Dataset Information

Comparison of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist Instruments From Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition vs Fifth Edition in a Large Cohort of US Military Service Members and Veterans.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The definition of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) changed markedly between the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) and DSM-5, creating challenges for studies and in medical settings spanning this transition.

Objective

To evaluate the ability to compare and assess PTSD, based on DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria, using PTSD Checklists (PCLs).

Design, setting, and participants

This diagnostic study was conducted with survey data collected in October 2019, from the Millennium Cohort Study, a population-based US military cohort study. The population for the present study was restricted to a subset of initial web responders of the 2019 survey cycle, randomly assigned to 1 of 4 survey groups.

Exposures

Each group received the DSM-IV and DSM-5 PCL (PCL-Civilian [PCL-C] version and PCL for DSM-5 [PCL-5]). PCL instruments were counterbalanced to control for order effects.

Main outcomes and measures

Survey data were used to assess PTSD (using the PCL-C and PCL-5), major depressive disorder (using the Patient Health Questionnaire), generalized anxiety (using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale), and problem drinking (using the Patient Health Questionnaire). Demographic and military characteristics included age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, service branch, pay grade, enrollment panel, and military service status.

Results

Among the 1921 participants (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [12.5] years), 1358 (70.7%) were men, 1638 (85.3%) were non-Hispanic White individuals, 1440 (75.0%) were married, and 1190 (61.9%) had at least a bachelor's degree; 295 (15.4%) had probable PTSD according to DSM-IV criteria with PCL-C compared with 286 (14.9%) using DSM-5 criteria with PCL-5 (κ = 0.77). There was substantial agreement between PCLs for probable PTSD based on DSM-IV criteria (295 [15.4%] with PCL-C; 316 [16.4%] with PCL-5; κ = 0.80) and DSM-5 criteria (286 [14.9%] with PCL-5; 258 [13.4%] with PCL-C; κ = 0.77). Estimated PTSD sum scores showed excellent agreement with observed scores. Using an established crosswalk, PCL-5 sum scores estimated with the PCL-C were similar to observed PCL-5 scores. Of the 17 corresponding items between the 2 instruments, 16 had substantial agreement. Appending 2 additional PCL-C items to the PCL-5 did not significantly alter estimates. The PCL-C and PCL-5 had nearly identical associations with comorbid conditions.

Conclusions and relevance

The findings of this diagnostic study suggest that PTSD can be successfully assessed and compared over time with either PCL instrument in veteran and military populations.

SUBMITTER: LeardMann CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8080232 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePosttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a serious mental health disorder that can be effectively treated with empirically based practices. PTSD screening is essential for identifying undetected cases and providing patients with appropriate care.ObjectiveTo determine whether the Primary Care PTSD screen for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (PC-PTSD-5) is a diagnostically accurate and acceptable measure for use in Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional, diagnostic accuracy study enrolled participants from May 19, 2017, to September 26, 2018. Participants were recruited from primary care clinics across 2 VA Medical Centers. Session 1 was conducted in person, and session 2 was completed within 30 days via telephone. A consecutive sample of 1594 veterans, aged 18 years or older, who were scheduled for a primary care visit was recruited. Data analysis was performed from March 2019 to August 2020.ExposuresIn session 1, participants completed a battery of questionnaires. In session 2, a research assistant administered the PC-PTSD-5 to participants, and then a clinician assessor blind to PC-PTSD-5 results conducted a structured diagnostic interview for PTSD.Main outcomes and measuresThe range of PC-PTSD-5 cut points overall and across gender was assessed, and diagnostic performance was evaluated by calculating weighted κ values.ResultsIn total, 495 of 1594 veterans (31%) participated, and 396 completed all measures and were included in the analyses. Participants were demographically similar to the VA primary care population (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [15.5] years; age range, 21-93 years) and were predominantly male (333 participants [84.1%]) and White (296 of 394 participants [75.1%]). The PC-PTSD-5 had high levels of diagnostic accuracy for the overall sample (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.927; 95% CI, 0.896-0.959), men (AUC, 0.932; 95% CI, 0.894-0.969), and women (AUC, 0.899, 95% CI, 0.824-0.974). A cut point of 4 ideally balanced false negatives and false positives for the overall sample and for men. However, for women, this cut point resulted in high numbers of false negatives (6 veterans [33.3%]). A cut point of 3 fit better for women, despite increasing the number of false positives. Participants rated the PC-PTSD-5 as highly acceptable.Conclusions and relevanceThe PC-PTSD-5 is an accurate and acceptable screening tool for use in VA primary care settings. Because performance parameters will change according to sample, clinicians should consider sample characteristics and screening purposes when selecting a cut point.

Project description:BackgroundA necessary shift from in-person to remote delivery of psychotherapy (eg, teletherapy, eHealth, videoconferencing) has occurred because of the COVID-19 pandemic. A corollary benefit is a potential fit in terms of the need for equitable and timely access to mental health services in remote and rural locations. Owing to COVID-19, there may be an increase in the demand for timely, virtual delivery of services among trauma-affected populations, including public safety personnel (PSP; eg, paramedics, police, fire, correctional officers), military members, and veterans. There is a lack of evidence on the question of whether digital delivery of trauma-therapies for military members, veterans, and PSP leads to similar outcomes to in-person delivery. Information on barriers and facilitators and recommendations regarding digital-delivery is also scarce.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the scope and quality of peer-reviewed literature on psychotherapeutic digital health interventions delivered remotely to military members, veterans, and PSP and synthesize the knowledge of needs, gaps, barriers to, and facilitators for virtual assessment of and virtual interventions for posttraumatic stress injury.MethodsRelevant studies were identified using MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica dataBASE), APA (American Psychological Association) PsycINFO, CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) Plus with Full Text, and Military & Government Collection. For collation, analysis, summarizing, and reporting of results, we used the CASP (Critical Skills Appraisal Program) qualitative checklist, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) scale, level of evidence hierarchy, PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews), and narrative synthesis.ResultsA total of 38 studies were included in this review. Evidence for the effectiveness of digital delivery of prolonged exposure therapy, cognitive processing therapy, behavioral activation treatment with therapeutic exposure to military members, veterans, and PSP was rated level 1a, whereas evidence for cognitive behavioral therapy was conflicting. The narrative synthesis indicated that virtual delivery of these therapies can be as effective as in-person delivery but may reduce stigma and cost while increasing access to therapy. Issues of risk, safety, potential harm (ie, suicidality, enabling avoidance), privacy, security, and the match among the therapist, modality, and patient warrant further consideration. There is a lack of studies on the influences of gender, racial, and cultural factors that may result in differential outcomes, preferences, and/or needs. An investigation into other therapies that may be suitable for digital delivery is needed.ConclusionsDigital delivery of trauma therapies for military members, veterans, and PSP is a critical area for further research. Although promising evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of digital health within these populations, many questions remain, and a cautious approach to more widespread implementation is warranted.