Suppr超能文献

创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)患者的创伤后心理评估与自动化筛查工具的心理计量学特性比较。

A comparison of the psychometric properties of a person-administered vs. automated screening tool for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in traumatically injured patients.

机构信息

Data Analytics & Informatics, Comprehensive Injury Center, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States; Division of Trauma & Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States.

Division of Trauma & Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States.

出版信息

Injury. 2024 May;55(5):111507. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2024.111507. Epub 2024 Mar 15.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-CoT) mandated that trauma centers have mental health screening and referral protocols in place by 2023. This study compares the Injured Trauma Survivor Screen (ITSS) and the Automated Electronic Medical Record (EMR) Screen to assess their performance in predicting risk for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) within the same sample of trauma patients to inform trauma centers' decision when selecting a tool to best fit their current clinical practice.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of three prospective cohort studies of traumatically injured patients (N = 255). The ITSS and Automated EMR Screen were compared using receiver operating characteristic curves to predict risk of subsequent PTSD development. PTSD diagnosis at 6-month follow-up was assessed using the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5.

RESULTS

Just over half the sample screened positive on the ITSS (57.7%), while 67.8% screened positive on the Automated EMR Screen. The area under the curve (AUC) for the two screens was not significantly different (ITSS AUC = 0.745 versus Automated EMR Screen AUC = 0.694, p = 0.21), similar performance in PTSD risk predication within the same general trauma population. The ITSS and Automated EMR Screen had similar sensitivities (86.5%, 89.2%), and specificities (52.5%, 40.9%) respectively at their recommended cut-off points.

CONCLUSION

Both screens are psychometrically comparable. Therefore, trauma centers considering screening tools for PTSD risk to comply with the ACS-CoT 2023 mandate should consider their local resources and patient population. Regardless of screen selection, screening must be accompanied by a referral process to address the identified risk.

摘要

背景

美国外科医师学会创伤委员会(ACS-CoT)要求创伤中心在 2023 年前制定心理健康筛查和转介方案。本研究通过对比受伤创伤幸存者筛查(ITSS)和自动电子病历(EMR)筛查,在同一批创伤患者中评估其预测创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)风险的表现,以便为创伤中心在选择最适合其当前临床实践的工具时提供参考。

方法

这是对三项前瞻性创伤患者队列研究(N=255)的二次分析。使用受试者工作特征曲线比较 ITSS 和自动 EMR 筛查,以预测随后发生 PTSD 的风险。采用 DSM-5 临床医生管理 PTSD 量表评估 6 个月随访时的 PTSD 诊断。

结果

样本中略多于一半(57.7%)在 ITSS 上筛查阳性,而 67.8%在自动 EMR 筛查上筛查阳性。两个筛查的曲线下面积(AUC)无显著差异(ITSS AUC=0.745 与自动 EMR Screen AUC=0.694,p=0.21),表明在同一一般创伤人群中,两种筛查在预测 PTSD 风险方面表现相似。在其推荐的切点处,ITSS 和自动 EMR 筛查的灵敏度分别为 86.5%和 89.2%,特异性分别为 52.5%和 40.9%。

结论

这两个筛查工具在心理测量学上具有可比性。因此,为了符合 ACS-CoT 2023 年的要求而考虑 PTSD 风险筛查工具的创伤中心应考虑其当地资源和患者人群。无论选择哪种筛查工具,都必须伴随转介流程,以解决已识别的风险。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验