ObjectiveWe conducted a systematic review of the literature to explore the longitudinal course of PTSD in DSM-5-defined trauma exposed populations to identify the course of illness and recovery for individuals and populations experiencing PTSD.MethodsWe reviewed the published literature from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2010 for longitudinal studies of directly exposed trauma populations in order to: (1) review rates of PTSD in the first year after a traumatic event; (2) examine potential types of proposed DSM-5 direct trauma exposure (intentional and non-intentional); and (3) identify the clinical course of PTSD (early onset, later onset, chronicity, remission, and resilience). Of the 2537 identified articles, 58 articles representing 35 unique subject populations met the proposed DSM-5 criteria for experiencing a traumatic event, and assessed PTSD at two or more time points within 12 months of the traumatic event.ResultsThe mean prevalence of PTSD across all studies decreases from 28.8% (range = 3.1–87.5%) at 1 month to 17.0% (range = 0.6–43.8%) at 12 months. However, when traumatic events are classified into intentional and non-intentional, the median prevalences trend down for the non-intentional trauma exposed populations, while the median prevalences in the intentional trauma category steadily increase from 11.8% to 23.3%. Across five studies with sufficient data, 37.1% of those exposed to intentional trauma develop PTSD. Among those with PTSD, about one third (34.8%) remit after 3 months. Nearly 40% of those with PTSD (39.1%) have a chronic course, and only a very small fraction (3.5%) of new PTSD cases appears after three months.ConclusionsUnderstanding the trajectories of PTSD over time, and how it may vary by type of traumatic event (intentional vs. non-intentional) will assist public health planning and treatment.
Aims Dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) have been implicated with an increased pancreatic cancer risk. We therefore compared pancreatic cancer incidence and diagnostic work-up among initiators of DPP-4i versus sulfonylureas (SU) and thiazolidinediones (TZD). Methods Medicare claims data were examined in a new-user active-comparator cohort study. Patients >65 years with no prescriptions for DPP-4i, SU or TZD at baseline were included if they had at least two claims for the same drug within 180 days. Using an as-treated approach and propensity score-adjusted Cox models, we estimated hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pancreatic cancer. Diagnostic work-up was compared using risk ratios (RR). RESULTS In the DPP-4i vs SU comparison, there were 18,179 DPP4i initiators of which 26 developed pancreatic cancer (follow-up time interquartile range 5–18 months). In the DPP-4i vs TZD comparison there were 29,366 DPP-4i initiators and 52 developed pancreatic cancer. The hazard of pancreatic cancer with DPP-4i was lower relative to SU (HR=0.6, CI 0.4–0.9) and similar to TZD (HR=1.0, CI 0.7–1.4). Excluding first 6 months of follow-up to reduce the potential for reverse causality did not alter results. Probability of diagnostic work-up post-initiation among DPP-4i initiators (79.3%) was similar to TZD (74.1%) (RR=1.06, CI 1.05–1.07) and SU (74.6%) (RR=1.06, CI1.05–1.07). The probability of diagnostic workup pre-index was ~80% for all cohorts. Conclusion Though limited by sample size and the observed duration of treatment in the US, our well-controlled population based study suggests no increased short-term pancreatic cancer risk with DPP-4i relative to SU or TZD.
Background: The mental health treatment gap-the difference between those with mental health need and those who receive treatment-is high in low-and middle-income countries. Task-shifting has been used to address the shortage of mental health professionals, with a growing body of research demonstrating the effectiveness of mental health interventions delivered through task-shifting. However, very little research has focused on how to embed, support, and sustain task-shifting in government-funded systems with potential for scale up. The goal of the Building and Sustaining Interventions for Children (BASIC) study is to examine implementation policies and practices that predict adoption, fidelity, and sustainment of a mental health intervention in the education sector via teacher delivery and the health sector via community health volunteer delivery. Methods: BASIC is a Hybrid Type II Implementation-Effectiveness trial. The study design is a stepped wedge, cluster randomized trial involving 7 sequences of 40 schools and 40 communities surrounding the schools. Enrollment consists of 120 teachers, 120 community health volunteers, up to 80 site leaders, and up to 1280 youth and one of their primary guardians. The evidence-based mental health intervention is a locally adapted version of Traumafocused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, called Pamoja Tunaweza. Lay counselors are trained and supervised in Pamoja Tunaweza by local trainers who are experienced in delivering the intervention and who participated in a Train-the-Trainer model of skills transfer. After the first sequence completes implementation, in-depth interviews are conducted with initial implementing sites' counselors and leaders. Findings are used to inform delivery of implementation facilitation for subsequent sequences' sites. We use a mixed methods approach including qualitative comparative analysis to identify necessary and sufficient implementation policies and practices that predict 3 implementation outcomes of interest: adoption, fidelity, and sustainment. We also examine child mental health outcomes and cost of the intervention in both the education and health sectors. Discussion: The BASIC study will provide knowledge about how implementation of task-shifted mental health care can be supported in government systems that already serve children and adolescents. Knowledge about implementation policies and practices from BASIC can advance the science of implementation in low-resource contexts.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.