OBJECTIVE: Growth mixture model studies have observed substantial differences in the longitudinal patterns of posttraumatic stress symptom (PTSS) trajectories. This variability could represent chance iterations of some prototypical trajectories or measurable variability induced by some aspect of the source population or traumatic event experience. Testing the latter, the authors analyzed a nationally representative sample of U.S. Reserve and National Guard members to identify the influence of civilian versus deployment trauma on the number of PTSS trajectories, the nature of these trajectories, and the proportion of respondents in each trajectory. METHOD: Data were collected from 2010 to 2013 and latent class growth analysis was used to identify different patterns of PTSS in persons exposed to both a civilian and a deployment trauma and to test whether respondents' exposure to civilian trauma developed similar or distinct patterns of response compared to respondents exposed to deployment trauma. RESULTS: PTSS were found to follow 3 trajectories, with respondents predominantly clustered in the lowest symptom trajectory for both trauma types. Covariates associated with each trajectory were similar between the 2 traumas, except number of civilian-related traumatic events; specifically, a higher number of civilian traumatic events was associated with membership in the borderline-stable, compared to low-consistent, trajectory, for civilian traumas and associated with the preexisting chronic trajectory for military traumas. CONCLUSIONS: Holding the source population constant, PTSS trajectory models were similar for civilian and deployment-related trauma, suggesting that irrespective of traumatic event experienced there might be some universal trajectory patterns. Thus, the differences in source populations may have induced the heterogeneity observed among prior PTSS trajectory studies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: Growth mixture model studies have observed substantial differences in the longitudinal patterns of posttraumatic stress symptom (PTSS) trajectories. This variability could represent chance iterations of some prototypical trajectories or measurable variability induced by some aspect of the source population or traumatic event experience. Testing the latter, the authors analyzed a nationally representative sample of U.S. Reserve and National Guard members to identify the influence of civilian versus deployment trauma on the number of PTSS trajectories, the nature of these trajectories, and the proportion of respondents in each trajectory. METHOD: Data were collected from 2010 to 2013 and latent class growth analysis was used to identify different patterns of PTSS in persons exposed to both a civilian and a deployment trauma and to test whether respondents' exposure to civilian trauma developed similar or distinct patterns of response compared to respondents exposed to deployment trauma. RESULTS:PTSS were found to follow 3 trajectories, with respondents predominantly clustered in the lowest symptom trajectory for both trauma types. Covariates associated with each trajectory were similar between the 2 traumas, except number of civilian-related traumatic events; specifically, a higher number of civilian traumatic events was associated with membership in the borderline-stable, compared to low-consistent, trajectory, for civilian traumas and associated with the preexisting chronic trajectory for military traumas. CONCLUSIONS: Holding the source population constant, PTSS trajectory models were similar for civilian and deployment-related trauma, suggesting that irrespective of traumatic event experienced there might be some universal trajectory patterns. Thus, the differences in source populations may have induced the heterogeneity observed among prior PTSS trajectory studies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Anouk L Grubaugh; Kathryn M Magruder; Angela E Waldrop; Jon D Elhai; Rebecca G Knapp; B Christopher Frueh Journal: J Nerv Ment Dis Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 2.254
Authors: Richard A Bryant; Angela Nickerson; Mark Creamer; Meaghan O'Donnell; David Forbes; Isaac Galatzer-Levy; Alexander C McFarlane; Derrick Silove Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2015-02-05 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Isabel G Jacobson; Margaret A K Ryan; Tomoko I Hooper; Tyler C Smith; Paul J Amoroso; Edward J Boyko; Gary D Gackstetter; Timothy S Wells; Nicole S Bell Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-08-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: R H Pietrzak; A Feder; R Singh; C B Schechter; E J Bromet; C L Katz; D B Reissman; F Ozbay; V Sharma; M Crane; D Harrison; R Herbert; S M Levin; B J Luft; J M Moline; J M Stellman; I G Udasin; P J Landrigan; S M Southwick Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2013-04-03 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Sarah R Lowe; Andrew Ratanatharathorn; Betty S Lai; Willem van der Mei; Anna C Barbano; Richard A Bryant; Douglas L Delahanty; Yutaka J Matsuoka; Miranda Olff; Ulrich Schnyder; Eugene Laska; Karestan C Koenen; Arieh Y Shalev; Ronald C Kessler Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Chelsea Sawyers; Erin D Kurtz; Christina Sheerin; Hermine H Maes; Kenneth S Kendler; Ananda B Amstadter Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Laura Sampson; Howard J Cabral; Anthony J Rosellini; Jaimie L Gradus; Gregory H Cohen; David S Fink; Anthony P King; Israel Liberzon; Sandro Galea Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Christina M Sheerin; Kelcey J Stratton; Ananda B Amstadter; The Va Mid-Atlantic Mental Illness Research Education Clinical Center Mirecc Workgroup; Scott D McDonald Journal: Eur J Psychotraumatol Date: 2018-07-02
Authors: Meaghan L O'Donnell; James A Agathos; Olivia Metcalf; Kari Gibson; Winnie Lau Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 3.390