Personality Assessment Inventory internalizing and externalizing structure in veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder: Associations with aggression: PTSD and Aggression

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is associated with aggressive behavior in veterans, and difficulty controlling aggressive urges has been identified as a primary postdeployment readjustment concern. Yet only a fraction of veterans with PTSD commit violent acts. The goals of this study were to (1) examine the higher-order factor structure of Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) scales in a sample of U.S. military veterans seeking treatment for PTSD; and (2) to evaluate the incremental validity of higher-order latent factors of the PAI over PTSD symptom severity in modeling aggression. The study sample included male U.S. Vietnam (n = 433) and Iraq/Afghanistan (n = 165) veterans who were seeking treatment for PTSD at an outpatient Veterans Affairs (VA) clinic. Measures included the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale, the PAI, and the Conflict Tactics Scale. The sample was randomly split into two equal subsamples (n’s = 299) to allow for cross-validation of statistically derived factors. Parallel analysis, variable clustering analysis, and confirmatory factor analyses were used to evaluate the factor structure, and regression was used to examine the association of factor scores with self-reports of aggression over the past year. Three factors were identified: internalizing, externalizing, and substance abuse. Externalizing explained unique variance in aggression beyond PTSD symptom severity and demographic factors, while internalizing and substance abuse did not. Service era was unrelated to reports of aggression. The constructs of internalizing versus externalizing dimensions of PTSD may have utility in identifying characteristics of combat veterans in the greatest need of treatment to help manage aggressive urges

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Comparison of Prolonged Exposure vs Cognitive Processing Therapy for Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Among US Veterans

ImportancePosttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent and serious mental health problem. Although there are effective psychotherapies for PTSD, there is little information about their comparative effectiveness.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of prolonged exposure (PE) vs cognitive processing therapy (CPT) for treating PTSD in veterans.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial assessed the comparative effectiveness of PE vs CPT among veterans with military-related PTSD recruited from outpatient mental health clinics at 17 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers across the US from October 31, 2014, to February 1, 2018, with follow-up through February 1, 2019. The primary outcome was assessed using centralized masking. Tested hypotheses were prespecified before trial initiation. Data were analyzed from October 5, 2020, to May 5, 2021.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to 1 of 2 individual cognitive-behavioral therapies, PE or CPT, delivered according to a flexible protocol of 10 to 14 sessions.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change in PTSD symptom severity on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) from before treatment to the mean after treatment across posttreatment and 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Secondary outcomes included other symptoms, functioning, and quality of life.ResultsAnalyses were based on all 916 randomized participants (730 [79.7%] men and 186 [20.3%] women; mean [range] age 45.2 [21-80] years), with 455 participants randomized to PE (mean CAPS-5 score at baseline, 39.9 [95% CI, 39.1-40.7] points) and 461 participants randomized to CPT (mean CAPS-5 score at baseline, 40.3 [95% CI, 39.5-41.1] points). PTSD severity on the CAPS-5 improved substantially in both PE (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.89-1.08]) and CPT (SMD, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.61-0.80]) groups from before to after treatment. Mean improvement was greater in PE than CPT (least square mean, 2.42 [95% CI, 0.53-4.31]; P = .01), but the difference was not clinically significant (SMD, 0.17). Results for self-reported PTSD symptoms were comparable with CAPS-5 findings. The PE group had higher odds of response (odds ratio [OR], 1.32 [95% CI, 1.00-1.65]; P < .001), loss of diagnosis (OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.12-1.74]; P < .001), and remission (OR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.24-2.00]; P < .001) compared with the CPT group. Groups did not differ on other outcomes. Treatment dropout was higher in PE (254 participants [55.8%]) than in CPT (215 participants [46.6%]; P < .01). Three participants in the PE group and 1 participant in the CPT group were withdrawn from treatment, and 3 participants in each treatment dropped out owing to serious adverse events.Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that although PE was statistically more effective than CPT, the difference was not clinically significant, and improvements in PTSD were meaningful in both treatment groups. These findings highlight the importance of shared decision-making to help patients understand the evidence and select their preferred treatment.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01928732