Purpose We sought to estimate the pooled current prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among rescue workers and to determine the variables implicated in the heterogeneity observed among the prevalences of individual studies. Methods A systematic review covering studies reporting on the PTSD prevalence in rescue teams was conducted following four sequential steps: (1) research in specialized online databases, (2) review of abstracts and selection of studies, (3) review of reference list, and (4) contact with authors and experts. Prevalence data from all studies were pooled using random effects model. Multivariate meta-regression models were fitted to identify variables related to the prevalences heterogeneity. Results A total of 28 studies, reporting on 40 samples with 20,424 rescuers, were selected. The worldwide pooled current prevalence was 10%. Meta-regression modeling in studies carried out in the Asian continent had, on average, higher estimated prevalences than those from Europe, but not higher than the North American estimates. Studies of ambulance personnel also showed higher estimated PTSD prevalence than studies with firefighters and police officers. Conclusions Rescue workers in general have a pooled current prevalence of PTSD that is much higher than that of the general population. Ambulance personnel and rescuers from Asia may be more susceptible to PTSD. These results indicate the need for improving pre-employment strategies to select the most resilient individuals for rescue work, to implement continuous preventive measures for personnel, and to promote educational campaigns about PTSD and its therapeutic possibilities.

The use of Information and Communication Technologies, such as virtual reality, has been employed in the treatment of anxiety disorders with the goal of augmenting exposure treatment, which is already considered to be the first-line treatment for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). To evaluate the efficacy of virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET) in the treatment of PTSD, we performed a systematic review of published articles using the following electronic databases: Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO, and PILOTS. Eligibility criteria included the use of patients diagnosed with PTSD according to DSM-IV, the use of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and the use of virtual reality for performing exposure. 10 articles were selected, seven of which showed that VRET produced statistically significant results in comparison to the waiting list. However, no difference was found between VRET and exposure treatment. Of these 10, four were randomized, two were controlled but not randomized and four were non-controlled. The majority of the articles used head-mounted display virtual reality (VR) equipment and VR systems specific for the population that was being treated. Dropout rates do not seem to be lower than in traditional exposure treatment. However, there are a few limitations. Because this is a new field of research, there are few studies in the literature. There is also a need to standardize the number of sessions used. The randomized studies were analyzed to assess the quality of the methodology, and important deficiencies were noted, such as the non-use of intent-to- treat-analysis and the absence of description of possible concomitant treatments and comorbidities. Preliminary data suggest that VRET is as efficacious as traditional exposure treatment and can be especially useful in the treatment of patients who are resistant to traditional exposure.

No abstract

BackgroundPotentially traumatic events happen in people’s lives, leading to the risk of the development of posttraumatic stress disorder, depression and even suicide. Resilience is an individual’s ability to maintain or regain his/her mental health in the face of significant adversity or risk of death. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of studies evaluating the effectiveness of resilience promotion interventions in adults.MethodsElectronic searches were conducted in databases ISI, PsycINFO and PubMed, including every language and every year until January 20, 2013. We selected studies with nonclinical samples of adults that evaluated the effectiveness of the intervention through randomized and non-randomized controlled trials and open-ended studies. We also considered valid constructs directly related to resilience, such as hardiness.ResultsAmong 2.337 studies, 13 were selected for the review, 5 through electronic databases and 8 through search in references or the “times cited list” (list of articles that cited the selected papers). Of these, 7 are randomized controlled trials, 5 non-randomized controlled trials, and one an open-ended trial. Most of the studies included reported some degree of improvement in resilience-like variables among those subjects exposed to resilience-promoting programs. Furthermore, positive findings were more consistent among randomized controlled trials - six out of the seven suggested efficacy.ConclusionThere is evidence pointing towards some degree of effectiveness of resilience promotion programs, despite the poor operationalization of the construct and great heterogeneity in the studies. Indeed, the analysis of the methodological quality of the selected studies was hampered by the poor quality of reporting. There were faults in reporting in most studies on almost all items (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, description of concurrent treatment and intent-to-treat analysis), except for the item “selective reporting”. Additional efforts should be made to determine the actual effect size of the interventions, since this is crucial for calculating the cost-effectiveness of resilience promotion strategies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-014-0227-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A cross-sectional survey for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was conducted with 234 Brazilian ambulance workers (180 men and 54 women) using a sociodemographic questionnaire, the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist-Civilian Version, and the Short Form Health Survey-36. Current prevalence rates for full and partial PTSD were 5.6% (men = 6.7%, women = 1.9%) and 15% (men = 13.3%, women = 20.4%), respectively. Male workers with full PTSD were more likely to be nonmarried (75% vs. 43%) and those with partial PTSD reported more emotional problems (65.2% vs. 30%) and medical visits (67% vs. 44%) than the controls. Workers with PTSD showed impairment in the physical and mental domains of the SF-36, whereas workers with partial PTSD had only the later compromised. The characteristics and the level of exposure to trauma of the study population may account for the low prevalence of PTSD.