Objective: There exists considerable individual variability in the development and progression of pathological stress reactions after experiencing trauma, as well as in individuals’ response to psychological interventions. Yet until recently, such individual differences had not been considered when evaluating the efficacy of therapeutic interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This systematic review aims to examine the emerging literature on this subject and, specifically, to identify trajectories and predictors of psychotherapeutic response in adults with PTSD. Method: Four databases were searched using specific keywords without date or language restrictions. For each study, independent reviewers systematically evaluated whether it met eligibility criteria and assessed risk of bias. For included studies, reviewers completed data extraction using standard formats. Those examining how subgroups of adults respond to therapy for clinical PTSD using trajectory modeling were deemed eligible. Demographic, PTSD, clinical, and trauma-related factors associated to particular trajectories were also examined. Results: Of the 1,727 papers identified, 11 were included in this analysis. Of these studies, six focused on military-related traumas and five on civilian ones. Although studies found between two and five trajectories, most supported a three-trajectory model of response categorized as responders, nonresponders, and subclinical participants. Over 22 predictors of treatment trajectories were examined. Comorbid depression, anxiety, and alcohol abuse were the strongest predictors of poor therapeutic response. Age, combat exposure, social support, and hyperarousal were moderate predictors. Conclusion: This review provides valuable insight into the treatment of PTSD, as it supports the heterogeneous trajectories of psychotherapeutic responses and provides avenues for the development of interventions that consider individual-level factors in treatment response.

Le Posttraumatic Cognitions Inventory (PTCI) is one of the most used instruments to assess posttraumatic cognitions. Since its release, many studies have tried to validate and translate this questionnaire, but they had difficulty to confirm its structure and then suggested alternatives. Faced with no consensus, a short version in nine statements was developed and showed good psychometric properties. To date, no French version of the PTCI has been validated, thereby preventing studies from investigating the role of posttraumatic cognitions in French speaking populations. Objectives In order to validate a French version of the PTCI, this study investigates two objectives using two French speaking samples: (1) test 10 factor structures identified in prior studies, and (2) assess the other psychometric properties of the best fitting factor structure. Method The PTCI was translated in French using a reverse translation method and administered to 202 university students and 114 aid workers. Suitability indexes of the appropriate factor structures previously identified in prior studies were examined. Internal consistency, correlations between subscales and convergent, divergent and discriminant validities in the most appropriate structure were evaluated. Results Results support that only Wells et al.'s short 9-item version of the PTCI and three factors shows excellent suitability indexes. This version also outlines an excellent internal consistency and solid convergent, divergent, and discriminant validities. Conclusions This study confirms the empirical validity, fidelity, and utility of Wells et al.'s short version of the PTCI. This is the first PTCI French validation, which is a major advantage when it comes to assess posttraumatic cognitions in French trauma victims.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: Researchers have documented elevated rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in aid workers. Yet, few have investigated the heterogeneity of PTSD presentations in this population. This study examined clinically relevant patterns of PTSD symptomatology in aid workers and examined whether factors such as the degree of trauma exposure (e.g., morally injurious events), social support, and sociodemographic and work characteristics predict symptom profiles. Method: Participants were 243 aid workers who had completed 8.2 assignments on average. They completed measures of trauma exposure, PTSD symptoms, and various types of social support. Latent profile analysis was used to identify PTSD symptom profiles using PCL-5 subscale scores. Next, profiles were compared on 15 potential risk and protective factors. Results: Five profiles were identified: a no PTSD profile (49.4%), a low subclinical PTSD profile (21.8%), a dysphoric subclinical PTSD profile (5.8%), an intermediate clinical PTSD profile (14.8%), and a severe clinical PTSD profile (8.2%). Profiles differed in terms of witnessed traumatic events, morally injurious exposure, social support adequacy, age, number of assignments, types of assignments, and organizational support. Conclusions: This study is the first to identify distinct patterns of PTSD symptomatology in aid workers and to investigate novel psychological risk factors such as potentially morally injurious events. Overall, these findings provide further insight into the risk and protective factors for the psychological well-being of aid workers as well as avenues for improving the psychological assessment and support.