目的:先前的研究报道了关于创伤后应激(PTS)与创伤后成长(PTG)之间关系的不一致发现。三个主要问题可以解释这种不一致:(1)灾难前缺乏关于心理健康问题的信息,(2)PTG的概念仍在审查中,因为它可能是对个人成长的幻想;(3)将PTS合并症视为与时间相关的混杂因素。为了解决这些问题,我们探索了PTS和PTG与创伤相关疾病的关联,并使用边缘结构模型研究了PTS和PTG之间的关联,以解决时间依赖性混杂因素,考虑到灾前协变量,2011年日本地震和海啸的幸存者中。
方法:灾难发生前七个月,实施基线调查是为了询问位于震中以西80公里的城市中的老年人的健康状况。灾难之后,我们大约每3年实施一次跟踪调查,以收集有关PTS和合并症的信息(抑郁症状,吸烟和饮酒)。我们在2022年调查中询问了受访者的PTG(五波面板数据中n=1,489)。
结果:PTG与功能性残疾(系数-0.47,95%置信区间(CI)-0.82,-0.12,P<0.01)和经过培训的研究者(系数-0.07,95%CI-0.11,-0.03,P<0.01)和医生(系数-0.06,95%CI-0.11,-0.02,P<0.01)评估的认知下降有关,而PTS与它们没有显著关联。严重受影响的PTS(二元变量)与较高的PTG评分相关,即使在调整了抑郁症状之后,吸烟和饮酒是时间依赖性混杂因素(系数0.35,95%CI0.24,0.46,P<0.01)。我们还发现PTS评分的序数变量与PTG具有倒U形关联。
结论:PTG和PTS与功能和认知障碍有不同的相关性。因此,PTG可能不仅仅是患有严重PTS的幸存者的认知偏见。结果还表明,PTS中的症状数量与PTG呈倒U型关联。我们的发现为PTG理论提供了有力的支持,表明中等水平的心理斗争(即,PTS)对于实现PTG至关重要,而强烈的PTS可能会阻碍PTG的实现。从临床的角度来看,鼓励社会支持的干预措施可能有助于通过促进深思熟虑来实现PTG。
OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have reported inconsistent findings regarding the association between post-traumatic stress (PTS) and post-traumatic growth (PTG). Three major issues could account for this inconsistency: (1) the lack of information about mental health problems before the disaster, (2) the concept of PTG is still under scrutiny for potentially being an illusionary perception of personal growth and (3) the overlooking of PTS comorbidities as time-dependent confounding factors. To address these issues, we explored the associations of PTS and PTG with trauma-related diseases and examined the association between PTS and PTG using marginal structural models to address time-dependent confounding, considering pre-disaster covariates, among older survivors of the 2011 Japan Earthquake and Tsunami.
METHODS: Seven months before the disaster, the baseline survey was implemented to ask older adults about their health in a city located 80 km west of the epicentre. After the disaster, we implemented follow-up surveys approximately every 3 years to collect information about PTS and comorbidities (depressive symptoms, smoking and drinking). We asked respondents about their PTG in the 2022 survey (n = 1,489 in the five-wave panel data).
RESULTS: PTG was protectively associated with functional disability (coefficient -0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.82, -0.12, P < 0.01) and cognitive decline assessed by trained investigators (coefficient -0.07, 95% CI -0.11, -0.03, P < 0.01) and physicians (coefficient -0.06, 95% CI -0.11, -0.02, P < 0.01), while PTS was not significantly associated with them. Severely affected PTS (binary variable) was associated with higher PTG scores, even after adjusting for depressive symptoms, smoking and drinking as time-dependent confounders (coefficient 0.35, 95% CI 0.24, 0.46, P < 0.01). We also found that an ordinal variable of the PTS score had an inverse U-shaped association with PTG.
CONCLUSIONS: PTG and PTS were differentially associated with functional and cognitive disabilities. Thus, PTG might not simply be a cognitive bias among survivors with severe PTS. The results also indicated that the number of symptoms in PTS had an inverse U-shaped association with PTG. Our findings provided robust support for the theory of PTG, suggesting that moderate levels of psychological struggles (i.e., PTS) are essential for achieving PTG, whereas intense PTS may hinder the attainment of PTG. From a clinical perspective, interventions that encourage social support could be beneficial in achieving PTG by facilitating deliberate rumination.