4.4 Review

Epidemiology of posttraumatic stress disorder: prevalence, correlates and consequences

Journal

CURRENT OPINION IN PSYCHIATRY
Volume 28, Issue 4, Pages 307-311

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000167

Keywords

DSM-5 criteria; epidemiology; posttraumatic stress disorder

Categories

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council of South Africa
  2. Abbot
  3. AstraZeneca
  4. Eli Lilly
  5. GlaxoSmithKline
  6. Jazz Pharmaceuticals
  7. Johnson Johnson
  8. Lundbeck
  9. Orion
  10. Pfizer
  11. Pharmacia
  12. Roche
  13. Servier
  14. Solvay
  15. Sumitomo
  16. Takeda
  17. Tikvah
  18. Wyeth

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of review This review discusses recent findings from epidemiological surveys of traumatic events and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) globally, including their prevalence, risk factors, and consequences in the community. Recent findings A number of studies on the epidemiology of PTSD have recently been published from diverse countries, with new methodological innovations introduced. Such work has not only documented the prevalence of PTSD in different settings, but has also shed new light on the PTSD conditional risk associated with specific traumatic events, and on the morbidity and comorbidities associated with these events. Summary Recent community studies show that trauma exposure is higher in lower-income countries compared with high-income countries. PTSD prevalence rates are largely similar across countries, however, with the highest rates being found in postconflict settings. Trauma and PTSD-risk factors are distributed differently in lower-income countries compared with high-income countries, with sociodemographic factors contributing more to this risk in high-income than low-income countries. Apart from PTSD, trauma exposure is also associated with several chronic physical conditions. These findings indicate a high burden of trauma exposure in low-income countries and postconflict settings, where access to trained mental health professionals is typically low.

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