Search

Background: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is highly prevalent within prison settings, yet is often unidentified and undertreated. Complex PTSD (CPTSD) has been recently formally recognised in the International Classification of Diseases 11th revision (ICD-11) diagnostic framework but has never been explored in prison settings. We aimed to establish the prevalence of ICD-11 PTSD and CPTSD in a UK prison sample using a validated instrument (the International Trauma Questionnaire). We also explored the associations of these two diagnoses with their traumatic antecedents and psychiatric comorbidities. Method: Randomly selected male, sentenced prisoners in a large medium-security prison in south London (N = 221) took part in a clinical interview which assessed PTSD, CPTSD, trauma histories, and comorbid disorders. Multinomial logistic regression was performed to examine differences between those with PTSD or CPTSD, and those without symptoms. Results: A total of 7.7% (95% CI 4.5–12) of the male sentenced prisoners met diagnostic criteria for ICD-11 PTSD and 16.7% (95% CI 12.1–22.3) for CPTSD. A diagnosis of PTSD was associated with more recent traumatic exposure, comorbid generalised anxiety disorder, alcohol dependence, and Cluster B personality disorder. A diagnosis of CPTSD was associated with complex trauma exposure antecedents (developmental, interpersonal, repeated, or multiple forms), and comorbid with anxiety, depression, substance misuse, psychosis, and ADHD. Conclusions: This study confirms that CPTSD is a very common and comorbid condition in male prisoners. There is an urgent need to develop trauma-informed care in prisons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) and the Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) are widely used in the evaluation of interventions for depression and anxiety. The smallest reduction in depressive symptoms that matter to patients is known as the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID). Little empirical study of the MCID for these scales exists. Methods: A prospective cohort of 400 patients in UK primary care were interviewed on four occasions, 2 weeks apart. At each time point, participants completed all three questionnaires and a 'global rating of change' scale (GRS). MCID estimation relied on estimated changes in symptoms according to reported improvement on the GRS scale, stratified by baseline severity on the Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R). Results: For moderate baseline severity, those who reported improvement on the GRS had a reduction of 21% (95% confidence interval (CI) −26.7 to −14.9) on the PHQ-9; 23% (95% CI −27.8 to −18.0) on the BDI-II and 26.8% (95% CI −33.5 to −20.1) on the GAD-7. The corresponding threshold scores below which participants were more likely to report improvement were −1.7, −3.5 and −1.5 points on the PHQ-9, BDI-II and GAD-7, respectively. Patients with milder symptoms require much larger reductions as percentage of their baseline to endorse improvement. Conclusions: An MCID representing 20% reduction of scores in these scales, is a useful guide for patients with moderately severe symptoms. If treatment had the same effect on patients irrespective of baseline severity, those with low symptoms are unlikely to notice a benefit. Funding: Funding. National Institute for Health Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]