Annabel Prins1,2, Michelle J Bovin3,4, Derek J Smolenski5, Brian P Marx3,4, Rachel Kimerling6,7, Michael A Jenkins-Guarnieri8, Danny G Kaloupek3,4, Paula P Schnurr9,10, Anica Pless Kaiser3,4, Yani E Leyva11, Quyen Q Tiet6,7,12,13. 1. National Center for PTSD, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, 795 Willow Road, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA. Annabel.Prins@sjsu.edu. 2. Department of Psychology, San Jose State University, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA, 95192, USA. Annabel.Prins@sjsu.edu. 3. National Center for PTSD, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 5. National Center for Telehealth and Technology, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA, 98433, USA. 6. National Center for PTSD, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, 795 Willow Road, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA. 7. Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 8. Private Practice, Tacoma, WA, USA. 9. National Center for PTSD, White River Junction VA Medical Center, White River Junction, VT, USA. 10. Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, USA. 11. Research Division, San Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA. 12. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. 13. California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International University, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is associated with increased health care utilization, medical morbidity, and tobacco and alcohol use. Consequently, screening for PTSD has become increasingly common in primary care clinics, especially in Veteran healthcare settings where trauma exposure among patients is common. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to revise the Primary Care PTSD screen (PC-PTSD) to reflect the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria for PTSD (PC-PTSD-5) and to examine both the diagnostic accuracy and the patient acceptability of the revised measure. DESIGN: We compared the PC-PTSD-5 results with those from a brief psychiatric interview for PTSD. Participants also rated screening preferences and acceptability of the PC-PTSD-5. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 398 Veterans participated in the study (response rate = 41 %). Most of the participants were male, in their 60s, and the majority identified as non-Hispanic White. MEASURES: The PC-PTSD-5 was used as the screening measure, a modified version of the PTSD module of the MINI-International Neuropsychiatric Interview was used to diagnose DSM-5 PTSD, and five brief survey items were used to assess acceptability and preferences. KEY RESULTS: The PC-PTSD-5 demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.941; 95 % C.I.: 0.912- 0.969). Whereas a cut score of 3 maximized sensitivity (κ[1]) = 0.93; SE = .041; 95 % C.I.: 0.849-1.00), a cut score of 4 maximized efficiency (κ[0.5] = 0.63; SE = 0.052; 95 % C.I.: 0.527-0.731), and a cut score of 5 maximized specificity (κ[0] = 0.70; SE = 0.077; 95 % C.I.: 0.550-0.853). Patients found the screen acceptable and indicated a preference for administration by their primary care providers as opposed to by other providers or via self-report. CONCLUSIONS: The PC-PTSD-5 demonstrated strong preliminary results for diagnostic accuracy, and was broadly acceptable to patients.
BACKGROUND:Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is associated with increased health care utilization, medical morbidity, and tobacco and alcohol use. Consequently, screening for PTSD has become increasingly common in primary care clinics, especially in Veteran healthcare settings where trauma exposure among patients is common. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to revise the Primary Care PTSD screen (PC-PTSD) to reflect the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria for PTSD (PC-PTSD-5) and to examine both the diagnostic accuracy and the patient acceptability of the revised measure. DESIGN: We compared the PC-PTSD-5 results with those from a brief psychiatric interview for PTSD. Participants also rated screening preferences and acceptability of the PC-PTSD-5. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 398 Veterans participated in the study (response rate = 41 %). Most of the participants were male, in their 60s, and the majority identified as non-Hispanic White. MEASURES: The PC-PTSD-5 was used as the screening measure, a modified version of the PTSD module of the MINI-International Neuropsychiatric Interview was used to diagnose DSM-5 PTSD, and five brief survey items were used to assess acceptability and preferences. KEY RESULTS: The PC-PTSD-5 demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.941; 95 % C.I.: 0.912- 0.969). Whereas a cut score of 3 maximized sensitivity (κ[1]) = 0.93; SE = .041; 95 % C.I.: 0.849-1.00), a cut score of 4 maximized efficiency (κ[0.5] = 0.63; SE = 0.052; 95 % C.I.: 0.527-0.731), and a cut score of 5 maximized specificity (κ[0] = 0.70; SE = 0.077; 95 % C.I.: 0.550-0.853). Patients found the screen acceptable and indicated a preference for administration by their primary care providers as opposed to by other providers or via self-report. CONCLUSIONS: The PC-PTSD-5 demonstrated strong preliminary results for diagnostic accuracy, and was broadly acceptable to patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
DSM-5; PTSD; primary health care; screening
Authors: Melissa E Milanak; Daniel F Gros; Kathryn M Magruder; Olga Brawman-Mintzer; B Christopher Frueh Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2013-05-07 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Kathryn M Magruder; B Christopher Frueh; Rebecca G Knapp; Lori Davis; Mark B Hamner; Renée Hebert Martin; Paul B Gold; George W Arana Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2005 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Matthew J Friedman; Patricia A Resick; Richard A Bryant; James Strain; Mardi Horowitz; David Spiegel Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: D V Sheehan; Y Lecrubier; K H Sheehan; P Amorim; J Janavs; E Weiller; T Hergueta; R Baker; G C Dunbar Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 1998 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Michele R Spoont; John W Williams; Shannon Kehle-Forbes; Jason A Nieuwsma; Monica C Mann-Wrobel; Raz Gross Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J Bomyea; A J Lang; D Golinelli; M G Craske; D A Chavira; C D Sherbourne; R D Rose; L Campbell-Sills; S S Welch; G Sullivan; A Bystritsky; P Roy-Byrne; M B Stein Journal: J Psychopathol Behav Assess Date: 2013-06-01
Authors: Melissa R Schick; Nicole H Weiss; Ateka C Contractor; Emmanuel D Thomas; Nichea S Spillane Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Charles H Bombardier; Casey B Azuero; Jesse R Fann; Donald D Kautz; J Scott Richards; Sunil Sabharwal Journal: Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil Date: 2021
Authors: Diane Flynn; Linda H Eaton; Dale J Langford; Nicholas Ieronimakis; Honor McQuinn; Richard O Burney; Samuel L Holmes; Ardith Z Doorenbos Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-08-24 Impact factor: 2.226