Skip to main page content

• HOME
• Current
• Archive
• Feedback
• Subscribe
• Help

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Neal, L. A. Articles by Turner, M. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Neal, L. A. Articles by Turner, M. A.

The British Journal of Psychiatry (2004) 184: 247-250
© 2004 The Royal College of Psychiatrists

Post-traumatic stress and disability

Leigh A. Neal, MD, MRCPsych, MRCGP, DRCOG and Gillian Green, RMN, DipN(Comm), BSc(Hons)

Defence Medical Services Psychological Injuries Unit, Duchess of Kent Psychiatric Hospital

Mark A. Turner, MRCP, MRCPsych

Duchess of Kent Psychiatric Hospital, Catterick Garrison, North Yorkshire, UK

Correspondence: Dr Leigh A. Neal, Bristol Priory Hospital, Heath House Lane, Stapleton, Bristol BS16 1EQ, UK. Tel: 0117 9525255; e-mail: info{at}mhra-uk.com

Declaration of interest None.

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHOD RESULTS MANOVA and ANCOVA DISCUSSION Clinical Implications and... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
Background Post-traumatic stress is thought to account for significant disability. It is also known to be highly comorbid with other psychiatric conditions such as depression and alcohol dependence.

Aims To determine the relationship between post-traumatic stress, depression, alcohol dependence and disability.

Method Seventy armed services personnel were assessed for DSM–IV diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder and alcohol dependence, and with continuous measures of symptoms of post-traumatic stress, depression and alcohol dependence following a traumatic event. These variables, as predictors of disability (using the Sheehan Disability Scale), were analysed using multivariate analysis of variance, analysis of covariance and multiple regression backward elimination models.

Results No significant interaction was found for the diagnostic variables even after controlling for the continuous symptom measures. In the regression models, symptoms of depression were a significant predictor of total disability (R²=0.39). Symptoms of alcohol dependence and post-traumatic stress did not significantly predict disability.

Conclusions Since post-traumatic stress was not found to be associated with disability, its clinical importance may be questionable.

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHOD RESULTS MANOVA and ANCOVA DISCUSSION Clinical Implications and... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) commonly coexists with other psychiatric disorders, especially major depressive disorder (lifetime prevalence 50-95%) and alcohol misuse disorders (lifetime prevalence 12-52%) (Bleich et al, 1997; Kessler et al, 1995). However, PTSD has been found to be associated with functional and social morbidity, even when the presence of comorbid mental illness is taken into account (Zatrick et al, 1997). It has also been suggested that PTSD is a greater cause of work impairment than other psychiatric diagnoses (Breslau, 2001). Post-traumatic stress symptoms, in the absence of PTSD, have also been associated with increased socio-economic impairment (Vuksic-Mihaljevic et al, 1998; Amaya Jackson et al, 1999; De Mol, 2002). Many of these cited studies have important methodological limitations. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between diagnoses (PTSD, major depressive disorder and alcohol dependence), symptoms (posttraumatic stress symptoms, depression and alcohol dependence) and disability using a more robust method.

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHOD RESULTS MANOVA and ANCOVA DISCUSSION Clinical Implications and... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
Sample and measures
The sample consisted of a consecutive series of 70 UK armed services personnel from military bases worldwide, referred by civilian and military general practitioners to the UK Defence Medical Services PTSD Unit over a 2-year period for the assessment and treatment of possible PTSD. Participants were assessed over 4 days by a single clinician (G.G.) using the following standardised rating instruments.

Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV
The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV (SCID; First et al, 1997) is a semi-structured interview used for making DSM–IV Axis I diagnoses (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). It has been shown to be highly reliable, with reported -values of 0.70-1.00 (First et al, 2000). The clinician (G.G.) was trained to use the SCID in accordance with the SCID User’s Guide (First et al, 2000), and had 12 months’ experience of using the SCID in a clinical capacity before the study commenced.

Impact of Event Scale
The Impact of Event Scale (IES; Horowitz et al, 1979) is a 15-item self-report scale measuring the current level of subjective post-traumatic psychological distress (range 0-75). It comprises two sub-scales recording symptoms of intrusion (range 0-35) and avoidance (range 0-40).

Beck Depression Inventory
The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck & Steer, 1993) is a 21-item self-report scale measuring the severity of depression (range 0-63). A modified version of the BDI was used in addition to the standard inventory, because item 15 in the latter records the severity of work disability, which was a dependent variable in this study. With this item removed, the scale consists of 20 items (range 0-60). For the purposes of this study, this version was designated the Modified BDI (M-BDI).

Leeds Dependence Questionnaire
The Leeds Dependence Questionnaire (LDQ; Raistrick et al, 1994) is a 10-item self-report instrument used to measure the severity of psychological dependence on alcohol (score range 0-30).

Sheehan Disability Scale
The Sheehan Disability Scale (Sheehan, 1983) is a 3-item self-report scale measuring the severity of disability in the domains of work, family life/home responsibilities and social/leisure activities. Each of these three domains is scored on a ten-point Likert scale, where a score of 0 is ‘not at all impaired’, 5 is ‘moderately impaired’ and 10 is ‘very severely impaired’. It provides a measure of total functional disability (range 0-30). It has been shown to have adequate internal reliability (-coefficients and factor analyses) and construct/criterion related validity (Leon et al, 1992), and has been used previously as an outcome measure in studies of PTSD (Neal et al, 1997) and panic disorder (Klerman, 1988).

Statistical procedures
Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 9), was used to determine whether there were between-subject effects and interactions between the factors PTSD, alcohol dependence disorder and major depressive episode, with Sheehan Disability Scale scores as dependent variables. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted with the same factors, but with the continuous variables as covariates. Significance was determined at the level P<0.01.

Multiple linear regression models (SPSS, version 9.0) were conducted to test the associations between the Sheehan Disability Scale scores as dependent variables and the other continuous measures as independent variables, using a backward elimination method to allow each independent variable to be included. While simultaneously adjusting for all variables, nonsignificant variables were dropped (>0.05). Models were also employed substituting the M-BDI for the BDI and using all combinations with the intrusion and avoidance sub-scales of the IES.

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHOD RESULTS MANOVA and ANCOVA DISCUSSION Clinical Implications and... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
Sample
All 70 participants, of whom 3 were female, were either non-commissioned officers or of private rank. All were employed by the Ministry of Defence and were either on sick leave (n=50) or still at work (n=20) at the time of the assessment. Table 1 shows the range of the continuous variables, including time from trauma to assessment, and the mean age of the group. All the variables were observed to be normally distributed. Table 2 shows the distribution of DSM–IV diagnoses made using the SCID. Of the 50 participants with PTSD, 47 (94%) also had a diagnosis of either alcohol dependence or major depressive disorder. Table 3 lists the range of traumatic incidents experienced by the participants.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

Table 1 Mean scores, standard deviations and skew for variables (n=70)

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

Table 2 Comorbid DSM-IV diagnoses in the study sample (n=70)

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

Table 3 Classification of traumatic events experienced by the study sample (n=70)

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHOD RESULTS MANOVA and ANCOVA DISCUSSION Clinical Implications and... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
Using MANOVA there was no significant interaction or between-subject effect (P<0.01) for the DSM–IV diagnoses of PTSD, major depressive disorder or alcohol dependence using the Sheehan Disability Scale scores as the dependent variables. Using ANCOVA and controlling for the continuous variables of post-traumatic stress symptoms (IES), depression (BDI and M-BDI), alcohol dependence (LDQ), time from trauma to assessment and participants’ age, did not produce any significant between-subject effect (P<0.01) for any DSM–IV diagnosis.

Multiple regression analysis
None of the multiple regression models retained the IES score (including the subscales), LDQ score, time from trauma to assessment or participants’ age as significant predictors of functional disability.

Work disability
Only scores on the BDI (ß=0.11, s.e.=0.03; F=12.5, d.f.=1,68, P=0.001; R²=0.16) and M-BDI (ß=0.10, s.e.=0.03; F=11.5, d.f.=1,68, P=0.001; R²=0.16) remained in the multiple regression models as significant predictors of work disability.

Impaired family life and home responsibilities
Only scores on the BDI (ß=0.15, s.d.=0.02; F=40.30, d.f.=1,68, P<0.001; R²=0.38) and M-BDI (ß=0.15, s.e.=0.03; F=37.15, d.f.=1,68, P<0.001; R²=0.37) remained in the multiple regression models as significant predictors of impaired family life and home responsibility.

Impaired social and leisure activities
Only scores on the BDI (ß=0.11, s.e.=0.02; F=21.80, d.f.=1,68, P<0.001; R²=0.24) and the M-BDI (ß=0.11, s.e.=0.02; F=19.75, d.f.=1,68, P<0.001; R²=0.23) remained in the multiple regression models as significant predictors of impaired social/leisure activity.

Total disability
Only scores on the BDI (ß=0.36, s.e.=0.05; F=47.10, d.f.=1,68, P<0.001; R²=0.42) and the M-BDI (ß=0.37, s.e.=0.06; F=42.32, d.f.=1,68, P<0.001; R²=0.39) remained in the multiple regression models as significant predictors of total disability.

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHOD RESULTS MANOVA and ANCOVA DISCUSSION Clinical Implications and... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
The results of our study indicate that the psychiatric variables examined did not explain most of the participants’ disability. Over 60% of the variability in disability was accounted for by other factors, which were not measured in this study. The diagnoses of PTSD, major depressive disorder and alcohol dependence did not predict disability in the domains of work, relationships and social and leisure activity. This held true for each disorder even when controlling for the effects of symptoms of post-traumatic stress, depression and alcohol dependence, and for time from trauma to assessment and the participant’s age. The continuous variables post-traumatic stress symptoms, alcohol dependence, time from trauma to assessment and participant’s age did not predict any aspects of functional disability in individuals suffering psychological symptoms secondary to exposure to a traumatic event.

On the other hand, symptoms of depression (scored on the M-BDI) accounted for a significant proportion of the variability in terms of total functional disability (shared variance 39%) and, in particular, in the domain of impairment in family life (shared variance 37%). This is consistent with the finding that depression in the general population determines more work loss than any other single psychiatric disorder (Kessler & Frank, 1997), but runs counter to the contemporary view that PTSD or post-traumatic stress symptoms are the primary cause of disability in people exposed to trauma.

Limitations
The study suffered from several limitations. The results may not be generalisable because the sample was predominantly male and consisted exclusively of service personnel. This population has more restrictive contractual obligations and experiences less social deprivation than is found in the general population. The measures of disability used were self-reported and subjective; objective measures of disability (e.g. unemployment or divorce) might have provided useful additional information. According to Altman (1991) the sample size was sufficient (at least 10 times the maximum number of independent variables) for the multiple regression models to be reliable; however, the measurement instruments used are subject to considerable error and therefore the sample size must be considered a possible limitation.

Implications
The finding that depression consequent upon trauma is responsible for a significant proportion of disability calls into question the relationship between post-traumatic stress symptoms and depression. Overlap between the symptoms of post-traumatic stress and of depression (e.g. loss of interest, irritability, difficulties in remembering and concentration, pessimism about the future and sleep difficulties) raises the issue of whether PTSD is a separate diagnostic entity or a variant of post-traumatic depression. This question has largely been answered by factor analysis (Silver & Iacono, 1984; Blanchard et al, 1998) and neurobiological investigations (Van Der Kolk, 1994; Yehuda et al, 1997), which demonstrate that the cluster of PTSD symptoms does appear to constitute a separate syndromal entity.

If PTSD and depression are separate, the question of their relationship to trauma arises. On the one hand, PTSD, and not depression, may be viewed as the primary psychiatric consequence of traumatic exposure (Kessler et al, 1995). This hypothesis is supported by evidence that the pattern of disruption of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis in patients with comorbid PTSD and depression is significantly different from that in patients with depression alone, unrelated to trauma (Yehuda et al, 1997). If this hypothesis is correct, then our findings may indicate that post-traumatic stress symptoms mediate the development of depression, which then leads to disability. On the other hand, it is possible that PTSD and depression emerge simultaneously after a trauma (Bleich et al, 1997), a hypothesis that is supported by evidence of individuals with a shared genetic predisposition to both PTSD and depression (Davidson et al, 1985). If this hypothesis is correct, our findings may indicate that post-traumatic stress symptoms are epiphenomenal.

Either way, our findings indicate that although post-traumatic stress symptoms may cause distress they may be of questionable clinical significance if they are not a cause of disability. This claim has a number of implications. First, the current emphasis on treating PTSD to minimise disability after psychiatric injury may be misplaced, and treatment of depression may be sufficient to alleviate disability. Second, in personal injury litigation, because of the perceived importance of its role in causing disability, PTSD is separated out for special consideration as a condition for compensation (Judicial Studies Board, 2000). This may not be justified. In conclusion, although the scientific literature has been concerned with whether or not PTSD is a valid diagnostic entity (Summerfield, 2001), this study suggests that if PTSD exists, it may not be as clinically important as has previously been claimed.

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHOD RESULTS MANOVA and ANCOVA DISCUSSION Clinical Implications and... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

• Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and post-traumatic stress symptoms were not associated with disability.
  
• Comorbid symptoms of depression were significantly associated with disability.
  
• The clinical importance of PTSD and post-traumatic stress symptoms may be questionable if they are not a cause of disability.
  

LIMITATIONS

• The study was conducted on service personnel who were predominantly male and so the findings may not be generalisable to other populations.
  
• The measure of disability was subjective rather than objective.
  
• The sample size might not have been large enough to detect meaningful relationships.
  

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHOD RESULTS MANOVA and ANCOVA DISCUSSION Clinical Implications and... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
We are grateful to Dr Hazel Pilgrim for managing the PTSD assessment programme and assisting with the collation of data.

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHOD RESULTS MANOVA and ANCOVA DISCUSSION Clinical Implications and... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 

1. Altman, D. G. (1991) Multiple regression. In Practical Statistics for Medical Research, p. 349 . London: Chapman & Hall.
2. Amaya Jackson, L., Davidson, J. R., Hughes, D. S. et al (1999) Functional impairment and utilization of services associated with post traumatic stress in the community. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12, 709 -724.[CrossRef][Medline]
3. American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn) (DSM–IV) . Washington, DC: APA.
4. Beck, A. T. & Steer, R. (1993) Manual of the Beck Depression Inventory. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
5. Blanchard, E. B., Buckley, T. C., Hockling, E. J., et al (1998) PTSD and co-morbid depression: is the correlation an illusion? Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 12, 21-37.[CrossRef][Medline]
6. Bleich, A., Koslowsky, M., Dolev, A., et al (1997) Post-traumatic stress disorder and depression: an analysis of comorbidity. British Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 479 -482.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Breslau, N. (2001) Outcomes of PTSD. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 62 (suppl.), 55 -59.
8. Davidson, J., Swartz, M. & Stork, M. (1985) A diagnostic and familial study of PTSD. American Journal of Psychiatry, 142, 90 -93.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. De Mol, J. (2002) Repercussions de l’etat de stress post-traumatique sur la capacite de travail [PTSD consequences on work disability]. Revue Francophone du Stress et du Trauma, 2, 33 -38.
10. First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., et al (1997) Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV Axis I Disorders-Clinician Version (SCID-CV). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
11. First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., et al (2000) User’s Guide for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV Axis I Disorders-Clinician Version (SCID-CV). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
12. Horowitz, M., Wilner, N., Alvarez, W., et al (1979) Impact of event scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 41, 209 -218.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Judicial Studies Board (2000) Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases. London: Blackstone Press.
14. Kessler, R. C. & Frank, R. G. (1997) The impact of psychiatric disorders on work loss days. Psychological Medicine, 27, 861 -873.[CrossRef][Medline]
15. Kessler, R. C., Sonnega, A., Bromet, E., et al (1995) PTSD in the National Co-morbidity Survey. Archives of General Psychiatry, 52, 1048 -1060.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. Klerman, G. L. (1988) Overview of the cross-national collaborative panic study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 45, 407 -412.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Leon, A. C., Shear, K., Portera, L., et al (1992) Assessing impairment in patients with panic disorder: the Sheehan Disability Scale. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 27, 78 -82.[CrossRef][Medline]
18. Neal, L. A., Shapland, W. & Fox, C. (1997) An open trial of moclobemide in the treatment of PTSD. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 12, 231 -237.[Medline]
19. Raistrick, D., Bradshaw, J., Tober, G., et al (1994) Development of the Leeds Dependence Questionnaire (LDQ): a questionnaire to measure alcohol and opiate dependence in the context of a treatment evaluation package. Addiction, 89, 563 -572.[CrossRef][Medline]
20. Sheehan, D.V. (1983) The Anxiety Disease. New York: Scribner.
21. Silver, S. M. & Iacono, C. U. (1984) Factor analytic support for DSM–III PTSD in Vietnam veterans. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 5-14.[Medline]
22. Summerfield, D. (2001) The invention of PTSD and the later social usefulness of a psychiatric category. BMJ, 322, 95 -98.[Free Full Text]
23. Van Der Kolk, B. (1994) The body keeps the score: memory and the evolving psychobiology of PTSD. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 1, 253 -265.[Medline]
24. Vuksic-Mihaljevic, Z., Mandic, N., Laufer, D., et al (1998) Combat related post traumatic stress disorder and social functioning. European Journal of Psychiatry, 12, 225 -231.
25. Yehuda, R., Levengood, R. A., Schmeidler, J., et al (1997) Increased pituitary activation following metyrapone administration in PTSD. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 21, 1-16.
26. Zatzick, D. F., Marmar, C. R. & Weiss, D. S. (1997) PTSD and functioning and quality of life outcomes in a nationally representative sample of male Vietnam veterans. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 1690 -1695.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Received for publication March 17, 2003. Revision received September 15, 2003. Accepted for publication October 15, 2003.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. E. Miller, P. Omidian, M. Kulkarni, A. Yaqubi, H. Daudzai, and A. Rasmussen The Validity and Clinical Utility of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in Afghanistan Transcultural Psychiatry, June 1, 2009; 46(2): 219 - 237. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Sareen, B. J. Cox, M. B. Stein, T. O. Afifi, C. Fleet, and G. J. G. Asmundson Physical and Mental Comorbidity, Disability, and Suicidal Behavior Associated With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in a Large Community Sample Psychosom Med, April 1, 2007; 69(3): 242 - 248. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. H. Green and L. A. Neal Disability after trauma * Author's reply The British Journal of Psychiatry, September 1, 2004; 185(3): 262 - 263. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Roorda, M. L. Meewisse, G.-J. de Vries, A. J. E. Dirkzwager, and L. A. Neal Disability and post-traumatic stress * Author's reply The British Journal of Psychiatry, August 1, 2004; 185(2): 175 - 175. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Neal, L. A. Articles by Turner, M. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Neal, L. A. Articles by Turner, M. A.