寻求创伤后应激障碍治疗的军人和退伍军人中基于 DSM-5 标准 a 的创伤类型。

IF 2.7 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Natasha Benfer, Breanna Grunthal, Katherine A Dondanville, Stacey Young-McCaughan, Abby Blankenship, Chadi G Abdallah, Sudie E Back, Julianne Flanagan, Edna B Foa, Peter T Fox, John H Krystal, Brian P Marx, Donald D McGeary, Carmen P McLean, Kristi E Pruiksma, Patricia A Resick, John D Roache, Paulo Shiroma, Denise M Sloan, Daniel J Taylor, Jennifer Schuster Wachen, Argelio L López-Roca, Karin L Nicholson, Richard P Schobitz, Christian C Schrader, Allah-Fard M Sharrieff, Jeffrey S Yarvis, Jim Mintz, Terence M Keane, Alan L Peterson, Brett T Litz
{"title":"寻求创伤后应激障碍治疗的军人和退伍军人中基于 DSM-5 标准 a 的创伤类型。","authors":"Natasha Benfer, Breanna Grunthal, Katherine A Dondanville, Stacey Young-McCaughan, Abby Blankenship, Chadi G Abdallah, Sudie E Back, Julianne Flanagan, Edna B Foa, Peter T Fox, John H Krystal, Brian P Marx, Donald D McGeary, Carmen P McLean, Kristi E Pruiksma, Patricia A Resick, John D Roache, Paulo Shiroma, Denise M Sloan, Daniel J Taylor, Jennifer Schuster Wachen, Argelio L López-Roca, Karin L Nicholson, Richard P Schobitz, Christian C Schrader, Allah-Fard M Sharrieff, Jeffrey S Yarvis, Jim Mintz, Terence M Keane, Alan L Peterson, Brett T Litz","doi":"10.1037/tra0001537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the assumption of the equipotentiality of traumas ignores potentially unique contexts and consequences of different traumas. Accordingly, Stein et al. (2012) developed a reliable typing scheme in which assessors categorized descriptions of traumatic events into six \"types\": life threat to self (LTS), life threat to other, aftermath of violence (AV), traumatic loss, moral injury by self (MIS), and moral injury by other (MIO). We extended this research by validating the typing scheme using <i>participant endorsements of type</i>, rather than assesor-based types. We examined the concordance of participant and assesor types, frequency, and validity of participant-based trauma types by examining associations with baseline mental and behavioral health problems.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Interviewers enrolled military personnel and veterans (<i>N</i> = 1,443) in clinical trials of PTSD and helped them select the most currently distressing Criterion-A trauma. Participants and, archivally, assessors typed the distressing aspect(s) of this experience.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>AV was the most frequently participant-endorsed type, but LTS was the most frequently rated worst part of an event. Although participants endorsed MIS and MIO the least frequently, these were associated with worse mental and behavioral health problems. The agreement between participants and assessors regarding the worst part of the event was poor.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Because of discrepancies between participant and assessor typologies, clinical researchers should use participants' ratings, and these should trump assessor judgment. Differences in pretreatment behavioral and mental health problems across some participant-endorsed trauma types partially support the validity of the participant ratings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20982,"journal":{"name":"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy","volume":" ","pages":"1218-1228"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10770283/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"DSM-5 criterion-a-based trauma types in service members and veterans seeking treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder.\",\"authors\":\"Natasha Benfer, Breanna Grunthal, Katherine A Dondanville, Stacey Young-McCaughan, Abby Blankenship, Chadi G Abdallah, Sudie E Back, Julianne Flanagan, Edna B Foa, Peter T Fox, John H Krystal, Brian P Marx, Donald D McGeary, Carmen P McLean, Kristi E Pruiksma, Patricia A Resick, John D Roache, Paulo Shiroma, Denise M Sloan, Daniel J Taylor, Jennifer Schuster Wachen, Argelio L López-Roca, Karin L Nicholson, Richard P Schobitz, Christian C Schrader, Allah-Fard M Sharrieff, Jeffrey S Yarvis, Jim Mintz, Terence M Keane, Alan L Peterson, Brett T Litz\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/tra0001537\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the assumption of the equipotentiality of traumas ignores potentially unique contexts and consequences of different traumas. Accordingly, Stein et al. (2012) developed a reliable typing scheme in which assessors categorized descriptions of traumatic events into six \\\"types\\\": life threat to self (LTS), life threat to other, aftermath of violence (AV), traumatic loss, moral injury by self (MIS), and moral injury by other (MIO). We extended this research by validating the typing scheme using <i>participant endorsements of type</i>, rather than assesor-based types. We examined the concordance of participant and assesor types, frequency, and validity of participant-based trauma types by examining associations with baseline mental and behavioral health problems.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Interviewers enrolled military personnel and veterans (<i>N</i> = 1,443) in clinical trials of PTSD and helped them select the most currently distressing Criterion-A trauma. Participants and, archivally, assessors typed the distressing aspect(s) of this experience.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>AV was the most frequently participant-endorsed type, but LTS was the most frequently rated worst part of an event. Although participants endorsed MIS and MIO the least frequently, these were associated with worse mental and behavioral health problems. The agreement between participants and assessors regarding the worst part of the event was poor.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Because of discrepancies between participant and assessor typologies, clinical researchers should use participants' ratings, and these should trump assessor judgment. Differences in pretreatment behavioral and mental health problems across some participant-endorsed trauma types partially support the validity of the participant ratings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20982,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1218-1228\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10770283/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001537\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001537","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)中,创伤等同性的假设忽略了不同创伤的潜在独特背景和后果。因此,Stein 等人(2012 年)开发了一种可靠的分型方案,评估者将创伤事件的描述分为六种 "类型":对自己的生命威胁(LTS)、对他人的生命威胁、暴力后遗症(AV)、创伤性损失、对自己的精神伤害(MIS)和对他人的精神伤害(MIO)。我们对这项研究进行了扩展,使用受试者对类型的认可,而不是基于评估者的类型,来验证分型方案。我们通过研究基线心理和行为健康问题的关联,检验了参与者和评估者类型的一致性、频率以及基于参与者的创伤类型的有效性:受访者招募了参加创伤后应激障碍临床试验的军人和退伍军人(1443 人),并帮助他们选择目前最令人痛苦的标准 A 型创伤。参与者和评估者在档案中键入这一经历中令人痛苦的方面:参与者最常认可的创伤类型是 "AV",但 "LTS "是事件中最常被评为最糟糕的部分。虽然参与者对 MIS 和 MIO 的认可度最低,但这两种类型与更严重的心理和行为健康问题有关。参与者和评估者在事件最糟糕的部分上的一致性很差:结论:由于参与者和评估者的类型存在差异,临床研究人员应使用参与者的评分,而且这些评分应高于评估者的判断。某些参与者认可的创伤类型在治疗前行为和心理健康问题上的差异部分支持了参与者评分的有效性。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 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。
DSM-5 criterion-a-based trauma types in service members and veterans seeking treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder.

Objective: In posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the assumption of the equipotentiality of traumas ignores potentially unique contexts and consequences of different traumas. Accordingly, Stein et al. (2012) developed a reliable typing scheme in which assessors categorized descriptions of traumatic events into six "types": life threat to self (LTS), life threat to other, aftermath of violence (AV), traumatic loss, moral injury by self (MIS), and moral injury by other (MIO). We extended this research by validating the typing scheme using participant endorsements of type, rather than assesor-based types. We examined the concordance of participant and assesor types, frequency, and validity of participant-based trauma types by examining associations with baseline mental and behavioral health problems.

Method: Interviewers enrolled military personnel and veterans (N = 1,443) in clinical trials of PTSD and helped them select the most currently distressing Criterion-A trauma. Participants and, archivally, assessors typed the distressing aspect(s) of this experience.

Results: AV was the most frequently participant-endorsed type, but LTS was the most frequently rated worst part of an event. Although participants endorsed MIS and MIO the least frequently, these were associated with worse mental and behavioral health problems. The agreement between participants and assessors regarding the worst part of the event was poor.

Conclusion: Because of discrepancies between participant and assessor typologies, clinical researchers should use participants' ratings, and these should trump assessor judgment. Differences in pretreatment behavioral and mental health problems across some participant-endorsed trauma types partially support the validity of the participant ratings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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
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