4.7 Article

Neuroticism and post-traumatic stress disorder: a prospective investigation

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE
卷 43, 期 8, 页码 1697-1702

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291712002632

关键词

Neuroticism; post-traumatic stress disorder; prospective studies

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [MH44586, MH071395]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Neuroticism has been consistently correlated with the post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) response to traumatic events. Interpretation of these findings is limited by the retrospective nature of these findings: neuroticism was measured after the trauma had occurred. The prospective association of neuroticism with PTSD has not been examined (the relationship of neuroticism with PTSD symptoms was examined in a few prospective studies). We evaluate prospectively the relationship of neuroticism, measured at baseline, with the cumulative occurrence of PTSD during the subsequent 10 years, using data from a longitudinal epidemiological study of young adults. Method. A sample of 1007 young adults randomly selected from the membership of a large health maintenance organization in southeast Michigan was assessed at baseline and followed up at 3, 5 and 10 years later. We conducted a series of multinomial logistic regressions to estimate the relative risk (RR) of exposure to trauma and PTSD by neuroticism at baseline, adjusting for history of major depression (n=990). Results. During the 10-year follow-up, 50.2% of the sample experienced traumatic events and 5.2% developed PTSD. Neuroticism score at baseline increased significantly the RR of PTSD response to trauma. Additional analysis revealed that, among persons with history of major depression at baseline, RR for PTSD associated with neuroticism was equal to the null value of 1, but was increased significantly among those with no history of major depression. Conclusions. The results confirm the role of neuroticism as diathesis in the PTSD response to traumatic experiences.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据