4.4 Article

Moral injury in Veterans with nonepileptic seizures

Journal

EPILEPSY & BEHAVIOR
Volume 102, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2019.106681

Keywords

Psychogenic nonepileptic seizures; Veterans; Moral injury; PTSD

Funding

  1. Siravo Foundation
  2. PVAMC Center for Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology (CfNN)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Over 40% of combat Veterans report exposure to at least one type of morally injurious experience (MIE). While moral injury (MI) is described among Veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), MI has not been studied in Veterans with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES). We sought to identify MI in a clinical sample of Veterans with PNES and describe differences between those with MI and those without. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of 82 male and female Veterans with video-electroencephalography (EEG)-confirmed PNES consecutively seen in a Veterans Administration neuropsychiatry clinic. Identification of MI (witnessed or experienced events that conflict with one's moral compass) was made based by an independent observer using a survey of MIEs. Comorbidities, trauma history, and symptom scales were compared among those with and without MI. Results: Twelve of 82 Veterans with PNES had MI. Those with MI reported higher guilt, depression symptoms and were of younger average age. There were no significant differences for categorical PTSD diagnosis, abuse history, or other demographic variables between those with and without MI. Summary: In this sample of Veterans with PNES, MI was present in 14.6%. Those with MI had more guilt and depressive symptoms than those without. An increased understanding of this condition may aid in the development of diagnostic screenings and therapy options for those with PNES. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available