Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-qfg88 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T23:05:59.779Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Current Diagnostic Issues and Epidemiological Insights in PTSD

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

Extract

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was associated in the past mainly with combatrelated events. This was reflected in the names given to the disorder, ie, “shell shock,” “soldier's heart,” “combat neurosis,” and “operational fatigue.” Only following the realization that PTSD can be related to all types of traumatic events, including noncombat associated events, were the terms “traumatic neurosis” and, later, “PTSD” coined. These new terms reflect the understanding that the condition need not necessarily be associated with war, but may also be related to events such as a severe automobile accident, violent personal assault (eg, rape, physical attack, robbery, or mugging), terrorist attack, natural or human-made disaster (such as a fire), witnessing serious injury or death due to any of the above, as well as to other situations, such as being kidnapped or being held hostage.

The tendency to interpret the symptoms of what we would consider now as PTSD, as a “normal response” to traumatic events was another factor that held up progress in the field. It is important to note that PTSD is a pathological response: The vast majority of individuals who are exposed to a traumatic event will later adapt and continue on with their lives. Only a small percent, which partially depends on the type of trauma and is partially associated with several risk factors, will develop a pathological fixation on the traumatic event, namely, PTSD.

It has been estimated that approximately one-third of the population will be exposed to a severe trauma (according to the definition of PTSD) during their lifetime.

Type
Supplement Monograph
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders. 3rd edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1980.Google Scholar
2.American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders. 4th edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1994.Google Scholar
3.Solomon, SD, Davidson, JRT. Trauma, prevalence, impairment, service use, and cost. J Clin Psychiatry. 1997;58:511.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Breslau, N, Kessler, RC, Chilcoat, HD, et al.Trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder in the community: the 1996 Detroit Area Survey of Trauma. Arch Gen Psychiatry. In press.Google Scholar
5.Breslau, N, Davis, GC, Andreski, P, et al.Traumatic events and posttraumatic stress disorder in an urban population of young adults. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1991;48:216222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Kessler, RC, Sonnega, A, Bromet, E, Hughes, M, Nelson, CB. Posttraumatic stress disorder in the national comorbidity survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1995;52:10481060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Breslau, N. Epidemiology of Trauma and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Psychological Trauma. In: Yehuda, R, ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association Press; 1998:129.Google Scholar
8.McFarlane, AC.The aetiology of posttraumatic morbidity: predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating factors, Br J Psychiatry. 1989;154:221228.Google Scholar
9.Resnick, PJ.Guidelines for the evaluation of malingering in posttraumatic stress disorder. In: Simon, RL, ed. Posttraumatic Stress Disorders in Litigation. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 1995:117136.Google Scholar