Background-Disasters are traumatic events that may result in a wide range of mental and physical health consequences. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is probably the most commonly studied post-disaster psychiatric disorder. This review aimed to systematically assess the evidence about PTSD following exposure to disasters.
Given the devastation caused by disasters and mass violence, it is critical that intervention policy be based on the most updated research findings. However, to date, no evidence-based consensus has been reached supporting a clear set of recommendations for intervention during the immediate and the mid-term post mass trauma phases. Because it is unlikely that there will be evidence in the near or mid-term future from clinical trials that cover the diversity of disaster and mass violence circumstances, we assembled a worldwide panel of experts on the study and treatment of those exposed to disaster and mass violence to extrapolate from related fields of research, and to gain consensus on intervention principles. We identified five empirically supported intervention principles that should be used to guide and inform intervention and prevention efforts at the early to mid-term stages. These are promoting: 1) a sense of safety, 2) calming, 3) a sense of self- and community efficacy, 4) connectedness, and 5) hope.
Given the devastation caused by disasters and mass violence, it is critical that intervention policy be based on the most updated research findings. However, to date, no evidence-based consensus has been reached supporting a clear set of recommendations for intervention during the immediate and the mid-term post mass trauma phases. Because it is unlikely that there will be evidence in the near or mid-term future from clinical trials that cover the diversity of disaster and mass violence circumstances, we assembled a worldwide panel of experts on the study and treatment of those exposed to disaster and mass violence to extrapolate from related fields of research, and to gain consensus on intervention principles. We identified five empirically supported intervention principles that should be used to guide and inform intervention and prevention efforts at the early to mid-term stages. These are promoting: 1) a sense of safety, 2) calming, 3) a sense of self-and community efficacy, 4) connectedness, and 5) hope. (Reprinted with permission from Psychiatry 70(4) Winter 2007)
Purpose of Review Globally, the majority of those who need mental health care worldwide lack access to high-quality mental health services. Stigma, human resource shortages, fragmented service delivery models, and lack of research capacity for implementation and policy change contribute to the current mental health treatment gap. In this review, we describe how health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are addressing the mental health gap and further identify challenges and priority areas for future research. Recent Findings Common mental disorders are responsible for the largest proportion of the global burden of disease; yet, there is sound evidence that these disorders, as well as severe mental disorders, can be successfully treated using evidence-based interventions delivered by trained lay health workers in low-resource community or primary care settings. Stigma is a barrier to service uptake. Prevention, though necessary to address the mental health gap, has not solidified as a research or programmatic focus. Research-to-practice implementation studies are required to inform policies and scale-up services. Summary Four priority areas are identified for focused attention to diminish the mental health treatment gap and to improve access to high-quality mental health services globally: diminishing pervasive stigma, building mental health system treatment and research capacity, implementing prevention programs to decrease the incidence of mental disorders, and establishing sustainable scale up of public health systems to improve access to mental health treatment using evidence-based interventions.
BackgroundAcute coronary syndromes (ACS; myocardial infarction or unstable angina) can induce posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and ACS-induced PTSD may increase patients’ risk for subsequent cardiac events and mortality. Objective: To determine the prevalence of PTSD induced by ACS and to quantify the association between ACS-induced PTSD and adverse clinical outcomes using systematic review and meta-analysis. Data Sources: Articles were identified by searching Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Scopus, and through manual search of reference lists.Methodology/Principal FindingsObservational cohort studies that assessed PTSD with specific reference to an ACS event at least 1 month prior. We extracted estimates of the prevalence of ACS-induced PTSD and associations with clinical outcomes, as well as study characteristics. We identified 56 potentially relevant articles, 24 of which met our criteria (N = 2383). Meta-analysis yielded an aggregated prevalence estimate of 12% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9%–16%) for clinically significant symptoms of ACS-induced PTSD in a random effects model. Individual study prevalence estimates varied widely (0%–32%), with significant heterogeneity in estimates explained by the use of a screening instrument (prevalence estimate was 16% [95% CI, 13%–20%] in 16 studies) vs a clinical diagnostic interview (prevalence estimate was 4% [95% CI, 3%–5%] in 8 studies). The aggregated point estimate for the magnitude of the relationship between ACS-induced PTSD and clinical outcomes (ie, mortality and/or ACS recurrence) across the 3 studies that met our criteria (N = 609) suggested a doubling of risk (risk ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.69–2.37) in ACS patients with clinically significant PTSD symptoms relative to patients without PTSD symptoms.Conclusions/SignificanceThis meta-analysis suggests that clinically significant PTSD symptoms induced by ACS are moderately prevalent and are associated with increased risk for recurrent cardiac events and mortality. Further tests of the association of ACS-induced PTSD and clinical outcomes are needed.
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.