Context: Exposure to traumatic events is common in primary care patients, yet health care professionals may be hesitant to assess and address the impact of childhood trauma in their patients.Objective: To assess patient preferences for discussing traumatic experiences and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with clinicians in underserved, predominantly Latino primary care patients.Design: Cross-sectional study. Main Outcome Measure:We evaluated patients with a questionnaire assessing comfort to discuss trauma exposure and symptoms using the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study questionnaire and the Primary Care-PTSD screen. The questionnaire also assessed patients' confidence in their clinicians' ability to help with trauma-related issues. Surveys were collected at an integrated medical and behavioral health care clinic.Results: Of 178 adult patients asked, 152 (83%) agreed to participate. Among participants, 37% screened positive for PTSD, 42% reported 4 or more ACEs, and 26% had elevated scores on both measures. Primary Care-PTSD and ACE scores were strongly positively correlated (r = 0.57, p < 0.001). Most patients agreed they were comfortable being asked about trauma directly or through screening questionnaires and did not oppose the inclusion of trauma-related information in their medical record. In addition, most patients perceived their clinician as comfortable asking questions about childhood trauma and able to address trauma-related problems.Conclusion: Screening is acceptable to most primary care patients regardless of trauma exposure or positive PTSD screening. Findings may aid primary care clinicians to consider screening regularly for ACEs and PTSD to better serve the health care needs of trauma-exposed patients.
This paper reports on a study of the cross-national trends in health status during the economic transition and associated health sector reforms in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The central premise is that before long-run gains in health status are realized, the transition towards a market economy and adoption of democratic forms of government should lead to short-run deterioration as a result of: (i) reduction in real income and widening income disparities; (ii) stress and stress-related behaviour; (iii) lax regulation of environmental and occupational risks; and (iv) breakdown in basic health services. Analysis focused on three broad indicators of health status: life expectancy at birth, infant mortality rate and the probability of dying between the ages of 15 and 65 years, shown by the notation '50q15'. The study revealed significant new information about health status and the health sector which could not have been obtained without a proper cross-national study. Infant mortality rates in former socialist economies (FSE) follow the global trend, declining as per capita income rises. However, rates are lower than would be predicted given their income levels. Despite declining infant mortality, life expectancy at birth in the former socialist economies decreases as per capita income rises, in marked contrast to global trends. This is because rising income level is associated with greater probability of death between the ages of 15 and 65: the wealthier the society, the less healthy is its population, particularly for its males. Causes of death in the FSE follow global trends: higher death rates due to infectious and parasitic diseases in poorer countries, and higher death rates due to chronic diseases in wealthier countries. However, age-standardized death rates for chronic diseases generally associated with unhealthy lifestyles and environmental risk factors are very high when compared with wealthier established market economies (EME). Policies and procedures which alter the effectiveness of health services have had a demonstrable but mixed impact on health status during the early phase of transition. Effective preventive health strategies must be formulated and implemented to reverse the adverse trends observed in Central and Eastern Europe.
Study findings illustrate that trauma training can fill a knowledge gap and provide associated benefits for medical students. Initial training may pique students' interest by demonstrating the relevance of trauma knowledge in clinical practice; additional training likely is needed to support skills and confidence.
Objectives: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and pain often co-occur, introducing clinical challenges and economic burden. Psychological treatments are considered effective for each condition, yet it is not known which therapies have the potential to concurrently address PTSD and pain-related symptoms. Materials and Methods: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis, databases were searched for articles published between January 2007 and December 2017 describing results from clinical trials of interventions addressing PTSD and pain-related symptoms in adults. Two independent reviewers finalized data extraction and risk of bias assessments. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis and to calculate pooled and subgroup effect sizes (ESs) of psychological-only (single modality) and multimodal interventions. Results: Eighteen trials (7 uncontrolled, 11 randomized controlled trials, RCTs), totaling 1583 participants, were included in the systematic review. RCT intervention types included exposure-based, cognitive-behavioral, and mindfulness-based therapies. Data from 10 RCTs (N=1, 35) were available for meta-analysis, which demonstrated moderate effect for reduced PTSD severity (ES=−0.55, confidence interval [CI]: −0.83, −0.26) and nonsignificant effect for pain intensity (ES=−0.14, CI: −0.43, 0.15) and pain interference (ES=−0.07, CI: −0.35, 0.20) outcomes. Findings from uncontrolled trials supported meta-analytic results from RCTs. Using GRADE assessment, the quality of evidence was deemed as moderate for RCTs and low for non-RCTs. Discussion: Findings indicated that the majority of the interventions appeared to have a greater impact on reducing PTSD rather than pain-related symptoms. There remains a need to further develop interventions that consistently impact PTSD and pain-related outcomes when these 2 conditions co-occur.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.