Clinicians’ perspectives on retraumatisation during trauma-focused interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder: A survey of UK mental health professionals

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
{"title":"Clinicians’ perspectives on retraumatisation during trauma-focused interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder: A survey of UK mental health professionals","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.janxdis.2024.102913","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Concerns regarding retraumatisation have been identified as a barrier to delivering trauma-focused therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We explored clinicians’ understanding of what constitutes potential signs of retraumatisation (PSoR), reported incidences of witnessing retraumatisation, use of (and confidence in) therapies for PTSD, fear of retraumatisation during therapy for PTSD, and whether having witnessed retraumatisation was associated with these variables. We surveyed 348 clinicians. There was variation in what clinicians viewed as PSoR. Retraumatisation was reported by clinicians in 3.4 % of patients undergoing trauma-focused therapy for PTSD. A variety of trauma-focused and non-trauma-focused therapies were routinely used, yet 14.4 % reported not using trauma-focused therapy. There was a significant negative correlation between participants’ highest reported confidence in trauma-focused therapy and endorsement of PSoR (<em>r</em> = −.25) and fear of retraumatisation (<em>r</em> = −.28). Mean fear of retraumatisation was 30.3 (<em>SD</em>=23.4; a score we derived from asking participants out of 100 how much they worry about trauma-focused therapy being harmful in its own right/leading to a worsening of PTSD symptoms). Participants who had witnessed retraumatisation reported significantly greater endorsement of PSoR (<em>d</em>=.69 [95 % CI .37, 1.02]) and fear of retraumatisation (<em>d</em>=.94 [95 % CI .61, 1.26]). Confidence in using therapies for PTSD was varied and related to how clinicians understood retraumatisation. Retraumatisation is uncommon, but there is variability in clinicians’ interpretation of what retraumatisation is, and its utility warrants research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48390,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anxiety Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887618524000896/pdfft?md5=a3686b30d33aa1660792f91227aa9b61&pid=1-s2.0-S0887618524000896-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anxiety Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887618524000896","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Concerns regarding retraumatisation have been identified as a barrier to delivering trauma-focused therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We explored clinicians’ understanding of what constitutes potential signs of retraumatisation (PSoR), reported incidences of witnessing retraumatisation, use of (and confidence in) therapies for PTSD, fear of retraumatisation during therapy for PTSD, and whether having witnessed retraumatisation was associated with these variables. We surveyed 348 clinicians. There was variation in what clinicians viewed as PSoR. Retraumatisation was reported by clinicians in 3.4 % of patients undergoing trauma-focused therapy for PTSD. A variety of trauma-focused and non-trauma-focused therapies were routinely used, yet 14.4 % reported not using trauma-focused therapy. There was a significant negative correlation between participants’ highest reported confidence in trauma-focused therapy and endorsement of PSoR (r = −.25) and fear of retraumatisation (r = −.28). Mean fear of retraumatisation was 30.3 (SD=23.4; a score we derived from asking participants out of 100 how much they worry about trauma-focused therapy being harmful in its own right/leading to a worsening of PTSD symptoms). Participants who had witnessed retraumatisation reported significantly greater endorsement of PSoR (d=.69 [95 % CI .37, 1.02]) and fear of retraumatisation (d=.94 [95 % CI .61, 1.26]). Confidence in using therapies for PTSD was varied and related to how clinicians understood retraumatisation. Retraumatisation is uncommon, but there is variability in clinicians’ interpretation of what retraumatisation is, and its utility warrants research.

临床医生在对创伤后应激障碍进行以创伤为重点的干预过程中对再创伤化的看法:英国心理健康专业人员调查。
对再次创伤的担忧已被认为是针对创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)实施创伤焦点疗法的障碍。我们探讨了临床医生对构成再创伤(PSoR)潜在迹象的理解、报告的目睹再创伤的发生率、创伤后应激障碍疗法的使用(和信心)、在创伤后应激障碍治疗过程中对再创伤的恐惧,以及目睹再创伤是否与这些变量相关。我们对 348 名临床医生进行了调查。临床医生对创伤后应激障碍的看法存在差异。据临床医生报告,有 3.4% 的创伤后应激障碍患者在接受以创伤为中心的治疗时出现了再创伤。各种以创伤为中心的疗法和非以创伤为中心的疗法都被常规使用,但有 14.4% 的患者表示没有使用以创伤为中心的疗法。参与者对创伤焦点疗法的最高信任度与对 PSoR 的认可度(r = -.25)和对再次创伤的恐惧感(r = -.28)之间存在明显的负相关。对再次创伤的恐惧的平均值为 30.3(SD=23.4;我们通过询问参与者对创伤焦点疗法本身的危害性/导致创伤后应激障碍症状恶化的担忧程度得出该分数,满分为 100 分)。目睹过再创伤的参与者对 PSoR(d=.69 [95 % CI .37, 1.02])和对再创伤的恐惧(d=.94 [95 % CI .61, 1.26])的认可度明显更高。使用创伤后应激障碍疗法的信心各不相同,这与临床医生如何理解再创伤有关。再创伤并不常见,但临床医生对再创伤的理解存在差异,其效用值得研究。
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
16.60
自引率
2.90%
发文量
95
期刊介绍: The Journal of Anxiety Disorders is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes research papers on all aspects of anxiety disorders for individuals of all age groups, including children, adolescents, adults, and the elderly. Manuscripts that focus on disorders previously classified as anxiety disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as the new category of illness anxiety disorder, are also within the scope of the journal. The research areas of focus include traditional, behavioral, cognitive, and biological assessment; diagnosis and classification; psychosocial and psychopharmacological treatment; genetics; epidemiology; and prevention. The journal welcomes theoretical and review articles that significantly contribute to current knowledge in the field. It is abstracted and indexed in various databases such as Elsevier, BIOBASE, PubMed/Medline, PsycINFO, BIOSIS Citation Index, BRS Data, Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences, Pascal Francis, Scopus, and Google Scholar.
×
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