Search

Aim: The extent to which recent potentially traumatic events (PTEs) hinder the recovery from pre‐existing mental health problems is largely unknown. The same applies to the extent to which non‐recovery from pre‐existing mental health problems increases the risk of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The aim of the present study is to gain insight in these effects. Methods: Data were extracted from six annual surveys of the Dutch population‐based Victims in Modern Society (VICTIMS) study. Of the adult respondents who participated in two subsequent surveys (labeled T1 and T2, n = 6942), those with severe anxiety and depression symptoms (ADS) at T1 (n = 487) were selected. We distinguished respondents exposed to PTEs (PTE‐group, n = 162) and not exposed to PTEs (comparison group, n = 325) between T1 and T2. We applied five indicators of recovery [based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI), degrees of symptom reduction, and the cut‐off score at T2]. Differences in the recovery from ADS and probable PTSD at T2 were examined using multivariate logistic regression. Results: The PTE group less often recovered from severe ADS between T1 and T2 than the comparison group according to all five indicators of recovery, while controlling for 11 different variables (0.40 ≤ adjusted OR's ≤ 0.66). Those in the PTE group who did not recover, considerably more often suffered from probable PTSD at T2 (63%–82%) than those who did recover (0%–29%; 8.96 ≤ adjusted OR ≤ 26.33). Conclusion: Recent potentially traumatic events hinder the recovery from pre‐existing anxiety and depression symptomatology and thereby increase the risk of probable PTSD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Findings from prospective studies question the assumption that mental health problems observed in traumatized adults mainly reflect the effects of potentially traumatic events. Aims: Aim of the present comparative prospective study is to clarify the extent to which victims of potentially traumatic events with mental health, social, financial, and/or legal problems, already suffered from such problems before these events. Method: Data was extracted from three surveys of the prospective VICTIMS-study (T1 = 2018, T2 = 2019, T3 = 2020), conducted with the population-based longitudinal LISS-panel. Differences between victims (n = 340, victimized by violence, accidents, and serious threats in the 12 months before T3) and nonvictims (n = 3,872, not victimized by such events in this period), were examined using multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results: The large majority of victims with current (at T3) anxiety and depression symptomatology (74%), general mental health problems (71%), partner/family (67%), financial (76%), and legal problems (58%), and lack of support (79%), already had these problems (at T1 and/or at T2). A similar pattern was observed among nonvictims. Of the victims with current probable PTSD (at T3), 87% already had any mental health problem. At T3, among both groups, the incidence of problems was substantially lower than their prevalence. The large majority of victims with post-event mental health, social, financial, and legal problems already suffered from these problems in the past. Conclusions: When victims seek help for their problems, professional care providers should be aware that in most cases, as among nonvictims, these problems are chronic/re-current rather than new problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A substantial number of qualitative studies examined how adult victims of potentially traumatic events (PTEs) experienced support provided by family members, friends, colleagues, and other significant others in the informal network. Importantly, the large majority of qualitative studies focused on the perceived support of victims of specific events such as sexual offences, partner violence, homicide, accidents and disasters. Although it is likely that across specific PTEs there are similarities as well as differences in experienced support from the informal network, to date no systematic review synthesized the results of qualitative studies on support from the informal network following various types of PTEs. The aim of the present systematic review is to fill this gap in the scientific knowledge, which is also highly relevant for victim services, policymakers, and the informal network. Methods: A literature search of qualitative studies was conducted using the electronic databases of PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Psych INFO, Scopus, Criminal Justice Abstracts and Picarta. The quality of the identified studies was assessed with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative research (COREQ) checklist, followed by analysis of the results of the identified studies using Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. Findings: Seventy-five papers were included in the synthesis, involving 2799 victims of PTEs such as accidents, disasters, homicide, intimate partner violence (IPV), and sexual offences. Saturation was only achieved for IPV. Overall, four major categories of perceived social support were identified, namely, support perceived as supportive, supportive but insufficient, unsupportive, and absent from informal support providers, which included friends, family, neighbors, (if applicable) offender's family, religious group members, work/school colleagues, fellow victims, the local community, and the social network in general. Across the PTE groups, there were similarities in experiencing positive forms of support (particularly empathy and sharing experiences) as well as negative forms of support (abandonment, avoidance, lack of empathy, and not experiencing support despite victim's request for help). There were also differences across PTE groups, in particular, victims of sexual and intimate partner violence mentioned a number of other supportive (mobilizing support, no unsupportive responses) and non-supportive (e.g., justification or normalization of violence and minimizing responses) responses. Conclusions: The review showed that different actors within the social informal network can play an important role in providing support after victims experience violence, homicide, accidents, and disasters. However, the review revealed that the large majority of qualitative studies were aimed at victims of IPV, and only for this type of PTE was saturation achieved. This indicates that, although this synthesis identified several similarities and differences, it is still too early to draw more definitive conclusions on similarities and differences in experienced social support after various PTEs and that future qualitative studies focusing on other PTEs are much needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Gain insight into the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the prevalence, incidence, and risk factors of mental health problems among the Dutch general population and different age groups in November-December 2020, compared with the prevalence, incidence, and risk factors in the same period in 2018 and 2019. More specifically, the prevalence, incidence, and risk factors of anxiety and depression symptoms, sleep problems, fatigue, impaired functioning due to health problems, and use of medicines for sleep problems, medicines for anxiety and depression, and mental health service. Methods: We extracted data from the Longitudinal Internet studies for the Social Sciences (LISS) panel that is based on a probability sample of the Dutch population of 16 years and older by Statistics Netherlands. We focused on three waves of the longitudinal Health module in November-December 2018 (T1), November-December 2019 (T2), and November-December 2020 (T3), and selected respondents who were 18 years and older at T1. In total, 4,064 respondents participated in all three surveys. Data were weighted using 16 demographics profiles of the Dutch adult population. The course of mental health problems was examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal ordinal data and differences in incidence with logistic regression analyses. In both types of analyses, we controlled for sex, age, marital status, employment status, education level, and physical disease. Results: Among the total study sample, no significant increase in the prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms, sleep problems, fatigue, impaired functioning due to health problems, use of medicines for sleep problems, of medicines for anxiety and depression, and of mental health service in November-December 2020 was observed, compared with the prevalence in November-December 2018 and 2019 (T3 did not differ from T1 and T2). Among the four different age categories (18–34, 35–49, 50–64, and 65 years old and older respondents), 50–64 years respondents had a significantly lower prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms at T3 than at T1 and T2, while the prevalence at T1 and T2 did not differ. A similar pattern among 65+ respondents was found for mental health service use. We found no indications that the incidence of examined health problems at T2 (no problems at T1, problems at T2) and T3 (no problems at T2, problems at T3) differed. Risk factors for mental health problems at T2 were mostly similar to risk factors at T3; sex and age were less/not a risk factor for sleep problems at T3 compared with at T2. Conclusions: The prevalence, incidence, and risk factors of the examined mental health problems examined nine months after the COVID-19 outbreak appear to be very stable across the end of 2018, 2019, and 2020 among the Dutch adult population and different age categories, suggesting that the Dutch adult population in general is rather resilient given all disruptions due to this pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The negative effects of single and multiple adverse childhood experiences (ACE) on adult mental health are well-documented. However, little is known about the prevalence of chronic mental health problems (MHPs) and use of mental health services (MHSs) compared to adults without an ACE history. Examine differences in the prevalence of chronic MHP and MHS use between adults without and with a single and multiple ACE history, and MHS use among ACE and no-ACE adults with chronic MHP. A 6-year longitudinal study was conducted based on a random sample of the Dutch adult population (n = 2427). Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that adults with a single (n = 280) and multiple ACE (n = 92) history suffered more often from chronic MHP such as chronic depressive and anxiety symptoms. Both ACE subgroups also made greater use of MHS than no-ACE adults (n = 2055). Multiple ACE compared to single ACE, increased the risk of MHP. However, among those with chronic MHP respondents with and without an ACE history did not differ in MHS use. ACE history is strongly related to chronic MHP and persistent use of MHS. However, MHS use among those with chronic MHP is not related to an ACE history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Victims of violence, accidents and threats are at risk for mental health problems. Lower coping self-efficacy and social support levels increase this risk. Although highly relevant, it is unknown if the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic amplifies these risks. Aims: To examine if the prevalence, incidence and/or mean scores for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety and depression symptoms, general mental health problems, coping self-efficacy, lack of emotional support and social acknowledgement are higher among adults victimised in the year after the COVID-19 outbreak compared with adults victimised in a similar period before the outbreak. Also, to compare symptoms, problems and support within non-victims during the same period. Method: Data was extracted from four surveys of the VICTIMS study (March 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021), based on a random sample of the Dutch population. Multivariate logistic regression analyses and mixed-effects models were used to examine differences between the two victim groups (2019: n = 421, 2021: n = 319) and non-victims (n = 3245). Results: Adults victimised after the outbreak more often had PTSD, anxiety and depression symptoms, general mental health problems and lower coping self-efficacy than those victimised before. They did not differ in lack of support and acknowledgement. Both victim groups differed from non-victims, where mental health problems and lack of support levels were much lower and almost stable. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on the mental health and coping self-efficacy levels of victims, whereas mental health problems among non-victims remained virtually stable. Mental healthcare workers, general practitioners and victim services should take this impact into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Victims of violence, accidents, theft, and serious threat (hereafter abbreviated as victims) are more than nonvictims at risk for problems in different domains, varying from mental health to legal problems. However, the extent to which victims with these problems compared to nonvictims with similar problems receive problem-related professional or formal help is unclear. It is unknown if predictors of unmet needs differ between victims and nonvictims. Aim of the present study is to fill this gap of knowledge. Methods: Data was extracted from surveys of the VICTIMS-study (2018, 2019 and 2020), conducted with the Dutch population-based longitudinal LISS panel. Each survey assessed 1.) experiences with physical violence, accidents, theft, and serious threat and other traumatic or stressful events in the past 12 months and 2.) various problems and use of professional help, e.g. do receive help, do not need help, could use help but do not use it, cannot find or afford help for these problems. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess differences in problems, in the use of problem-related professional help, and in predictors of unmet needs between victims (N = 1,756) and nonvictims (N = 5,000). Results: Victims more often had assessed problems than nonvictims. Victims compared to nonvictims with similar problems had 1.5 to 2 times more often unmet needs: they could not find or afford professional help for their mental, physical, partner/family, financial and legal problems. In addition, victims less often received help for legal and administrative problems. Most predictors of unmet needs, e.g. could use help but do not use it, cannot find or afford help, were not significant and hardly differed between both groups. Conclusions: The findings that victims compared to nonvictims more often have various problems and more often cannot find or afford problem-related professional help, suggest that there is room for improvement for victims services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research suggests that victims of partner physical violence (PPV) often face multiple distinct problems, but comparative population-based studies focusing on the prevalence of multiple problems are lacking. Aim of the present study is to gain insight in the prevalence of multiple problems among individuals victimized by PPV in the past 12 months, compared with matched nonvictims and victims of non-partner physical violence (non-PPV). For this purpose, data were extracted from two population-based surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019 on potentially traumatic events in the Netherlands. We focused on problems identified in previous studies on PPV and non-PPV and related problems, varying from physical health, mental health, financial and legal problems, to lack of social support and being exposed to other potentially traumatic and stressful life events (LFEs). In total, 49 respondents were victimized by PPV and 89 by non-PPV in the past 12 months. They were compared with pairwise matched groups not affected by any traumatic or stressful LFEs in this period (n PPV victims comparison group = 245, n non-PPV comparison group = 445). Results showed that PPV victims significantly more often faced all 12 distinct problems than matched nonvictims (2.31 ≤ odds ratio [OR] ≤ 15.48) and non-PPV victims (2.12 ≤ OR ≤ 4.52). PPV victims more often had any problem than non-PPV victims (OR = 8.19), but no significant differences were found between PPV and non-PPV victims with regard to mental health problems. Findings stress the necessity of a multidisciplinary coordinated community response to help PPV victims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]