4.4 Review

Epidemiology of posttraumatic stress disorder: prevalence, correlates and consequences

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN PSYCHIATRY
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 307-311

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000167

关键词

DSM-5 criteria; epidemiology; posttraumatic stress disorder

资金

  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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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

4.4
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