Assessment tools for complex post traumatic stress disorder: a systematic review.

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Natalie Seiler, Keivan Davoodi, Michael Keem, Subhash Das
{"title":"Assessment tools for complex post traumatic stress disorder: a systematic review.","authors":"Natalie Seiler, Keivan Davoodi, Michael Keem, Subhash Das","doi":"10.1080/13651501.2023.2197965","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Appropriate screening tools are required to accurately detect complex post traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD). This systematic review aimed to assess and compare measurement tools. A literature search using key words 'complex post traumatic stress disorder', 'PTSD', and 'assessment' was undertaken on Embase and PsychINFO during February 2022 by two reviewers. Inclusion criteria included full text papers between 2002-2022 which evaluated CPTSD using assessment tools. Exclusion criteria included reviews, editorials, meta-analyses, or conference abstracts. Twenty-two papers met selection criteria. Thirteen studies used the International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ). Two studies each evaluated CPTSD with the International Trauma Interview (ITI) or Symptoms of Trauma Scale (SOTS). The Developmental Trauma Inventory (DTI), Cameron Complex Trauma Interview (CCTI), Complex PTSD Item Set additional to the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale (COPISAC), Complex Trauma Questionnaire (ComplexTQ), and Scale 8 of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Scale (MMPI) were used by a single study each. The ITQ was the most thoroughly investigated, validated across different populations, and is a convenient questionnaire for screening within the clinical setting. Where self-report measures are inappropriate, the ITI, SOTS, and COPISAC are interview tools which detect CPTSD. However, they require further validation and should be used alongside clinical history and examination.</p>","PeriodicalId":14351,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice","volume":"27 3","pages":"292-300"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13651501.2023.2197965","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Appropriate screening tools are required to accurately detect complex post traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD). This systematic review aimed to assess and compare measurement tools. A literature search using key words 'complex post traumatic stress disorder', 'PTSD', and 'assessment' was undertaken on Embase and PsychINFO during February 2022 by two reviewers. Inclusion criteria included full text papers between 2002-2022 which evaluated CPTSD using assessment tools. Exclusion criteria included reviews, editorials, meta-analyses, or conference abstracts. Twenty-two papers met selection criteria. Thirteen studies used the International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ). Two studies each evaluated CPTSD with the International Trauma Interview (ITI) or Symptoms of Trauma Scale (SOTS). The Developmental Trauma Inventory (DTI), Cameron Complex Trauma Interview (CCTI), Complex PTSD Item Set additional to the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale (COPISAC), Complex Trauma Questionnaire (ComplexTQ), and Scale 8 of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Scale (MMPI) were used by a single study each. The ITQ was the most thoroughly investigated, validated across different populations, and is a convenient questionnaire for screening within the clinical setting. Where self-report measures are inappropriate, the ITI, SOTS, and COPISAC are interview tools which detect CPTSD. However, they require further validation and should be used alongside clinical history and examination.

复杂创伤后应激障碍的评估工具:系统综述。
要准确检测出复杂创伤后应激障碍(CPTSD),需要适当的筛查工具。本系统综述旨在评估和比较测量工具。2022 年 2 月,两位审稿人使用 "复杂创伤后应激障碍"、"创伤后应激障碍 "和 "评估 "等关键词在 Embase 和 PsychINFO 上进行了文献检索。纳入标准包括 2002-2022 年间使用评估工具对 CPTSD 进行评估的全文论文。排除标准包括综述、社论、荟萃分析或会议摘要。共有 22 篇论文符合筛选标准。13项研究使用了国际创伤问卷(ITQ)。两项研究分别使用国际创伤访谈(ITI)或创伤症状量表(SOTS)对 CPTSD 进行了评估。只有一项研究使用了发展性创伤量表 (DTI)、卡梅伦复杂创伤访谈 (CCTI)、临床医师创伤后应激障碍量表 (COPISAC) 附加复杂创伤后应激障碍项目组、复杂创伤问卷 (ComplexTQ) 和明尼苏达多相人格量表 (MMPI) 第 8 量表。ITQ 的研究最为深入,在不同人群中都得到了验证,是一种方便的临床筛查问卷。在不适合采用自我报告方法的情况下,ITI、SOTS 和 COPISAC 是可以检测 CPTSD 的访谈工具。不过,它们还需要进一步验证,并应与临床病史和检查同时使用。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.30%
发文量
42
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice provides an international forum for communication among health professionals with clinical, academic and research interests in psychiatry. The journal gives particular emphasis to papers that integrate the findings of academic research into realities of clinical practice. Focus on the practical aspects of managing and treating patients. Essential reading for the busy psychiatrist, trainee and interested physician. Includes original research papers, comprehensive review articles and short communications. Key words: Psychiatry, Neuropsychopharmacology, Mental health, Neuropsychiatry, Clinical Neurophysiology, Psychophysiology, Psychotherapy, Addiction, Schizophrenia, Depression, Bipolar Disorders and Anxiety.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信