T1. CLINICAL PROFILE AND PREVALENCE OF POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS SYMPTOMS AMONG SERVICE-USERS REFERRED FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL FOLLOW-UP: UTILITY OF ASSESSING SYMPTOMS SEVERITY RANGE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Individuals with psychosis and comorbid posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) typically present with more severe forms of illness. Subthreshold posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) are also likely to cause significant distress. There is a need to enhance screening processes for distressing PTSS to encourage appropriate referral to specialized services. The PTSD checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) is a widely used self-report to assess PTSS, though there is concern regarding its validity for use in psychosis. If people scoring in the severe PTSS range on the PCL-5 also present with clinical profiles similar to those typically meeting diagnosis for PTSD, it will justify considering a broader range of PTSS and support the use of the PCL-5 as a brief screener. A severe range will arguably capture a wider array of individuals, including those with subthreshold PTSS who also likely require trauma-focused intervention. Methods One hundred and two individuals with psychosis completed the PCL-5 and a battery of clinical scales as part of an intake evaluation following referral for psychological follow-up at a clinic specializing in psychosocial interventions for psychosis. Prevalence and type of DSM-5 criterion A event were explored in conjunction with PTSS severity and referral-type. Pearson correlations identified clinical variables associated with PCL-5 total scores and were subsequently entered into a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with dichotomized PTSS severity categories (low, moderate, severe). Post hoc analyses explored significant interactions. Results Of the 102 participants, 21.6% reported no prior trauma and 14.7% reported non-valid events. Sixty-five participants were included in the analysis; 6.2% of which were referred for trauma. 81.5% reported criterion A events, 10.8% reported psychosis-related events, and 7.7% did not disclose an event. PCL-5 scores were dichotomized using the 33rd and 66th percentiles, translating into low (≤ 24), moderate (25–47), and severe (≥48) groups. Delusion severity and subjective stress, anxiety, depression, social anxiety, quality of life (QoL), and wellbeing were entered into a one-way MANOVA with PTSS severity groups. Significant main effects surviving Bonferroni correction emerged for all variables except delusion severity (F(2,40) = 3.06, p = .058) and wellbeing (F(2,56) = 1.50, p =.233). Stress (F(2,62) = 7.37, p = .001) was higher in the severe (M = 13.13, SD = 5.18) versus low group (M = 7.05, SD = 4.40, p = .001). Anxiety (F(2,62) = 8.02, p = .001) was also higher in the severe (M = 12.30, SD = 5.07) compared to low group (M = 5.85, SD = 5.06, p = .000), and depression (F(2,62) = 5.37, p = .007) was additionally higher in the severe (M = 12.61, SD = 5.73) compared to low group (M = 7.20, SD = 4.97, p = .005). Finally, social anxiety (F(2,58) = 4.25, p = .026.) was higher in the severe (M = 7.76, SD = 3.58) versus low group (M = 4.68, SD = 3.68, p = .029), while QoL (F(2,58) = 3.47, p = .038) was lower in the severe (M = 49.95, SD = 10.99) compared to low group (M = 58.95, SD = 13.76, p = .037). Discussion Due to a relatively high number of invalid questionnaires (14.7%), service users should likely complete the PCL-5 in the presence of a health-care practitioner. Findings suggest inadequate referral rates for specialized services when they may indeed benefit the service-user. Severe PTSS was associated with increased symptoms of subjective anxiety, depression, stress, social anxiety, and decreased QoL, regardless of whether diagnostic criteria for PTSD was met. A severe PTSS category likely captures a broader range of individuals requiring specialized intervention and speaks to an important need to both facilitate and increase referral rate for trauma-focused therapy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».