist Scale, and the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire.

Results

Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) identified four distinct latent classes that differed primarily in terms of the intensity of symptoms rather than the presence of specific symptoms. The classes were: (1) Severe C-PTSD, (2) Moderate C-PTSD, (3) Imbalanced C-PTSD, and (4) Low PTSD symptoms.

Conclusion

Within our sample, we did not successfully distinguish patients suffering from PTSD and C-PTSD. Every patient seemed to suffer from C-PTSD except those with low PTSD symptoms. This supports a more dimensional understanding of patients suffering from PTSD.
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
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
4.80%
发文量
60
期刊最新文献
Predicting treatment outcomes for complex posttraumatic stress disorder: Examining the relative contribution of attachment style, affective dysregulation, negative self/other beliefs and disturbances in relationships Validation of the perseverative thinking questionnaire-children (PTQ-C) in a sample of Afghan children and adolescents exposed to trauma A novel phase-oriented treatment approach for dissociative identity disorder comorbid with major depressive disorder and somatization: A case report Eighteen-month symptom trajectories after EMDR for childbirth-related traumatic stress: an exploratory naturalistic study of three clinical pathways (ACTES) Parcours de prise en charge du trouble de stress post-traumatique chez les personnels des forces de défense et de sécurité : étude rétrospective sur trois ans à l’Hôpital Principal de Dakar
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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