Social support in relation to posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms among patients with violent versus nonviolent injury.

OBJECTIVE: Violent injuries have become increasingly more common in the United States. Individuals experiencing violent injury are at increased risk for the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as compared to those experiencing nonviolent injury. Social support is touted as a protective factor against various psychiatric symptoms (i.e., PTSD), though little is known about the relation between PTSD symptoms and social support in traumatic injury populations. The aims of the present paper were twofold: (1) examine the prevalence of PTSD as a function of injury type (2) explore differences in levels of social support as a function of injury type and (3) explore the association between injury type and later PTSD symptoms as moderated by baseline social support. METHOD: Participants were 553 adults from a level-one trauma center in the Southeast United States who experienced a violent injury or nonviolent injury and completed measures of social support at baseline as well as PTSD symptoms at the 30-day follow-up timepoint. The study utilized data from both the baseline timepoint (i.e., upon admission to the trauma surgery unit), as well as a 30-day follow-up timepoint. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that those endorsing nonviolent injury reported lower levels of social support and PTSD symptoms. Social support predicted later PTSD symptoms until injury type was included as a covariate in the model. Social support did not moderate the relationship between injury type and later PTSD symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the interrelatedness of key risk variables (i.e., injury type) with protective factors in influencing the trajectory of psychopathology postinjury. Violence intervention and interruption programs may have the capacity to fill patient needs when social support networks are insufficient. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Mental health symptoms and engagement in a stepped-care mental health service among patients with a violent versus nonviolent injury.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined mental health symptom trajectories and engagement in mental health follow-up in relation to mechanism of injury. This study examined differences in engagement between survivors of nonviolent and violent injury in the Trauma Resilience and Recovery Program (TRRP), a stepped-care, technology-enhanced model that provides evidence-based mental health screening and treatment to patients admitted to our Level I trauma service. METHODS: This study analyzed data from 2,527 adults enrolled in TRRP at hospital bedside between 2018 and 2022, including 398 patients (16%) with a violent injury and 2,129 patients (84%) with a nonviolent injury. Bivariate and hierarchical logistic regression analyses examined relations between injury type (violent vs. nonviolent) engagement in TRRP and mental health symptoms at 30 day follow-up. RESULTS: Engagement in services at bedside was similar across survivors of violent and nonviolent traumatic injury. Patients with violent injury had higher levels of posttraumatic stress disorder and depressive symptoms 30 days postinjury but were less likely to engage in mental health screening. Among patients who screened positive for posttraumatic stress disorder and depression, patients with violent injury were more likely to accept treatment referrals. CONCLUSION: Patients with a violent traumatic injury have higher levels of mental health needs yet face greater barriers to accessing mental health services following their injury relative to those with a nonviolent injury. Effective strategies are needed to ensure continuity of care and access to mental health care to promote resilience and emotional and functional recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Differences in mental health engagement and follow-up among Black and White patients after traumatic injury.

BACKGROUND: Severe injury necessitating hospitalization is experienced by nearly three million US adults annually. Posttraumatic stress disorder and depression are prevalent clinical outcomes. The mechanisms by which programs equitably promote mental health recovery among trauma-exposed patients are understudied. We evaluated clinical outcomes and engagement among a cohort of Black and White patients enrolled in the Trauma Resilience and Recovery Program (TRRP), a stepped-care model to accelerate mental health recovery after traumatic injury. METHODS: Trauma Resilience and Recovery Program is a four-step model that includes (1) bedside psychoeducation about mental health recovery following traumatic injury, (2) a text-messaging symptom tracking system, (3) a 30-day postinjury mental health screen, and (4) referrals to mental health services. Data describe 1,550 patients enrolled in TRRP within a Level I trauma center ( Mage = 40.86; SD, 17.32), 611 of whom identified as Black (74.5% male) and 939 of whom identified as White (67.7% male). RESULTS: Enrollment in TRRP was nearly universal (97.9%) regardless of race or injury mechanism. Enrollment and usage of the text-message system were statistically similar between Black (35.7%) and White patients (39.5%). Trauma Resilience and Recovery Program reengaged Black and White patients at a similar rate at the 30-day postinjury follow-up. However, Black patients were more likely to report peritraumatic distress at the bedside and clinical elevations in posttraumatic stress disorder and depression on the 30-day screen. Referrals were more likely to be accepted by Black patients relative to White patients with clinically elevated symptoms. CONCLUSION: Enrollment and engagement were comparable among Black and White patients served by TRRP. Data provide preliminary evidence to suggest that TRRP is feasible and acceptable and engages patients in mental health follow-up equitably. However, research that includes careful measurement of social determinants of health and long-term follow-up examining initiation, completion, and benefit from treatment is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Assessing service quality and access in trauma centers through behavioral health screening, education, and treatment after pediatric injury.

BACKGROUND: Over 120,000 U.S. children are hospitalized annually for traumatic injury, with approximately 20% developing acute stress disorder (ASD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or depression. The ACS COT recommends that trauma centers address emotional recovery after injury; however, few pediatric trauma centers (PTCs) assess behavioral health symptoms. This study describes results from a survey with PTC providers assessing the landscape of behavioral health screening, education, and treatment. METHODS: Trauma program leaders from 83 US Level I and II trauma centers across 36 states completed a survey assessing center characteristics and decision-making, availability, and perceptions of behavioral health resources. RESULTS: Nearly half (46%) of centers provide behavioral health screens for pediatric patients, and 18% screen family members, with screens mostly conducted by nurses or social workers for ASD or PTSD. Two-thirds provide child behavioral health education and 47% provide education to caregivers/family. Two-thirds provide treatment connections, typically via referrals or outpatient clinics. Behavioral health screening, education, and treatment connections were rated as very important (M > 8.5/10), with higher ratings for the importance of screening children versus caregivers. Child maltreatment (59%), observed patient distress (53%), child substance use (52%), injury mechanism (42%) and severity (42%) were prioritized in screening decision-making. CONCLUSION: Service provision varies by method, resource, and provider, highlighting the lack of a roadmap for centers to provide behavioral health services. Adoption of universal education and screening procedures in PTCs is crucial to increase access to services for injured children and caregivers. PTCs are well-positioned to offer these services. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Implementation and Utility of an Automated Text Messaging System to Facilitate Symptom Self-Monitoring and Identify Risk for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Depression in Trauma Center Patients.

Background and Introduction: Comprehensive monitoring and follow-up after traumatic injury is important for psychological recovery. However, scalable services to facilitate this are limited. Automated text message-based symptom self-monitoring (SSM) may be a feasible approach. This study examined its implementation and utility in identifying patients at risk for mental health difficulties after traumatic injury.Materials and Methods: Five hundred two patients admitted to a Level I trauma center between June 20, 2016 and July 31, 2017 were offered enrollment in a text message-based SSM service. Patients who enrolled received daily text message prompts over 30 days and most participated in a mental health screening 30 days postbaseline.Results: Approximately 67% of patients enrolled in the service; of these, 58% responded to the text messages, with an average response rate of 53%. Younger patients and those with elevated peritraumatic distress were more likely to enroll. Patients with higher levels of mental health stigma, who were White, or had been in a motor vehicle collision were more likely to enroll and respond to text messages once enrolled. Patients' daily ratings of distress detected clinically elevated 30-day mental health screens with high sensitivity (83%) and specificity (70%).Discussion and Conclusions: Text message-based SSM can be implemented as a clinical service in Level I trauma centers, and patient participation may increase engagement in mental health follow-up. Further, it can inform the use of risk assessments in practice, which can be used to identify patients with poor psychological recovery who require additional screening.