Search

Background/objectiveThe present study leveraged the expertise of an international group of posttraumatic stress and substance use disorder (PTSD+SUD) intervention researchers to identify which methods of categorizing interventions which target SUD, PTSD, or PTSD+SUD for populations with both PTSD+SUD may be optimal for advancing future systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and comparative effectiveness studies which strive to compare effects across a broad variety of psychotherapy types.MethodA two-step process was used to evaluate the categorization terminology. First, we searched the literature for pre-existing categories of PTSD+SUD interventions from PTSD+SUD clinical trials, systematic and literature reviews. Then, we surveyed international trauma and substance use subject matter experts about their opinions on pre-existing intervention categorization and ideal categorization nomenclature.ResultsMixed method analyses revealed that a proliferation of PTSD+SUD treatment research over the last twenty years brought with it an abundance of ways to characterize the treatments that have been evaluated. Results from our survey of experts (N = 27) revealed that interventions for PTSD+SUD can be classified in many ways that appear to overlap highly with one another. Many experts (11/27; 41%) selected the categories of 'trauma-focused and non-trauma focused' as an optimal way to distinguish treatment types. Although several experts reinforced this point during the subsequent meeting, it became clear that no method of categorizing treatments is without flaws.ConclusionOne possible categorization (trauma-focused/non-trauma focused) was identified. Revised language and nomenclature for classification of PTSD+SUD treatments are needed in order to accommodate the needs of this advancing field.

Objective: The co-occurrence of substance use disorders (SUD) and trauma-exposure is a risk factor for suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STB). However, traditional methods of measurement for suicidal thoughts and behaviors are limited by an overreliance on dichotomous (i.e., yes or no) and averaged/summed scale score measurements. Further, among trauma-exposed individuals with SUD, it remains unclear which specific demographic factors, types of SUDs, and trauma sequelae (e.g., posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD] symptom clusters) may be associated with elevated STB. The present study utilized item response theory to (a) generate empirically derived STB severity scores and, (b) examine which demographic factors, SUD diagnoses, and DSM-IV PTSD symptom clusters are associated with suicidality in a trauma-exposed sample with SUDs. Method: Female trauma-exposed participants with SUDs (N = 544) were recruited from community substance use treatment facilities in the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN). Clinician-administered interviews assessed STB, SUDs, and PTSD symptoms. Results: Results indicated that the unidimensional item response theory (IRT) model used to estimate latent STB severity scores fit well, with strong local reliability at higher levels of latent STB severity. Regression predictors of elevated STB severity included younger age, opioid dependence, and higher PTSD reexperiencing symptoms. Conclusions: Clinicians are advised to screen for and target opioid use disorders and reexperiencing symptoms when addressing suicidal thoughts and behavior in trauma-exposed individuals with SUDs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Multiple factor analytic and item response theory studies have shown that items/symptoms vary in their relative clinical weights in structured interview measures for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Despite these findings, the use of total scores, which treat symptoms as though they are equally weighted, predominates in practice, with the consequence of undermining the precision of clinical decision-making. We conducted an integrative data analysis (IDA) study to harmonize PTSD structured interview data (i.e., recoding of items to a common symptom metric) from 25 studies (total N = 2,568). We aimed to identify (a) measurement noninvariance/differential item functioning (MNI/DIF) across multiple populations, psychiatric comorbidities, and interview measures simultaneously and (b) differences in inferences regarding underlying PTSD severity between scale scores estimated using moderated nonlinear factor analysis (MNLFA) and a total score analog model (TSA). Several predictors of MNI/DIF impacted effect size differences in underlying severity across scale scoring methods. Notably, we observed MNI/DIF substantial enough to bias inferences on underlying PTSD severity for two groups: African Americans and incarcerated women. The findings highlight two issues raised elsewhere in the PTSD psychometrics literature: (a) bias in characterizing underlying PTSD severity and individual-level treatment outcomes when the psychometric model underlying total scores fails to fit the data and (b) higher latent severity scores, on average, when using DSM-5 (net of MNI/DIF) criteria, by which multiple factors (e.g., Criterion A discordance across DSM editions, changes to the number/type of symptom clusters, changes to the symptoms themselves) may have impacted severity scoring for some patients.

Significant differences in clinical features have been reported in women with substance use disorders (SUDs) between those with the dissociative subtype of posttraumatic stress disorder (D-PTSD) compared to those without, namely more severe trauma histories, PTSD symptoms, and general psychopathology. This presentation reports on a group of 88 women with PTSD and SUD taking part in a research treatment study. All women were assessed using the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) and were categorized into those with (n = 23, 26%) and without (n = 65, 74%) D-PTSD. Assessments for SUDs were via the Multi-International Neuropsychiatric Inventory, Seventh Version (MINI-7). Compared to those without D-PTSD, those with D-PTSD had significantly higher CAPS-5 scores (50.5 ± 9.9 v. 39.6 ± 8.8), greater number of PTSD symptoms (16.4 ± 2.6 v. 14.2 ± 2.4), more alcohol use disorder (AUD) (65.2% v. 30.8%), and more non-cocaine stimulant use disorder (34.8% v. 12.3%). No significant differences were found for other SUDs. These women with SUDs and D-PTSD have higher degrees of PTSD severity as well as unique clinical presentations. Future research is needed to explore the significance of these findings for clinical assessment and treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]