Experiences of racial discrimination and adverse gene expression among black individuals in a level 1 trauma center sample.

Up to 40 % of individuals who sustain traumatic injuries are at risk for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the conditional risk for developing PTSD is even higher for Black individuals. Exposure to racial discrimination, including at both interpersonal and structural levels, helps explain this health inequity. Yet, the relationship between racial discrimination and biological processes in the context of traumatic injury has yet to be fully explored. The current study examined whether racial discrimination is associated with a cumulative measure of biological stress, the gene expression profile conserved transcriptional response to adversity (CTRA), in Black trauma survivors. Two-weeks (T1) and six-months (T2) post-injury, Black participants (N = 94) provided a blood specimen and completed assessments of lifetime racial discrimination and PTSD symptoms. Mixed effect linear models evaluated the relationship between change in CTRA gene expression and racial discrimination while adjusting for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking history, heavy alcohol use history, and trauma-related variables (mechanism of injury, lifetime trauma). Results revealed that for individuals exposed to higher levels of lifetime racial discrimination, CTRA significantly increased between T1 and T2. Conversely, CTRA did not increase significantly over time in individuals exposed to lower levels of lifetime racial discrimination. Thus, racial discrimination appeared to lead to a more sensitized biological profile which was further amplified by the effects of a recent traumatic injury. These findings replicate and extend previous research elucidating the processes by which racial discrimination targets biological systems.

Attributional negativity bias and acute stress disorder symptoms mediate the association between trauma history and future posttraumatic stress disorder.

Individuals who have experienced more trauma throughout their life have a heightened risk of developing posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following injury. Although trauma history cannot be retroactively modified, identifying the mechanism(s) by which preinjury life events influence future PTSD symptoms may help clinicians mitigate the detrimental effects of past adversity. The current study proposed attributional negativity bias, the tendency to perceive stimuli/events as negative, as a potential intermediary in PTSD development. We hypothesized an association between trauma history and PTSD symptom severity following a new index trauma via heightened negativity bias and acute stress disorder (ASD) symptoms. Recent trauma survivors (N =189, 55.5% women, 58.7% African American/Black) completed assessments of ASD, negativity bias, and lifetime trauma 2-weeks postinjury; PTSD symptoms were assessed 6 months later. A parallel mediation model was tested with bootstrapping (10,000 resamples). Both negativity bias, Path b1 : ß = -.24, t(187) = -2.88, p = .004, and ASD symptoms, Path b2 : ß = .30, t(187) = 3.71, p < .001, fully mediated the association between trauma history and 6-month PTSD symptoms, full model: F(6, 182) = 10.95, p < .001, R 2 = .27; Path c': ß = .04, t(187) = 0.54, p = .587. These results suggest that negativity bias may reflect an individual cognitive difference that can be further activated by acute trauma. Moreover, negativity bias may be an important, modifiable treatment target, and interventions addressing both acute symptoms and negativity bias in the early posttrauma period may weaken the link between trauma history and new-onset PTSD.

Event centrality and posttraumatic stress symptoms after traumatic injury: A longitudinal investigation.

The development of posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) can occur following a traumatic injury, which may include an increase in negative cognitions. One cognitive construct shown to be associated with the development of PTSS is event centrality, or the degree to which an individual views a traumatic experience as central to their life story. Although cross-sectional work has demonstrated a robust connection between event centrality and PTSS, the directionality of this association remains unclear. Most previous work has investigated centrality as a predictor of PTSS, although one recent study suggests that PTSS may, in fact, predict event centrality. The current longitudinal study enrolled adult civilian participants (N = 191) from a Level 1 trauma center following a traumatic injury and assessed both event centrality and PTSS at three points posttrauma (3, 12, and 18 months). A time-constrained random intercept cross-lagged panel analysis showed that PTSS predicted event centrality over the 18-month follow-up period, B = 0.16, p = .021, but event centrality did not predict PTSS, B = -0.27, p = .340. These findings suggest that the development of PTSS following trauma exposure may lead to the perception of the traumatic event as central to an individual's story over time. Further longitudinal research is necessary to determine what variables may influence the connection between PTSS and event centrality.

Trajectories of Anhedonia Symptoms after Traumatic Injury.

Anhedonia describes the inability or difficulty of experiencing or seeking pleasure. Previous research has demonstrated a relationship between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or experiencing trauma and anhedonia symptoms; however, little to no work has been done to understand the evolution of anhedonia symptoms after trauma. We aimed to identify anhedonia trajectories following traumatic injury. One hundred ninety-five participants were recruited from the emergency department of a Level-1 Trauma Center after experiencing a traumatic injury. To measure anhedonia symptoms, participants completed the Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS) at 2-weeks, 3-months, and 6-months post-injury. Using latent class mixture modeling, we ran a trajectory analysis with three timepoints of SHAPS scores and compared mental and physical health outcomes across trajectories. Most of the sample fell in the resilient trajectory (85%), while the remainder were in a remitting trajectory (7%) where symptoms decreased over time, and a delayed (6%) trajectory where symptoms did not emerge until 3-months after injury. In the resilient trajectory, there was consistently low levels of PTSD, pain, depression, and anxiety relative to the other trajectories. In the delayed trajectory, depression and PTSD were chronically elevated and pain levels were consistent but mild. In the remitting trajectory, PTSD and depression symptoms decreased over time. Identified anhedonia trajectories mirrored trajectories commonly reported for PTSD symptoms after injury. Evaluating anhedonia trajectories and how they relate to mental health outcomes may inform targeted interventions for traumatic injury patients.

History of Racial Discrimination by Police Contributes to Worse Physical and Emotional Quality of Life in Black Americans After Traumatic Injury.

BACKGROUND: Black Americans are more likely than their White counterparts to experience traumatic injury and worse functional outcomes. Unfair police treatment has been identified as one specific form of racial discrimination potentially driving these deleterious outcomes. The aim of the investigation was to better understand the relationship between experiences of discrimination by police and trauma-specific quality of life outcomes, including PTSD symptom severity, in Black Americans following traumatic injury. METHOD: Traumatically injured Black American adults (N = 53) presenting to a level 1 trauma center completed a measure of police and law enforcement discrimination at baseline, and quality of life and PTSD were assessed 6 months later. RESULTS: Stepwise regressions results showed more frequent discrimination by police and law enforcement significantly predicted lower emotional and physical well-being 6 months after injury. Further, more frequent police discrimination resulted in more severe PTSD symptoms by 6 months after injury. CONCLUSIONS: Findings underscore that following an injury not specifically related to discrimination by police, patients' historical, negative police experiences contributed to worse physical and emotional recovery in the present. These findings, in unison with prior investigations, reveal the need to consider patients' history of negative police experiences as a social determinant of health in their recovery.

Comprehensive Framework of Firearm Violence Survivor Care: A Review.

Importance: Firearm violence is a public health crisis placing significant burden on individuals, communities, and health care systems. After firearm injury, there is increased risk of poor health, disability, and psychopathology. The newest 2022 guidelines from the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma require that all trauma centers screen for risk of psychopathology and provide referral to intervention. Yet, implementing these guidelines in ways that are responsive to the unique needs of communities and specific patient populations, such as after firearm violence, is challenging. Observations: The current review highlights important considerations and presents a model for trauma centers to provide comprehensive care to survivors of firearm injury. This model highlights the need to enhance standard practice to provide patient-centered, trauma-informed care, as well as integrate inpatient and outpatient psychological services to address psychosocial needs. Further, incorporation of violence prevention programming better addresses firearm injury as a public health concern. Conclusions and Relevance: Using research to guide a framework for trauma centers in comprehensive care after firearm violence, we can prevent complications to physical and psychological recovery for this population. Health systems must acknowledge the socioecological context of firearm violence and provide more comprehensive care in the hospital and after discharge, to improve long-term recovery and serve as a means of tertiary prevention of firearm violence.

Life threat during assaultive trauma: Critical posttraumatic stress disorder risk factors for injured patients.

BACKGROUND: Rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among injury survivors are higher relative to the general population, supporting the need to identify those most at risk for PTSD following injury given negative impact of PTSD on recovery. Perceived life threat and assaultive trauma are consistent risk factors for subsequent PTSD development, although less work has explored them in combination. The current study evaluated whether trauma type (assaultive vs. nonassaultive) and perceived life threat, together, led to greater PTSD symptoms 1 month and 6 months postinjury. METHODS: Participants included adult injured trauma survivors admitted to a level 1 trauma center. While hospitalized, perceived life threat during trauma was assessed and mechanism of injury was collected via record review and was collapsed into two categories: assaultive and nonassaultive. The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [Fifth Edition]) was administered at 1 month (N = 137) and 6 months (N = 220) after injury. RESULTS: The four symptoms clusters of PTSD (intrusions, avoidance, hyperarousal, and negative mood/cognitions) were examined using four 2 (time) × 2 (life threat) × 2 (trauma type) mixed methods analyses of variance to assess differences based on risk factors and time. Results showed significant interaction effects of life threat, trauma type, and time for intrusive symptoms and avoidance symptoms. Individuals with life threat during assaultive traumas maintained heightened intrusive symptoms across time and increased avoidance at 6 months. On the other hand, participants with either life threat or assaultive traumas had decreased symptoms at 6 months. CONCLUSION: Experiencing assaultive trauma and life threat led to greater symptoms of PTSD. Individuals with assaultive traumas who experienced life threat may represent a specific at-risk group following injury. Avoidance can protract functional impairment and impede access to care, negatively impacting recovery. This study highlights a need to assess for these peritrauma factors during hospitalization and supports early intervention targeting avoidance and intrusive symptoms in this group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/Epidemiologic, Level IV.

Identification of risk for posttraumatic stress disorder symptom clusters early after trauma.

The current study examined how the injured trauma survivor screen (ITSS), a hospital-administered screener of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression, differentially predicted PTSD symptom cluster severity. Participants from a Level 1 trauma center (n = 220) completed the ITSS while inpatient and PTSD symptoms were assessed one-month post discharge. Perceived life threat and intentionality of injury were key predictors of avoidance, re-experiencing, and hyperarousal symptom clusters. However, negative alterations in mood and cognition cluster seemed best predicted by mood and cognitive risk factors. Therefore, the ITSS provides utility in differentially predicting symptom clusters and treatment planning after traumatic injury.

Feasibility of a trauma quality-of-life follow-up clinic.

BACKGROUND: Little effort has been made to address long-term quality of life, chronic pain (CP), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and functional disability in trauma survivors. This quality initiative was developed to determine feasibility of a coordinated, comprehensive, patient-centered follow-up clinic for those at risk for poor long-term outcomes. METHODS: A convenience sample from 649 hospitalized trauma patients at a Midwestern level 1 trauma center between February 2018 and August 2018 was screened for risk of PTSD and CP. Thirty-six patients were randomized into a standard follow-up clinic (standard of care [SOC]) (2-week postdischarge surgical clinic) or a new trauma quality of life clinic (TQOL). The TQOL was developed to provide comprehensive care to patients at high risk for PTSD (Injured Trauma Survivor Score, ≥2) and/or CP (discharge pain score, ≥4). Trauma quality of life clinic included a nurse practitioner or surgeon (physician), psychologist, social worker, and physical therapist at 1-week post discharge. All providers saw the patient independently, developed a care plan collaboratively, and communicated the plan to the patient. The SOC involved a visit only with a nurse practitioner or surgeon (medical doctor). Measures of pain, PTSD, depression, quality of life, physical functioning, and life satisfaction were completed at time of the TQOL/SOC or over the phone. RESULTS: There were no differences in demographics, readmissions, or emergency department visits after discharge between groups. However, no show rates were almost twice as high in SOC (40%) compared with TQOL (22%) and those in TQOL completed 23 additional psychology visits versus one psychology visit in SOC. This clinic structure is feasible for high-risk patients, and TQOL patients demonstrated improved engagement in their care. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive multidisciplinary TQOL addressing issues affecting convalescence for trauma patients at high risk for developing PTSD and CP can improve follow-up rates to ensure patients are recovering successfully. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, Level IV.

Establishment and replication of emotion regulation profiles: implications for psychological health.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A promising method of capturing the complex nature of emotion regulation is to assess composite profiles of regulation (i.e., default pattern of regulation across multiple strategies). However, it remains unclear whether regulatory profiles demonstrate consistency across samples and in relation to mental health. DESIGN: Two studies are presented here. Both utilized a cross-sectional design, and the second study presents a replication of the first. METHOD: Both studies utilized self-report data from independent undergraduate samples to perform latent profile analyses of emotion regulation use. RESULTS: Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated evidence for four replicable regulatory profiles: Adaptive, Accepting (with or without Suppression), Non-accepting, and Maladaptive. Profiles were also related to symptoms of depression and anxiety, such that those consistently relying on adaptive strategies reported lower symptoms than those relying more heavily on maladaptive strategies. CONCLUSIONS: These findings clarify previous work which tied regulatory profiles to psychological health by extending a person-centered approach to understanding the ways in which individuals regulate their emotions.