Comparing diagnostic criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder in a diverse sample of trauma-exposed youth

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Cody G. Dodd, Claire L. Kirk, Paul J. Rathouz, James Custer, Amy S. Garrett, Leslie Taylor, Justin F. Rousseau, Cynthia Claasen, Myesha M. Morgan, D. Jeffrey Newport, Karen D. Wagner, Charles B. Nemeroff
{"title":"Comparing diagnostic criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder in a diverse sample of trauma-exposed youth","authors":"Cody G. Dodd,&nbsp;Claire L. Kirk,&nbsp;Paul J. Rathouz,&nbsp;James Custer,&nbsp;Amy S. Garrett,&nbsp;Leslie Taylor,&nbsp;Justin F. Rousseau,&nbsp;Cynthia Claasen,&nbsp;Myesha M. Morgan,&nbsp;D. Jeffrey Newport,&nbsp;Karen D. Wagner,&nbsp;Charles B. Nemeroff","doi":"10.1002/jts.23037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Divergent conceptualization of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) within the <i>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders</i> (5th ed.; <i>DSM-</i>5) and <i>International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems</i> (11th ed..; <i>ICD-11</i>) significantly confounds both research and practice. Using a diverse sample of trauma-exposed youth (<i>N</i> = 1,542, age range: 8–20 years), we compared these two diagnostic approaches along with an expanded version of the <i>ICD-11</i> PTSD criteria that included three additional reexperiencing symptoms (<i>ICD-11</i>+). Within the sample, PTSD was more prevalent using the <i>DSM-5</i> criteria (25.7%) compared to the <i>ICD-11</i> criteria (16.0%), with moderate agreement between these diagnostic systems, κ = .57. The inclusion of additional reexperiencing symptoms (i.e., <i>ICD-11</i>+) reduced this discrepancy in prevalence (24.7%) and increased concordance with <i>DSM-5</i> criteria, κ = .73. All three PTSD classification systems exhibited similar comorbidity rates with major depressive episode (MDE) or generalized anxiety disorder (GAD; 78.0%–83.6%). Most youths who met the <i>DSM-5</i> PTSD criteria also met the criteria for <i>ICD-11</i> PTSD, MDE, or GAD (88.4%), and this proportion increased when applying the <i>ICD-11</i>+ criteria (95.5%). Symptom-level analyses identified reexperiencing/intrusions and negative alterations in cognition and mood symptoms as primary sources of discrepancy between the <i>DSM-5</i> and <i>ICD-11</i> PTSD diagnostic systems. Overall, these results challenge assertions that nonspecific distress and diagnostically overlapping symptoms within <i>DSM-5</i> PTSD inflate comorbidity with depressive and anxiety disorders. Further, they support the argument that the <i>DSM-5</i> PTSD criteria can be refined and simplified without reducing the overall prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses in youth.</p>","PeriodicalId":17519,"journal":{"name":"Journal of traumatic stress","volume":"37 4","pages":"606-616"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of traumatic stress","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jts.23037","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Divergent conceptualization of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (11th ed..; ICD-11) significantly confounds both research and practice. Using a diverse sample of trauma-exposed youth (N = 1,542, age range: 8–20 years), we compared these two diagnostic approaches along with an expanded version of the ICD-11 PTSD criteria that included three additional reexperiencing symptoms (ICD-11+). Within the sample, PTSD was more prevalent using the DSM-5 criteria (25.7%) compared to the ICD-11 criteria (16.0%), with moderate agreement between these diagnostic systems, κ = .57. The inclusion of additional reexperiencing symptoms (i.e., ICD-11+) reduced this discrepancy in prevalence (24.7%) and increased concordance with DSM-5 criteria, κ = .73. All three PTSD classification systems exhibited similar comorbidity rates with major depressive episode (MDE) or generalized anxiety disorder (GAD; 78.0%–83.6%). Most youths who met the DSM-5 PTSD criteria also met the criteria for ICD-11 PTSD, MDE, or GAD (88.4%), and this proportion increased when applying the ICD-11+ criteria (95.5%). Symptom-level analyses identified reexperiencing/intrusions and negative alterations in cognition and mood symptoms as primary sources of discrepancy between the DSM-5 and ICD-11 PTSD diagnostic systems. Overall, these results challenge assertions that nonspecific distress and diagnostically overlapping symptoms within DSM-5 PTSD inflate comorbidity with depressive and anxiety disorders. Further, they support the argument that the DSM-5 PTSD criteria can be refined and simplified without reducing the overall prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses in youth.

比较不同样本中受创伤青少年的创伤后应激障碍诊断标准
精神疾病诊断与统计手册》(第 5 版;DSM-5)和《疾病与相关健康问题国际统计分类》(第 11 版;ICD-11)对创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)的概念划分存在差异,这严重影响了研究和实践。我们通过对遭受创伤的青少年(样本数:1,542,年龄范围:8-20 岁)的不同样本进行分析,比较了这两种诊断方法以及 ICD-11 PTSD 标准的扩展版,其中包括三个额外的再经历症状(ICD-11+)。在样本中,与 ICD-11 标准(16.0%)相比,DSM-5 标准(25.7%)的创伤后应激障碍发生率更高,这两种诊断系统之间的一致性适中,κ = .57。纳入额外的再体验症状(即 ICD-11+ 症状)后,患病率(24.7%)的差异有所缩小,与 DSM-5 标准的一致性也有所提高,κ = .73。所有三种创伤后应激障碍分类系统与重度抑郁发作(MDE)或广泛性焦虑症(GAD;78.0%-83.6%)的合并率相似。大多数符合 DSM-5 PTSD 标准的青少年也符合 ICD-11 PTSD、MDE 或 GAD 标准(88.4%),如果采用 ICD-11+ 标准,这一比例还会增加(95.5%)。症状层面的分析表明,DSM-5 和 ICD-11 PTSD 诊断系统之间差异的主要来源是再体验/侵入以及认知和情绪症状的负面改变。总体而言,这些结果对以下论断提出了质疑:DSM-5创伤后应激障碍诊断系统中的非特异性痛苦和诊断上的重叠症状扩大了与抑郁症和焦虑症的共病性。此外,这些结果还支持以下论点:DSM-5创伤后应激障碍诊断标准可以在不降低青少年精神病诊断总体患病率的情况下加以完善和简化。
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
5.80
自引率
6.10%
发文量
125
期刊介绍: Journal of Traumatic Stress (JTS) is published for the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. Journal of Traumatic Stress , the official publication for the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, is an interdisciplinary forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original papers on biopsychosocial aspects of trauma. Papers focus on theoretical formulations, research, treatment, prevention education/training, and legal and policy concerns. Journal of Traumatic Stress serves as a primary reference for professionals who study and treat people exposed to highly stressful and traumatic events (directly or through their occupational roles), such as war, disaster, accident, violence or abuse (criminal or familial), hostage-taking, or life-threatening illness. The journal publishes original articles, brief reports, review papers, commentaries, and, from time to time, special issues devoted to a single topic.
×
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