Narrowing the focus on the assessment of psychosis-related PTSD: a methodologically orientated systematic review. Issue 1 (1st December 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fornells-Ambrojo, Miriam; Gracie, Alison; Brewin, Chris R.; Hardy, Amy
• Is Part Of: European journal of psychotraumatology. Volume 7:Issue 1(2016)
• Publication Date: 2016-12-01
• Subjects: Psychosis -- trauma -- PTSD -- psychosis-related PTSD -- assessment; Post-traumatic stress disorder -- Periodicals; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Post-traumatic stress disorder; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; Periodicals; 616.8521
• DOI: 10.3402/ejpt.v7.32095
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2000-8198

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in response to psychosis and associated experiences (psychosis-related PTSD, or PR-PTSD) is the subject of a growing field of research. However, a wide range of PR-PTSD prevalence rates has been reported. This may be due to definitional and methodological inconsistencies in the assessment of PR-PTSD. Objective: The focus of the review is two-fold. (1) To identify factors that enhance, or detract from, the robustness of PR-PTSD assessment and (2) to critically evaluate the evidence in relation to these identified criteria, including the impact on PR-PTSD prevalence rates. Method: Four quality criteria, whose development was informed by mainstream PTSD research, were selected to evaluate findings on PR-PTSD prevalence. Two criteria related to assessment of psychosis-related stressors (participant identification of worst moments of discrete threat events; psychometrically robust trauma measure) and two focussed on PR-PTSD symptom measurement (adequate time elapsed since trauma; use of validated PTSD interview) in the context of psychosis. Results: Twenty-one studies of PR-PTSD, with prevalence rates ranging from 11 to 51%, were evaluated. Fourteen studies (67%) used robust PTSD measures but PR-trauma was not specifically defined or assessed with validated measures. Eleven studies (52%) assessed PTSD before sufficient time had elapsed since the trauma. Due to significant methodological limitations, it was not possible to review PR-PTSD rates and provide a revised estimate of prevalence. Conclusions: Methodological limitations are common in existing studies of PR-PTSD prevalence. Specific recommendations for improving assessment of psychosis-related trauma are made to guide the development of this new and emerging field. The review concludes with a proposed conceptualisation of PR-PTSD in the context of current diagnostic systems. The utility of the PR-PTSD term and its theoretical underpinnings are discussed. Highlights of the article: "Overall, robust measures of PTSD were employed but psychosis-related trauma was not specifically defined and time since trauma was not consistently recorded Given the above methodological limitations in the assessment of PR-PTSD, a revised prevalence rate is not provided A new conceptualisation of PR-PTSD in relation to the type of stressor is proposed in the context of current diagnostic systems