Relations between trauma-based subgroups and posttrauma health outcomes: A latent class analysis.

IF 2.7 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Elizabeth L Griffith, Banan Ramarushton, Kathryn P Davis, Ateka A Contractor, Adriel Boals
{"title":"Relations between trauma-based subgroups and posttrauma health outcomes: A latent class analysis.","authors":"Elizabeth L Griffith, Banan Ramarushton, Kathryn P Davis, Ateka A Contractor, Adriel Boals","doi":"10.1037/tra0001787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In trauma research, it is common for researchers to characterize participants as either \"trauma exposed\" or \"not trauma exposed\" regardless of nuanced differences of the potentially traumatic event (PTE). To our knowledge, no study has simultaneously examined differences across both PTEs and exposure types.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using latent class analysis, we investigated latent homogeneous subgroups of individuals following experiences of 16 PTEs via three exposure types (i.e., direct, indirect, and/or occupational). We further examined class differences regarding posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom clusters, event centrality, depression, and anxiety. Our sample included 2,663 participants (<i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 22.33; 56.0% female).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results indicated four latent subgroups: (a) occupational trauma (OT), (b) direct interpersonal trauma (DIT), (c) indirect trauma (IT), and (d) low trauma exposure (LTE). Individuals in the OT class reported the highest levels of all symptoms except for PTSD avoidance and event centrality (which were highest in the DIT class), and individuals in the LTE class reported the lowest levels of all symptoms. Several nuanced between-class differences were found regarding posttrauma outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings further support the notion that dichotomizing participants as \"trauma exposed\" or \"not trauma exposed\" is overly simplistic and ignores important variability in trauma research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20982,"journal":{"name":"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001787","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: In trauma research, it is common for researchers to characterize participants as either "trauma exposed" or "not trauma exposed" regardless of nuanced differences of the potentially traumatic event (PTE). To our knowledge, no study has simultaneously examined differences across both PTEs and exposure types.

Method: Using latent class analysis, we investigated latent homogeneous subgroups of individuals following experiences of 16 PTEs via three exposure types (i.e., direct, indirect, and/or occupational). We further examined class differences regarding posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom clusters, event centrality, depression, and anxiety. Our sample included 2,663 participants (Mage = 22.33; 56.0% female).

Results: Results indicated four latent subgroups: (a) occupational trauma (OT), (b) direct interpersonal trauma (DIT), (c) indirect trauma (IT), and (d) low trauma exposure (LTE). Individuals in the OT class reported the highest levels of all symptoms except for PTSD avoidance and event centrality (which were highest in the DIT class), and individuals in the LTE class reported the lowest levels of all symptoms. Several nuanced between-class differences were found regarding posttrauma outcomes.

Conclusions: Findings further support the notion that dichotomizing participants as "trauma exposed" or "not trauma exposed" is overly simplistic and ignores important variability in trauma research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

创伤亚群与创伤后健康结果之间的关系:潜类分析。
目的:在创伤研究中,研究人员通常将参与者定性为 "遭受创伤 "或 "未遭受创伤",而不考虑潜在创伤事件(PTE)的细微差别。据我们所知,还没有一项研究同时考察了潜在创伤事件和暴露类型之间的差异:利用潜类分析法,我们通过三种暴露类型(即直接、间接和/或职业)调查了经历 16 起潜在创伤事件后的潜在同质亚群。我们进一步研究了创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)症状群、事件中心性、抑郁和焦虑方面的类群差异。我们的样本包括 2,663 名参与者(Mage = 22.33;56.0% 为女性):结果显示了四个潜在亚组:(a)职业创伤(OT)、(b)直接人际创伤(DIT)、(c)间接创伤(IT)和(d)低创伤暴露(LTE)。除了创伤后应激障碍回避和事件中心性(在 DIT 类中最高)外,OT 类中的个体报告的所有症状水平最高,而 LTE 类中的个体报告的所有症状水平最低。在创伤后的结果方面,发现了几个细微的类间差异:研究结果进一步支持了这样一种观点,即把参与者分为 "受过创伤 "或 "未受过创伤 "是过于简单化了,而且忽略了创伤研究中的重要差异。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
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
11.20
自引率
3.20%
发文量
427
期刊介绍: Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy publishes empirical research on the psychological effects of trauma. The journal is intended to be a forum for an interdisciplinary discussion on trauma, blending science, theory, practice, and policy. The journal publishes empirical research on a wide range of trauma-related topics, including: -Psychological treatments and effects -Promotion of education about effects of and treatment for trauma -Assessment and diagnosis of trauma -Pathophysiology of trauma reactions -Health services (delivery of services to trauma populations) -Epidemiological studies and risk factor studies -Neuroimaging studies -Trauma and cultural competence
×
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