Peritraumatic Distress Inventory as a predictor of post-traumatic stress disorder after a severe motor vehicle accident

72Citations
Citations of this article
90Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to examine the utility of the Peritraumatic Distress Inventory (PDI) as a predictor of subsequent post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in severe motor vehicle accident survivors. Methods: Patients consecutively admitted to the intensive care unit were assessed immediately and 1 month after accidents in this prospective study. The predictive value for post-traumatic stress symptoms at 1 month of the PDI at initial assessment was examined by using multivariate regression analysis. Moreover, the accuracy of the PDI as a predictor of PTSD was determined using receiver operator characteristic curve analysis. Post-traumatic stress symptoms were assessed using the Impact of Event Scale - Revised questionnaire, and PTSD was assessed using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale. Results: Seventy-nine patients completed the Impact of Event Scale - Revised questionnaire, and 64 patients participated in a structured interview. Of 64 patients, 13 met the diagnostic criteria of full or partial PTSD. The PDI was an independent predictor of post-traumatic stress symptoms (P = 0.003). The data indicated that a cut-off score of 23 maximized the balance between sensitivity (77%) and specificity (82%) in this study. Compared with negative predictive value (93%), positive predictive value was not high (53%). Conclusion: The study suggests the predictive usefulness of the PDI for subsequent PTSD in accident survivors. Its adequate usage should be further elaborated. © 2010 The Authors.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nishi, D., Matsuoka, Y., Yonemoto, N., Noguchi, H., Kim, Y., & Kanba, S. (2010). Peritraumatic Distress Inventory as a predictor of post-traumatic stress disorder after a severe motor vehicle accident. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 64(2), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1819.2010.02065.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free