Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a partially randomised controlled trial examining interventions to improve psychological health after discharge from the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Interventions to support psychological recovery after critical illness, including information provision via an intensive care unit (ICU) diary or discharge summary, have been widely adopted in some regions, albeit without strong empirical evidence. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the feasibility and acceptability, for patients, family members, and clinicians, of information provision via an ICU diary or discharge summary to support psychological recovery for critical illness survivors. METHODS: This was a pilot, partially randomised patient preference study in a mixed ICU in a tertiary hospital in Australia. Eligible patients were those in the ICU for >24 h and who were able to converse in English. Interventions were ICU diary or discharge summary compared with usual care. Feasibility was assessed throughout the study process, and acceptability assessed 3 and 6 months after hospital discharge, with data analysed descriptively and thematically. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were recruited; 45 completed 3-month follow-up (74%), and 37 (61%), 6-month follow-up. Participants were medical (39%), surgical (30%), and trauma (31%) patients; aged 55 [interquartile range (IQR): 36-67] years; and stayed in the ICU for 7 [IQR: 3-13] days and hospital for 23 [IQR: 14-32] days. Within the partially randomised framework, 34 patients chose their intervention - four chose usual care, 10 ICU diary, and 20 discharge summary. The remaining 27 patients were randomised - nine usual care, 10 ICU diary, and seven discharge summary. The majority (>90%) considered each intervention helpful during recovery; however, a significant proportion of patients reported distress associated with reading the ICU diary (42%) or discharge summary (15%). Clinicians reported they were hesitant to make diary entries. CONCLUSIONS: When given a choice, more patients chose a discharge summary over the ICU diary or usual care. Participants considered both interventions acceptable. Given the reports of distress associated with information provision, clear empirical evidence is required to determine effectiveness, optimal timing, support needed, and for whom they should be used. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12615001079538.

A family intervention to reduce delirium in hospitalised ICU patients: A feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Family members could play an important role in preventing and reducing the development of delirium in Intensive Care Units (ICU) patients. This study sought to assess the feasibility of design and recruitment, and acceptability for family members and nurses of a family delivered intervention to reduce delirium in ICU patients. METHOD: A single centre randomised controlled trial in an Australian medical/surgical ICU was conducted. Sixty-one family members were randomised (29 in intervention and 32 in non-intervention group). Following instructions, the intervention comprised the family members providing orientation or memory clues (family photographs, orientation to surroundings) to their relative each day. In addition, family members conducted sensory checks (vision and hearing with glasses and hearing aids); and therapeutic or cognitive stimulation (discussing family life, reminiscing) daily. Eleven ICU nurses were interviewed to gain insight into the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the intervention from their perspective. RESULTS: Recruitment rate was 28% of eligible patients (recruited n=90, attrition n=1). Following instruction by the research nurse the family member delivered the intervention which was assessed to be feasible and acceptable by family members and nurses. Protocol adherence could be improved with alternative data collection methods. Nurses considered the activities acceptable. CONCLUSION: The study was able to recruit, randomise and retain family member participants. Further strategies are required to assess intervention fidelity and improve data collection.

Perspectives of patients and family members regarding psychological support using intensive care diaries: An exploratory mixed methods study.

PURPOSE: Diaries summarizing intensive care are routine practice in some countries, although evidence to support diary use is limited. The purpose of this study was to identify whether distress post-intensive care influences patients' and relatives' choice as to whether they would like to receive a diary and what information delivery method is preferred. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Intensive care patients admitted for at least 3 days and their relatives participated in an exploratory mixed methods study. Interviews were conducted 3 to 5 months after discharge. Psychological distress was assessed using Kessler-10 and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptom Checklist - 5. Perceptions of benefit of diaries were assessed using a 4-point Likert scale. Differences were examined using Fisher exact test (P<.05). RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients and 22 relatives consented to participation, with 22 patients and 22 relatives interviewed before data saturation. Psychological distress was evident in 25 (47%) patients and 5 (23%) relatives. Participants' psychological health was similar for those who perceived diaries as beneficial, and those who did not. Themes included memory, process, and impact, although opinions were diverse. CONCLUSIONS: Patient and relative preferences of receiving a diary are not related to psychological distress. Diverse opinions around common themes suggest the need for a range of interventions to aid psychological recovery.

Be vigilant for post-traumatic stress reactions.

Most people experience at least one potentially traumatic event (PTE) during their life. Many will develop only transient distress and not a psychological illness. Even the most inherently horrific event does not invariably lead to the development of a psychological disorder while an individual with sufficient vulnerabilit may develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after what appears be an event of low magnitude. The diagnosis of PTSD differs fro most psychiatric disorders as it includes an aetiological factor, the traumatic event, as a core criterion. The DSM 5 core symptoms of PTSD are grouped into four key symptom clusters: re-experiencing, avoidance, negative cognitions and mood, and arousal. Symptoms must be present for at least one month and cause functional impairment. PTSD patients can avoid engaging in treatment and assertive follow-up may be necessary.

Identifying patients with complex PTSD.

While the common perception of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is of an individual suffering from a single traumatic event, clinicians need to be aware of those people who have been exposed to multiple potentially traumatic events. Type 2 or complex trauma results from multiple or repeated traumatic events occurring over extended periods. Complex trauma is often associated with other adversity and stressors such as neglect, loss or deprivation. For many individuals these traumas occur at a developmentally vulnerable time with the perpetrator often in a caregiving role; thus the trauma incorporates a betrayal of trust. Disclosure can be a problem particularly with complex trauma such as sexual abuse or domestic violence, and is often incremental as trust with the clinician is formed. Patients who have experienced complex trauma should be assessed for the core symptoms of PTSD. In addition, patients should be assessed for disturbances in the three domains of emotional dysregulation, negative self-concept and interpersonal disturbances.

Recognition of the neurobiological insults imposed by complex trauma and the implications for psychotherapeutic interventions.

Considerable research has been conducted on particular approaches to the psychotherapy of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, the evidence indicates that modalities tested in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are far from 100% applicable and effective and the RCT model itself is inadequate for evaluating treatments of conditions with complex presentations and frequently multiple comorbidities. Evidence at levels 2 and 3 cannot be ignored. Expert-led interventions consistent with the emerging understanding of affective neuroscience are needed and not the unthinking application of a dominant therapeutic paradigm with evidence for PTSD but not complex PTSD. The over-optimistic claims for the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and misrepresentation of other approaches do not best serve a group of patients greatly in need of help; excluding individuals with such disorders as untreatable or treatment-resistant when viable alternatives exist is not acceptable.

Neglect of the complex: why psychotherapy for post-traumatic clinical presentations is often ineffective.

Evidence of efficacy in studies of post-traumatic conditions is largely derived from studies in which variables are kept to a minimum. Extrapolation of treatments from uncomplicated disorders to complex conditions may therefore be called evidence-based without being evidenced. Complex conditions with polysymptomatic presentations and extensive comorbidity are being denied proper evaluation, and patients most severely traumatised from the early stages of their development are not provided with rigorously evaluated psychotherapies because they are more difficult to study in the manner approved by research protocols. Such evidence as there is suggests that the simple extension of treatments for uncomplicated disorders is seriously inadequate. This has significant implications for health services responsible for the provision of the most efficacious treatments to those whose disorders arise from severe trauma, often very early in their life.

Increased Hospital-Based Physical Rehabilitation and Information Provision After Intensive Care Unit Discharge: The RECOVER Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Critical illness results in disability and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQOL), but the optimum timing and components of rehabilitation are uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of increasing physical and nutritional rehabilitation plus information delivered during the post-intensive care unit (ICU) acute hospital stay by dedicated rehabilitation assistants on subsequent mobility, HRQOL, and prevalent disabilities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A parallel group, randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment at 2 hospitals in Edinburgh, Scotland, of 240 patients discharged from the ICU between December 1, 2010, and January 31, 2013, who required at least 48 hours of mechanical ventilation. Analysis for the primary outcome and other 3-month outcomes was performed between June and August 2013; for the 6- and 12-month outcomes and the health economic evaluation, between March and April 2014. INTERVENTIONS: During the post-ICU hospital stay, both groups received physiotherapy and dietetic, occupational, and speech/language therapy, but patients in the intervention group received rehabilitation that typically increased the frequency of mobility and exercise therapies 2- to 3-fold, increased dietetic assessment and treatment, used individualized goal setting, and provided greater illness-specific information. Intervention group therapy was coordinated and delivered by a dedicated rehabilitation practitioner. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) (range 0-15) at 3 months; higher scores indicate greater mobility. Secondary outcomes included HRQOL, psychological outcomes, self-reported symptoms, patient experience, and cost-effectiveness during a 12-month follow-up (completed in February 2014). RESULTS: Median RMI at randomization was 3 (interquartile range [IQR], 1-6) and at 3 months was 13 (IQR, 10-14) for the intervention and usual care groups (mean difference, -0.2 [95% CI, -1.3 to 0.9; P = .71]). The HRQOL scores were unchanged by the intervention (mean difference in the Physical Component Summary score, -0.1 [95% CI, -3.3 to 3.1; P = .96]; and in the Mental Component Summary score, 0.2 [95% CI, -3.4 to 3.8; P = .91]). No differences were found for self-reported symptoms of fatigue, pain, appetite, joint stiffness, or breathlessness. Levels of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress were similar, as were hand grip strength and the timed Up & Go test. No differences were found at the 6- or 12-month follow-up for any outcome measures. However, patients in the intervention group reported greater satisfaction with physiotherapy, nutritional support, coordination of care, and information provision. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Post-ICU hospital-based rehabilitation, including increased physical and nutritional therapy plus information provision, did not improve physical recovery or HRQOL, but improved patient satisfaction with many aspects of recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN09412438.

Intensive care diaries to promote recovery for patients and families after critical illness: A Cochrane Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of an intensive care unit (ICU) diary versus no ICU diary on patients, and their caregivers or families, during the patient's recovery from admission to an ICU. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PILOT; Web of Science Conference Proceedings, clinical trial registries and reference lists of identified trials. REVIEW METHODS: Studies evaluated the effectiveness of patient diaries, when compared to no ICU diary, for patients or family members to promote recovery after admission to ICU were included. Outcome measures for describing recovery from ICU included the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress symptomatology, health-related quality of life and costs. We used standard methodological approaches as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently reviewed titles for inclusion, extracted data and undertook risk of bias according to pre-specified criteria. RESULTS: We identified three eligible studies; two describing ICU patients (N=358), and one describing relatives of ICU patients (N=30). No study adequately reported on risk of PTSD as described using a clinical interview, family or caregiver anxiety or depression, health-related quality of life or costs. Within a single study there was no clear evidence of a difference in risk for developing anxiety (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.07-1.19) or depression (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12-1.19) in participants who received ICU diaries, in comparison to those that did not receive a patient diary. Within a single study there was no evidence of difference in median post-traumatic stress symptomatology scores (diaries 24, SD 11.6; no diary 24, SD 11.6) and delusional ICU memory recall (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84-1.28) between the patients recovering from ICU admission who received patient diaries, and those who did not. One study reported reduced post-traumatic stress symptomatology in family members of patients recovering from admission to ICU who received patient diaries (median 19; range 14-28), in comparison to no diary (median 28; range 14-38). CONCLUSIONS: Currently there is minimal evidence from RCTs of the benefits or harms of patient diaries for patients and their caregivers or family members. A small study has described their potential to reduce post-traumatic stress symptomatology in family members. However, there is currently inadequate evidence to support their effectiveness in improving psychological recovery after critical illness for patients and their family members.

Diaries for recovery from critical illness.

BACKGROUND: During intensive care unit (ICU) admission, patients experience extreme physical and psychological stressors, including the abnormal ICU environment. These experiences impact on a patient's recovery from critical illness and may result in both physical and psychological disorders. One strategy that has been developed and implemented by clinical staff to treat the psychological distress prevalent in ICU survivors is the use of patient diaries. These provide a background to the cause of the patient's ICU admission and an ongoing narrative outlining day-to-day activities. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of a diary versus no diary on patients, and their caregivers or families, during the patient's recovery from admission to an ICU. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to January 2014), EBSCOhost CINAHL (1982 to January 2014), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2014), PsycINFO (1950 to January 2014), Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress (PILOTS) database (1971 to January 2014); Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science and Social Science and Humanities (1990 to January 2014); seven clinical trial registries and reference lists of identified trials. We applied no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or clinical controlled trials (CCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of patient diaries, when compared to no ICU diary, for patients or family members to promote recovery after admission to ICU. Outcome measures for describing recovery from ICU included the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress symptomatology, health-related quality of life and costs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological approaches as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently reviewed titles for inclusion, extracted data and undertook risk of bias according to prespecified criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three eligible studies; two describing ICU patients (N = 358), and one describing relatives of ICU patients (N = 30). The study involving relatives of ICU patients was a substudy of family members from one of the ICU patient studies. There was a mixed risk of bias within the included studies. Blinding of participants to allocation was not possible and blinding of the outcome assessment was not adequately achieved or reported. Overall the quality of the evidence was low to very low. The patient diary intervention was not identical between studies. However, each provided a prospectively prepared, day-to-day description of the participants' ICU admission.No study adequately reported on risk of PTSD as described using a clinical interview, family or caregiver anxiety or depression, health-related quality of life or costs. Within a single study there was no clear evidence of a difference in risk for developing anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.19) or depression (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.19) in participants who received ICU diaries, in comparison to those that did not receive a patient diary. However, the results were imprecise and consistent with benefit in either group, or no difference. Within a single study there was no evidence of difference in median post-traumatic stress symptomatology scores (diaries 24, SD 11.6; no diary 24, SD 11.6) and delusional ICU memory recall (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.28) between the patients recovering from ICU admission who received patient diaries, and those who did not. One study reported reduced post-traumatic stress symptomatology in family members of patients recovering from admission to ICU who received patient diaries (median 19; range 14 to 28), in comparison to no diary (median 28; range 14 to 38). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently there is minimal evidence from RCTs of the benefits or harms of patient diaries for patients and their caregivers or family members. A small study has described their potential to reduce post-traumatic stress symptomatology in family members. However, there is currently inadequate evidence to support their effectiveness in improving psychological recovery after critical illness for patients and their family members.

A rehabilitation intervention to promote physical recovery following intensive care: a detailed description of construct development, rationale and content together with proposed taxonomy to capture processes in a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of patients are surviving critical illness, but survival may be associated with a constellation of physical and psychological sequelae that can cause ongoing disability and reduced health-related quality of life. Limited evidence currently exists to guide the optimum structure, timing, and content of rehabilitation programmes. There is a need to both develop and evaluate interventions to support and expedite recovery during the post-ICU discharge period. This paper describes the construct development for a complex rehabilitation intervention intended to promote physical recovery following critical illness. The intervention is currently being evaluated in a randomised trial (ISRCTN09412438; funder Chief Scientists Office, Scotland). METHODS: The intervention was developed using the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing complex healthcare interventions. We ensured representation from a wide variety of stakeholders including content experts from multiple specialties, methodologists, and patient representation. The intervention construct was initially based on literature review, local observational and audit work, qualitative studies with ICU survivors, and brainstorming activities. Iterative refinement was aided by the publication of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline (No. 83), publicly available patient stories (Healthtalkonline), a stakeholder event in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, and local piloting. Modelling and further work involved a feasibility trial and development of a novel generic rehabilitation assistant (GRA) role. Several rounds of external peer review during successive funding applications also contributed to development. RESULTS: The final construct for the complex intervention involved a dedicated GRA trained to pre-defined competencies across multiple rehabilitation domains (physiotherapy, dietetics, occupational therapy, and speech/language therapy), with specific training in post-critical illness issues. The intervention was from ICU discharge to 3 months post-discharge, including inpatient and post-hospital discharge elements. Clear strategies to provide information to patients/families were included. A detailed taxonomy was developed to define and describe the processes undertaken, and capture them during the trial. The detailed process measure description, together with a range of patient, health service, and economic outcomes were successfully mapped on to the modified CONSORT recommendations for reporting non-pharmacologic trial interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The MRC complex intervention framework was an effective guide to developing a novel post-ICU rehabilitation intervention. Combining a clearly defined new healthcare role with a detailed taxonomy of process and activity enabled the intervention to be clearly described for the purpose of trial delivery and reporting. These data will be useful when interpreting the results of the randomised trial, will increase internal and external trial validity, and help others implement the intervention if the intervention proves clinically and cost effective.

Competing interests declared: early interventions and long-term psychological outcomes.

Survivors of motor vehicle accidents and/or survivors of critical care unit admission are at increased risk of developing post-traumatic reactions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety. Examining the possible risk factors for the development of these disorders must consider pre-traumatic, peri-traumatic and post-traumatic factors and must do so across domains relating to the trauma, the person and their circumstances. The present study has found propofol administration in the first 72 hours post motor vehicle accident to confer a higher risk for full or partial post-traumatic stress disorder at 6 months. This study highlights concerns that treatment needed acutely post injury may impact adversely on long-term outcome, albeit in a different domain-the psychological.

Emotional outcome after intensive care: literature review.

AIM: This paper is a report of a literature review to identify (a) the prevalence of emotional and psychological problems after intensive care, (b) associated factors and (c) interventions that might improve this aspect of recovery. BACKGROUND: Being a patient in intensive care has been linked to both short- and long-term emotional and psychological consequences. DATA SOURCES: The literature search was conducted during 2006. Relevant journals and databases were searched, i.e. Medline and CINAHL, between the years 1995 and 2006. REVIEW METHODS: The search terms were 'anxiety', 'depression', posttraumatic stress', 'posttraumatic stress disorder' and 'intensive care'. RESULTS: Fifteen papers were reviewed representing research studies of anxiety, depression and posttraumatic stress, and seven that represented intensive care follow-up clinics and patient diaries. Being in intensive care can result in significant emotional and psychological problems for a number of patients. For the majority of patients, symptoms of distress will decrease over time but for a number these will endure for some years. Current evidence indicates that emotional problems after intensive care are related to both subjective and objective indicators of a patient's intensive care experience. Evidence suggests some benefit in an early rehabilitation programme, daily sedation withdrawal and the use of patient diaries. However, additional research is required to support such findings. CONCLUSION: Our understanding of the consequences of intensive care is improving. Psychological care for intensive care patients has lagged behind care for physical problems. We now need to focus on developing and evaluating appropriate interventions to improve psychological outcome in this patient group.

Psychological consequences of critical illness: aftercare or an afterthought?

As the physical care of individuals with critical illness has improved greater numbers have survived. However, until recently the psychological response to such critical illness has received comparatively little attention.

A pragmatic randomised, controlled trial of intensive care follow up programmes in improving longer-term outcomes from critical illness. The PRACTICAL study.

BACKGROUND: A number of intensive care (ICU) patients experience significant problems with physical, psychological, and social functioning for some time after discharge from ICU. These problems have implications not just for patients, but impose a continuing financial burden for the National Health Service. To support recovery, a number of hospitals across the UK have developed Intensive Care follow-up clinics. However, there is a lack of evidence base to support these, and this study aims to test the hypothesis that intensive care follow up programmes are effective and cost-effective at improving physical and psychological quality of life in the year after intensive care discharge. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multi-centre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Patients (n = 270) will be recruited prior to hospital discharge from three intensive care units in the UK, and randomised to one of two groups. The control group will receive standard in-hospital follow-up and the intervention group will participate in an ICU follow-up programme with clinic appointments 2-3 and 9 months after ICU discharge. The primary outcome measure is Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL) 12 months after ICU discharge as measured by the Short Form-36. Secondary measures include: HRQoL at six months; Quality-adjusted life years using EQ-5D; posttraumatic psychopathology as measured by Davidson Trauma Scale; and anxiety and depression using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at both six and twelve months after ICU discharge. Contacts with health services in the twelve months after ICU discharge will be measured as part of the economic analysis. DISCUSSION: The provision of intensive care follow-up clinics within the UK has developed in an ad hoc manner, is inconsistent in both the number of hospitals offering such a service or in the type of service offered. This study provides the opportunity to evaluate such services both in terms of patient benefit and cost-effectiveness. The results of this study therefore will inform clinical practice and policy with regard to the appropriate development of such services aimed at improving outcomes after intensive care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN24294750.

The psychological impact of maxillofacial trauma: an overview of reactions to trauma.

We provide an overview of the current understanding of posttraumatic psychological problems, such as posttraumatic stress disorder, and the implications for maxillofacial surgeons and allied professionals. Posttraumatic stress disorder is not confined to combat veterans; it is common after all traumatic events-including maxillofacial injury-and can become chronic unless recognized and treated. The neurobiologic underpinnings of and the known vulnerability factors for posttraumatic stress disorder are increasingly understood, assisting the nursing and surgical staff in their assessments. Both psychological and pharmacologic treatments have been shown to have efficacy; nevertheless, intervention by mental health professionals will not be required by all.

Survivors of the Piper Alpha oil platform disaster: long-term follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: The long-term psychological effects of surviving a major disaster are poorly understood. We undertook a survey of survivors of the Piper Alpha oil platform disaster (1988). AIMS: To examine the role of factors relating to the trauma, the survivors and the survivors' circumstances. METHOD: Ten years after the disaster, 78% (46/59) of the survivors were located, of whom 72% (33/46) agreed to be interviewed. A further three individuals completed postal measures. RESULTS: The most stringent diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were met by 21% (7/33) of the survivors over 10 years after the disaster. Features such as physical injury, personal experience and survivor guilt were associated with significantly higher levels of post-traumatic symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: A narrow definition of factors affecting outcome will limit the potential for improving survivor well-being in the long-term after major disasters. Specific symptoms that are not included in the criteria for the diagnosis of PTSD, together with issues such as re-employment, need to be addressed.

Neuroimaging findings in post-traumatic stress disorder. Systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Findings from neuroimaging studies complement our understanding of the wide-ranging neurobiological changes in trauma survivors who develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). AIMS: To determine whether neuroimaging studies had identified structural and functional changes specific to PTSD. METHOD: A review of all functional and structural neuroimaging studies of subjects with PTSD was carried out. Studies were identified using general medical and specific traumatic stress databases and paper searches of current contents and other secondary sources. RESULTS: The most replicated structural finding is hippocampal volume reduction, which may limit the proper evaluation and categorisation of experience. Replicated localised functional changes include increased activation of the amygdala after symptom provocation (which may reflect its role in emotional memory) and decreased activity of Broca's area at the same time (which may explain the difficulty patients have in labelling their experiences). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from neuroimaging studies has suggested areas of the brain that may be damaged by psychological trauma. The clinical implications of these neuroimaging findings need to be investigated further because they challenge traditional therapeutic approaches.