David S Fink1, Jaimie L Gradus2,3,4, Katherine M Keyes1, Joseph R Calabrese5, Israel Liberzon6, Marijo B Tamburrino7, Gregory H Cohen1,4, Laura Sampson4, Sandro Galea8. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University, New York, New York. 2. National Center for PTSD, Boston VA Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. School of Medicine, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Case Western University, Cleveland, Ohio. 6. Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 7. Department of Psychiatry, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio. 8. School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prevention of PTSD requires identification of subpopulations contributing most to the population burden of PTSD. This study examines the relative contribution of subthreshold PTSD and probable PTSD on future PTSD in a representative military cohort. METHODS: We analyze data on 3,457 U.S. National Guard members from the state of Ohio, assessed by telephone annually from 2008 to 2014. At each wave, participants were classified into one of three groups based on the PTSD Checklist: probable PTSD (DSM-IV-TR criteria), subthreshold PTSD (Criterion A1, at least one symptom in each cluster, symptom lasting longer than 30 days, and functional impairment), and no PTSD. We calculated the exposure rate, risk ratio (RR), and population attributable fraction (PAF) to determine the burden of future probable PTSD attributable to subthreshold PTSD compared to probable PTSD. RESULTS: The annualized prevalence of subthreshold PTSD and probable PTSD was respectively 11.9 and 5.0%. The RR for probable PTSD was twice as great among respondents with probable PTSD the prior interview than that of those with subthreshold PTSD (7.0 vs. 3.4); however, the PAF was considerably greater in participants with subthreshold PTSD the prior interview (PAF = 35%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 26.0-42.9%) than in those with probable PTSD (PAF = 28.0%; 95% CI = 21.8-33.8%). Results were robust to changes in subthreshold PTSD definition. CONCLUSIONS: Subthreshold PTSD accounted for a substantial proportion of this population's future PTSD burden. Population-based preventive interventions, compared to an approach focused exclusively on cases of diagnosable PTSD, is likely to affect the greatest reduction in this population's future PTSD burden.
BACKGROUND: Prevention of PTSD requires identification of subpopulations contributing most to the population burden of PTSD. This study examines the relative contribution of subthreshold PTSD and probable PTSD on future PTSD in a representative military cohort. METHODS: We analyze data on 3,457 U.S. National Guard members from the state of Ohio, assessed by telephone annually from 2008 to 2014. At each wave, participants were classified into one of three groups based on the PTSD Checklist: probable PTSD (DSM-IV-TR criteria), subthreshold PTSD (Criterion A1, at least one symptom in each cluster, symptom lasting longer than 30 days, and functional impairment), and no PTSD. We calculated the exposure rate, risk ratio (RR), and population attributable fraction (PAF) to determine the burden of future probable PTSD attributable to subthreshold PTSD compared to probable PTSD. RESULTS: The annualized prevalence of subthreshold PTSD and probable PTSD was respectively 11.9 and 5.0%. The RR for probable PTSD was twice as great among respondents with probable PTSD the prior interview than that of those with subthreshold PTSD (7.0 vs. 3.4); however, the PAF was considerably greater in participants with subthreshold PTSD the prior interview (PAF = 35%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 26.0-42.9%) than in those with probable PTSD (PAF = 28.0%; 95% CI = 21.8-33.8%). Results were robust to changes in subthreshold PTSD definition. CONCLUSIONS: Subthreshold PTSD accounted for a substantial proportion of this population's future PTSD burden. Population-based preventive interventions, compared to an approach focused exclusively on cases of diagnosable PTSD, is likely to affect the greatest reduction in this population's future PTSD burden.
Authors: Stevan E Hobfoll; Patricia Watson; Carl C Bell; Richard A Bryant; Melissa J Brymer; Matthew J Friedman; Merle Friedman; Berthold P R Gersons; Joop T V M de Jong; Christopher M Layne; Shira Maguen; Yuval Neria; Ann E Norwood; Robert S Pynoos; Dori Reissman; Josef I Ruzek; Arieh Y Shalev; Zahava Solomon; Alan M Steinberg; Robert J Ursano Journal: Psychiatry Date: 2007 Impact factor: 2.458
Authors: Matthew Jakupcak; Katherine D Hoerster; Alethea Varra; Steven Vannoy; Bradford Felker; Stephen Hunt Journal: J Nerv Ment Dis Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 2.254
Authors: N Brunello; J R Davidson; M Deahl; R C Kessler; J Mendlewicz; G Racagni; A Y Shalev; J Zohar Journal: Neuropsychobiology Date: 2001 Impact factor: 2.328
Authors: Robert H Pietrzak; Marc B Goldstein; James C Malley; Douglas C Johnson; Steven M Southwick Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2009 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Lindsay J Collin; Katalin Veres; Jaimie L Gradus; Thomas P Ahern; Timothy L Lash; Henrik Toft Sørensen Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Meghan L Smith; Dóra Körmendiné Farkas; Jennifer A Sumner; Unnur Valdimarsdóttir; Timothy L Lash; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Jaimie L Gradus Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2020-12-30 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Claudia Carmassi; Carlo Antonio Bertelloni; Valerio Dell'Oste; Chiara Luperini; Donatella Marazziti; Rodolfo Rossi; Liliana Dell'Osso Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-02-10
Authors: Robyn M Highfill-McRoy; Jordan A Levine; Gerald E Larson; Sonya B Norman; Emily A Schmied; Cynthia J Thomsen Journal: Mil Med Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 1.563
Authors: Lauren C Ng; Rachel Oblath; Rebecca Brigham; Ming Him Tai; Mandy Coles Journal: Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health Date: 2022-08-23 Impact factor: 7.494