PTSD is not the emblematic disorder of the COVID-19 pandemic; adjustment disorder is.

BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been hailed by some as the emblematic mental disorder of the COVID-19 pandemic, assuming that PTSD's life-threat criterion was met de facto. More plausible outcomes like adjustment disorder (AD) have been overlooked. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey was launched in the initial stage of the pandemic using a convenience sample of 5 913 adults to compare the prevalence of COVID-related probable PTSD versus probable AD. The abridged Impact of Event Scale - Revised (IES-6) assessed the severity of trauma- and stressor-related symptoms over the previous week. Demographic and pandemic-related data (e.g., receiving a formal diagnosis of COVID-19, job loss, loss of loved one, confinement, material hardship) were collected. A Classification and Regression Tree analysis was conducted to uncover the pandemic experiences leading to clinical 'caseness'. Caseness was defined by a score > 9 on the IES-6 symptom measure and further characterized as PTSD or AD depending on whether the Peritraumatic Distress Inventory's life-threat item was endorsed or not. RESULTS: The participants were predominantly Caucasian (72.8%), women (79.2%), with a university degree (85%), and a mean age of 42.22 (SD = 15.24) years; 3 647 participants (61.7%; 95%CI [60.4, 63.0]) met the threshold for caseness. However, when perceived life-threat was accounted for, only 6.7% (95%CI [6.1, 7.4]) were classified as PTSD cases, and 55% (95%CI [53.7, 56.2]) as AD cases. Among the AD cases, three distinct profiles emerged marked by the following: (i) a worst personal pandemic experience eliciting intense fear, helplessness or horror (in the absence, however, of any life-threat), (ii) a pandemic experience eliciting sadness/grief, and (iii) worrying intensely about the safety of significant others. CONCLUSIONS: Studies considering the life-threat criterion as met de facto during the pandemic are confusing PTSD for AD on most counts. This misconception is obscuring the various AD-related idioms of distress that have emerged during the pandemic and the actual treatment needs.

Exposure to High Precariousness Prevalence Negatively Impacts Drug Prescriptions of General Practitioners to Precarious and Non-Precarious Populations: A Retrospective Pharmaco-Epidemiological Study.

(1) Background: Precarious patients are more difficult to care for due to low literacy rates and poor adherence to treatment and hospitalization. These difficulties have detrimental effects on general practitioners (GPs), deteriorating medical communication, advice, diagnoses, and drug prescriptions. To better understand how precariousness affects primary care, we tested whether, among GPs, exposure to high precariousness prevalence more severely impacts drug prescriptions to precarious and non-precarious populations compared to low precariousness prevalence. Materials and methods: This pharmaco-epidemiological study, using linear regression analyses, compared the defined daily dose of 20 drugs prescribed by GPs to precarious and non-precarious patients in four French regions with low and high precariousness prevalence in 2015. (2) Findings: Exposure to high precariousness prevalence significantly impacted the prescriptions of nine medications to precarious patients and two medications to non-precarious patients, and distributed into three interaction patterns. (3) Interpretation: The selective over-prescription of drugs with easy intake modalities to precarious patients probably reflects GPs' attempts to compensate for poor patient compliance. In contrast, the under-prescription of drugs targeting fungal infections in precarious populations and diabetes and cardiovascular diseases in non-precarious populations was seemingly due to a breakdown of empathy and professional exhaustion, causing medical neglect.