4.6 Article

Three-year follow-up study of the relationship between posttraumatic stress symptoms and quality of life among earthquake survivors in Yu-Chi, Taiwan

Journal

JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH
Volume 41, Issue 1-2, Pages 90-96

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2005.10.004

Keywords

posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS); disaster-related psychological screening test (DRPST); medical outcomes study short form-36 (MOS SF-36); quality of life (QOL)

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To prospectively evaluate the relationship between the clinical course of posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) and quality of life (QOL) among Taiwan earthquake survivors for 3 years. Methods: A population survey was done in a Taiwan township near the epicenter of a severe earthquake (7.3 on the Richter scale). Trained assistants used the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (MOS SF-36) and the Disaster-Related Psychological Screening Test to interview earthquake survivors 16 and older. A total of 1756 respondents were surveyed during the 3-year follow-up period. Results: At 0.5 and 3 years after the earthquake, the estimated rate of PTSS (cutoff point, 3/4) was 23.8% and 4.4%, respectively. The survivors with PTSS scored lower for each concept of the MOS SF-36 at these two intervals. Three years after the earthquake, the survivors in the persistently healthy group showed the highest scores in all subscales and domains of the MOS SF-36; second-highest was the recovering group; third-highest was the delayed PTSS group; and the persistent PTSS group showed the lowest scores in all concepts and domains. Notably, survivors with delayed onset PTSS exhibited a lower QOL when PTSS occurred. Conclusions: Three years after the earthquake, the estimated rate of PTSS had declined, and the QOL of the survivors varied according to how their PTSS had progressed. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available