Self-report and urine drug screen concordance among women with co-occurring PTSD and substance use disorders participating in a clinical trial: Impact of drug type and participant characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Self-report measures are important in substance use assessment, yet they are susceptible to reporting errors. Urine drug screens (UDS) are often considered a more valid alternative. However, collecting in-person UDS may not always be feasible, contributing to the need to understand factors that influence the validity of self-reported substance use. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of data from 295 women with co-occurring PTSD and substance use disorders (SUD) who participated in a clinical trial testing behavioral interventions, we examined concordance and discordance between self-reported drug use and associated UDS results. Generalized linear mixed models were used to examine the impact of treatment type and participant characteristics on the associations between self-reported drug use and UDS results. RESULTS: Findings revealed higher disagreement between self-report and UDS for opioids and sedatives (ranging from.77 to.90) and lower disagreement rates for cannabis and cocaine (ranging from.26 to.33). Treatment type was not a significant moderator of the associations between self-report and UDS across all drugs. Among those with a positive opioid UDS, those who reported employment in the past three years were more likely to self-report no opioid use compared to their counterparts without employment in the past three years. CONCLUSIONS: Findings add to the literature that supports the validity of self-reported cannabis and cocaine use. The greater discrepancies between self-report and UDS test results of opioids and sedatives suggest adjunctive UDS may be required, although a variety of factors other than inaccurate self-report may be associated with this discrepancy.

Psychometric properties and validation of the Spanish versions of the overall anxiety and depression severity and impairment scales.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and depressive disorders are the most frequent disorders for which patients seek care in public health settings in Spain. This study aimed at validating the Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale (OASIS) and the Overall Depression Severity and Impairment Scale (ODSIS), which are brief screening scales for anxiety and depression consisting of only five items each. METHODS: The study was conducted in a Spanish clinical sample receiving outpatient mental health treatment (N = 339). A subsample of participants (n = 219) was assessed before and after receiving a course of cognitive-behavioral treatment. RESULTS: The results revealed excellent internal consistency estimates (Cronbach's alpha for the OASIS and the ODSIS was 0.87 and 0.94, respectively), along with promising convergent and discriminant validity and test-criterion relationships (i.e., moderate correlation with other measures of depression and anxiety, as well as with neuroticism, quality of life, adjustment, and negative affect). A one-dimensional structure was obtained for the OASIS and the ODSIS. The ROC analyses indicated an area under the curve of 0.83 for the OASIS and the ODSIS when predicting moderate-to-severe anxiety and depression, respectively. Good sensitivity to therapeutic change was also evidence and the analysis of the sensitivity as a function of 1-specificity area suggested a cutoff value of 10 for both scales. LIMITATIONS: Inter-rater reliability of diagnoses with the ADIS-IV interview could not be investigated and the results obtained may not be generalizable to other samples and health settings. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of these two short and psychometrically sound measures should make screening of anxiety and depressive symptoms in routine care more feasible.

Trauma related guilt cognitions partially mediate the relationship between PTSD symptom severity and functioning among returning combat veterans.

Trauma related guilt, a distressing emotion associated with negative cognitions regarding one's actions or inaction during a traumatic event, is common among individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We hypothesized that trauma related guilt cognitions would partially explain the relationship between PTSD symptom severity and functioning. The sample consisted of 254 combat veterans or active duty military personnel who served in Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation New Dawn (OEF/OIF/OND) who consented to participate in a larger PTSD treatment study. Results revealed a significant relationship between PTSD severity and guilt cognitions (standardized ß = 0.40), as well as PTSD and overall functioning (ß = 0.49). Guilt cognitions (ß's = 0.13 to 0.32) were significantly associated with nearly all domains of functioning, including overall functioning (ß = 0.27), and partially explained the relationship between PTSD and functioning. This study lends support to the addition of guilt as a symptom of PTSD in the DSM-5 as it contributes significantly to functional impairment even when accounting for other symptoms of PTSD, although co-occurring mental health problems may also contribute to functional impairments associated with PTSD. Future studies are needed to investigate whether reductions in traumatic guilt are related to improved functional outcomes in PTSD treatments.

Pain in the aftermath of trauma is a risk factor for post-traumatic stress disorder.

BACKGROUND: Identifying risk factors for the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is important for understanding and ultimately preventing the disorder. This study assessed pain shortly after traumatic injury (i.e. peritraumatic pain) as a risk factor for PTSD. METHOD: Participants (n=115) were patients admitted to a Level 1 Surgical Trauma Center. Admission to this service reflected a severe physical injury requiring specialized, emergent trauma care. Participants completed a pain questionnaire within 48 h of traumatic injury and a PTSD diagnostic module 4 and 8 months later. RESULTS: Peritraumatic pain was associated with an increased risk of PTSD, even after controlling for a number of other significant risk factors other than acute stress disorder symptoms. An increase of 0.5 s.d. from the mean in a 0-10 pain rating scale 24-48 h after injury was associated with an increased odds of PTSD at 4 months by more than fivefold, and at 8 months by almost sevenfold. A single item regarding amount of pain at the time of hospital admission correctly classified 65% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: If these findings are replicated in other samples, high levels of peritraumatic pain could be used to identify individuals at elevated risk for PTSD following traumatic injury.