智力残疾个体创伤后应激障碍的筛查和评估:范围综述

IF 1.5 Q3 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Annemieke Hoogstad, Nienke Peters-Scheffer, Marielle Rouleaux, Liesbeth Mevissen, Anne Versluis, Robert Didden
{"title":"智力残疾个体创伤后应激障碍的筛查和评估:范围综述","authors":"Annemieke Hoogstad,&nbsp;Nienke Peters-Scheffer,&nbsp;Marielle Rouleaux,&nbsp;Liesbeth Mevissen,&nbsp;Anne Versluis,&nbsp;Robert Didden","doi":"10.1007/s41252-025-00441-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) or borderline intellectual functioning (BIF) often remains underdiagnosed. This review updates Daveney et al.’s (2019) review of studies on screening and assessment instruments for PTSD in these individuals.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>This review covers eight studies in which a total of five PTSD instruments are investigated. Three studies focused on individuals with mild ID and/or BIF (Impact of Event Scale-Intellectual Disabilities and Diagnostic Interview Trauma and Stressors-Intellectual Disability), two on mild to moderate ID (Lancaster and Northgate Trauma Scales), and two on severe to moderate ID (Diagnostic Interview Trauma and Stressors—Severe Intellectual Disability). One study did not specify the severity of ID (International Trauma Questionnaire-Intellectual Disabilities). Most instruments focus primarily on identifying PTSD symptoms, while some also integrate the assessment of traumatic and/or stressful events.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>There is growing attention on PTSD assessment in individuals with ID or BIF. While most PTSD instruments have been developed for adults with mild to moderate ID or BIF, further research is needed to validate PTSD instruments in these populations. Additionally, research is needed on PTSD assessment in individuals with more severe levels of ID and in children with ID. Cross-cultural validation studies and larger sample sizes are required. Development of guidelines for PTSD screening and assessment in individuals with ID or BIF is recommended.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36163,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders","volume":"9 3","pages":"465 - 478"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s41252-025-00441-5.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Screening and Assessment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities: A Scoping Review\",\"authors\":\"Annemieke Hoogstad,&nbsp;Nienke Peters-Scheffer,&nbsp;Marielle Rouleaux,&nbsp;Liesbeth Mevissen,&nbsp;Anne Versluis,&nbsp;Robert Didden\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41252-025-00441-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) or borderline intellectual functioning (BIF) often remains underdiagnosed. This review updates Daveney et al.’s (2019) review of studies on screening and assessment instruments for PTSD in these individuals.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>This review covers eight studies in which a total of five PTSD instruments are investigated. Three studies focused on individuals with mild ID and/or BIF (Impact of Event Scale-Intellectual Disabilities and Diagnostic Interview Trauma and Stressors-Intellectual Disability), two on mild to moderate ID (Lancaster and Northgate Trauma Scales), and two on severe to moderate ID (Diagnostic Interview Trauma and Stressors—Severe Intellectual Disability). One study did not specify the severity of ID (International Trauma Questionnaire-Intellectual Disabilities). Most instruments focus primarily on identifying PTSD symptoms, while some also integrate the assessment of traumatic and/or stressful events.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>There is growing attention on PTSD assessment in individuals with ID or BIF. While most PTSD instruments have been developed for adults with mild to moderate ID or BIF, further research is needed to validate PTSD instruments in these populations. Additionally, research is needed on PTSD assessment in individuals with more severe levels of ID and in children with ID. Cross-cultural validation studies and larger sample sizes are required. Development of guidelines for PTSD screening and assessment in individuals with ID or BIF is recommended.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36163,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders\",\"volume\":\"9 3\",\"pages\":\"465 - 478\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s41252-025-00441-5.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41252-025-00441-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41252-025-00441-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:智力障碍(ID)或边缘性智力功能障碍(BIF)患者的创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)通常仍未得到充分诊断。这篇综述更新了Daveney等人(2019)对这些个体的创伤后应激障碍筛查和评估工具的研究综述。方法根据乔安娜布里格斯研究所(JBI)的范围审查方法进行范围审查。结果本综述涵盖了8项研究,共调查了5种PTSD仪器。三项研究关注轻度ID和/或BIF个体(事件影响量表-智力残疾和诊断性访谈创伤和压力因素-智力残疾),两项研究关注轻度至中度ID(兰开斯特和北门创伤量表),两项研究关注重度至中度ID(诊断性访谈创伤和压力因素-严重智力残疾)。一项研究没有明确指出ID(国际创伤问卷-智力残疾)的严重程度。大多数工具主要侧重于识别创伤后应激障碍症状,而有些工具也整合了对创伤和/或压力事件的评估。结论对ID或BIF患者PTSD的评估越来越受到重视。虽然大多数PTSD工具都是为轻度至中度ID或BIF的成年人开发的,但需要进一步的研究来验证PTSD工具在这些人群中的应用。此外,需要对更严重的ID个体和ID儿童的PTSD评估进行研究。需要跨文化验证研究和更大的样本量。建议制定ID或BIF患者PTSD筛查和评估指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Screening and Assessment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities: A Scoping Review

Objectives

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) or borderline intellectual functioning (BIF) often remains underdiagnosed. This review updates Daveney et al.’s (2019) review of studies on screening and assessment instruments for PTSD in these individuals.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews.

Results

This review covers eight studies in which a total of five PTSD instruments are investigated. Three studies focused on individuals with mild ID and/or BIF (Impact of Event Scale-Intellectual Disabilities and Diagnostic Interview Trauma and Stressors-Intellectual Disability), two on mild to moderate ID (Lancaster and Northgate Trauma Scales), and two on severe to moderate ID (Diagnostic Interview Trauma and Stressors—Severe Intellectual Disability). One study did not specify the severity of ID (International Trauma Questionnaire-Intellectual Disabilities). Most instruments focus primarily on identifying PTSD symptoms, while some also integrate the assessment of traumatic and/or stressful events.

Conclusions

There is growing attention on PTSD assessment in individuals with ID or BIF. While most PTSD instruments have been developed for adults with mild to moderate ID or BIF, further research is needed to validate PTSD instruments in these populations. Additionally, research is needed on PTSD assessment in individuals with more severe levels of ID and in children with ID. Cross-cultural validation studies and larger sample sizes are required. Development of guidelines for PTSD screening and assessment in individuals with ID or BIF is recommended.

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
Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
72
期刊介绍: Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders publishes high-quality research in the broad area of neurodevelopmental disorders across the lifespan. Study participants may include individuals with:Intellectual and developmental disabilitiesGlobal developmental delayCommunication disordersLanguage disordersSpeech sound disordersChildhood-onset fluency disorders (e.g., stuttering)Social (e.g., pragmatic) communication disordersUnspecified communication disordersAutism spectrum disorder (ASD)Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), specified and unspecifiedSpecific learning disordersMotor disordersDevelopmental coordination disordersStereotypic movement disorderTic disorders, specified and unspecifiedOther neurodevelopmental disorders, specified and unspecifiedPapers may also include studies of participants with neurodegenerative disorders that lead to a decline in intellectual functioning, including Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, vascular dementia, Lewy body dementia, frontotemporal dementia, corticobasal degeneration, Huntington’s disease, and progressive supranuclear palsy. The journal includes empirical, theoretical and review papers on a large variety of issues, populations, and domains, including but not limited to: diagnosis; incidence and prevalence; and educational, pharmacological, behavioral and cognitive behavioral, mindfulness, and psychosocial interventions across the life span. Animal models of basic research that inform the understanding and treatment of neurodevelopmental disorders are also welcomed. The journal is multidisciplinary and multi-theoretical, and encourages research from multiple specialties in the social sciences using quantitative and mixed-method research methodologies.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信