Intensive longitudinal assessment following index trauma to predict development of PTSD using machine learning.

There are significant challenges to identifying which individuals require intervention following exposure to trauma, and a need for strategies to identify and provide individuals at risk for developing PTSD with timely interventions. The present study seeks to identify a minimal set of trauma-related symptoms, assessed during the weeks following traumatic exposure, that can accurately predict PTSD. Participants were 2185 adults (Mean age=36.4 years; 64% women; 50% Black) presenting for emergency care following traumatic exposure. Participants received a 'flash survey' with 6-8 varying symptoms (from a pool of 26 trauma symptoms) several times per week for eight weeks following the trauma exposure (each symptom assessed ∼6 times). Features (mean, sd, last, worst, peak-end scores) from the repeatedly assessed symptoms were included as candidate variables in a CART machine learning analysis to develop a pragmatic predictive algorithm. PTSD (PCL-5 ≥38) was present for 669 (31%) participants at the 8-week follow-up. A classification tree with three splits, based on mean scores of nervousness, rehashing, and fatigue, predicted PTSD with an Area Under the Curve of 0.836. Findings suggest feasibility for a 3-item assessment protocol, delivered once per week, following traumatic exposure to assess and potentially facilitate follow-up care for those at risk.

Utility of Wrist-Wearable Data for Assessing Pain, Sleep, and Anxiety Outcomes After Traumatic Stress Exposure.

Importance: Adverse posttraumatic neuropsychiatric sequelae after traumatic stress exposure are common and have higher incidence among socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Pain, depression, avoidance of trauma reminders, reexperiencing trauma, anxiety, hyperarousal, sleep disruption, and nightmares have been reported. Wrist-wearable devices with accelerometers capable of assessing 24-hour rest-activity characteristics are prevalent and may have utility in measuring these outcomes. Objective: To evaluate whether wrist-wearable devices can provide useful biomarkers for recovery after traumatic stress exposure. Design, Setting, and Participants: Data were analyzed from a diverse cohort of individuals seen in the emergency department after experiencing a traumatic stress exposure, as part of the Advancing Understanding of Recovery After Trauma (AURORA) study. Participants recruited from 27 emergency departments wore wrist-wearable devices for 8 weeks, beginning in the emergency department, and completed serial assessments of neuropsychiatric symptoms. A total of 19 019 patients were screened. Of these, 3040 patients met study criteria, provided informed consent, and completed baseline assessments. A total of 2021 provided data from wrist-wearable devices, completed the 8-week assessment, and were included in this analysis. The data were randomly divided into 2 equal parts (n = 1010) for biomarker identification and validation. Data were collected from September 2017 to January 2020, and data were analyzed from May 2020 to November 2022. Exposures: Participants were recruited for the study after experiencing a traumatic stress exposure (most commonly motor vehicle collision). Main Outcomes and Measures: Rest-activity characteristics were derived and validated from wrist-wearable devices associated with specific self-reported symptom domains at a point in time and changes in symptom severity over time. Results: Of 2021 included patients, 1257 (62.2%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 35.8 (13.0) years. Eight wrist-wearable device biomarkers for symptoms of adverse posttraumatic neuropsychiatric sequelae exceeded significance thresholds in the derivation cohort. One of these, reduced 24-hour activity variance, was associated with greater pain severity (r = -0.14; 95% CI, -0.20 to -0.07). Changes in 6 rest-activity measures were associated with changes in pain over time, and changes in the number of transitions between sleep and wake over time were associated with changes in pain, sleep, and anxiety. Simple cutoffs for these biomarkers identified individuals with good recovery for pain (positive predictive value [PPV], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.82-0.88), sleep (PPV, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.59-0.67, and anxiety (PPV, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72-0.80) with high predictive value. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that wrist-wearable device biomarkers may have utility as screening tools for pain, sleep, and anxiety symptom outcomes after trauma exposure in high-risk populations.

Mental health and clinical psychological science in the time of COVID-19: Challenges, opportunities, and a call to action.

COVID-19 presents significant social, economic, and medical challenges. Because COVID-19 has already begun to precipitate huge increases in mental health problems, clinical psychological science must assert a leadership role in guiding a national response to this secondary crisis. In this article, COVID-19 is conceptualized as a unique, compounding, multidimensional stressor that will create a vast need for intervention and necessitate new paradigms for mental health service delivery and training. Urgent challenge areas across developmental periods are discussed, followed by a review of psychological symptoms that likely will increase in prevalence and require innovative solutions in both science and practice. Implications for new research directions, clinical approaches, and policy issues are discussed to highlight the opportunities for clinical psychological science to emerge as an updated, contemporary field capable of addressing the burden of mental illness and distress in the wake of COVID-19 and beyond. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Power and measures of effect size in analysis of variance with fixed versus random nested factors.

Ignoring a nested factor can influence the validity of statistical decisions about treatment effectiveness. Previous discussions have centered on consequences of ignoring nested factors versus treating them as random factors on Type I errors and measures of effect size (B. E. Wampold & R. C. Serlin). The authors (a) discuss circumstances under which the treatment of nested provider effects as fixed as opposed to random is appropriate; (b) present 2 formulas for the correct estimation of effect sizes when nested factors are fixed; (c) present the results of Monte Carlo simulations of the consequences of treating providers as fixed versus random on effect size estimates, Type I error rates, and power; and (d) discuss implications of mistaken considerations of provider effects for the study of differential treatment effects in psychotherapy research.

Assumptions and consequences of treating providers in therapy studies as fixed versus random effects: reply to Crits-Christoph, Tu, and Gallop (2003) and Serlin, Wampold, and Levin (2003).

In their comments on the authors' article, R. C. Serlin, B. E. Wampold, and J. R. Levin and P. Crits-Christoph, X. Tu, and R. Gallop took issue with the authors' suggestion to evaluate therapy studies with nested providers with a fixed model approach. In this rejoinder, the authors' comment on Serlin et al's critique by showing that their arguments do not apply, are based on misconceptions about the purpose and nature of statistical inference, or are based on flawed reasoning. The authors also comment on Crits-Christoph et al's critique by showing that the proposed approach is very similar to, but less inclusive than, their own suggestion.