Prevalence and predictors of psychological distress following injury: findings from a prospective cohort study

Background Research examining psychological distress in people who have experienced an injury has focused on those with serious injuries or specific injury types, and has not involved long-term follow up. The aims of this investigation were to describe the prevalence of, and factors contributing to, psychological distress in a cohort of people with a broad range of injuries. Methods The Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study (POIS) is a longitudinal cohort study of 2856 injured New Zealanders recruited from a national insurance entitlement claims register between 2007 and 2009. Participants were interviewed approximately 3, 12, and 24 months after their injury. The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) was used to measure psychological distress at each interview. Results 25% of participants reported clinically relevant distress (K6 ≥ 8) 3 months post-injury, 15% reported distress at 12 months, and 16% reported distress at 24 months. Being 45 years or older, Māori or Pacific ethnicity, experiencing pre-injury mental health conditions, having inadequate pre-injury income, reporting poor pre-injury health or trouble accessing healthcare, having a severe injury or an injury resulting from assault, and reporting clinically relevant distress 3 months post-injury were independently associated with an increased risk of distress 12 months post-injury. The majority of these associations were also evident with respect to distress 24 months post-injury. Conclusions Distress is common after injury among people with a broad range of injury types and severities. Screening for distress early after injury is important to identify individuals in need of targeted support.

Distress and Resilience in Resettled Refugees of War: Implications for Screening

There is little work published about predictors of specific trajectory types of distress in refugees of war during early resettlement in a host country. Data about distress (Refugee Health Screener—15 (RHS-15)) and possible predictors of distress were collected at the domestic medical examination (T1) within 90 days of arrival and the civil surgeon examination (T2) 11–16 months after T1 for refugee groups from three countries (COU). Descriptive, correlative, analyses of variance, and regression techniques were used to determine trajectory type and their predictors. A higher percentage (7.3%) were distressed at T2 than at T1. By group, the Bhutanese became more distressed, the Burmese became less distressed, and Iraqi’s continued to have high distress. A regression model showed gender, loss, post-migration stress, and self-efficacy to be significant predictors of trajectory type (R2 = 0.46). When the T1 RHS-15 score was added to the model, observed variance increased (R2 = 0.53) and T1 RHS score accounted for the majority of variance (r = 0.64, p < 0.001), with post-migration stress accounting for markedly less (β = 0.19, p = 0.03). Loss and self-efficacy became less significant. Loss was, however, a strong predictor of delayed and chronic distress trajectory type. These data suggest that screening for distress should occur at least twice during resettlement to detect those with initial distress and those with delayed distress. Screening should be coupled with identifying other social determinants of health and a comprehensive assessment to determine the need for intervention for secondary prevention (i.e., reducing delayed distress) and treatment (reducing chronic distress).

Screening and Assessment for Distress

Screening for distress is a vital component of healthcare that has an important place in psychosocial oncology. Over the last 10 years the evidence base for screening has strengthened significantly, but important unanswered questions remain. Successful development and validation of numerous instruments have occurred, followed by the large-scale implementation of frontline screening in a number of cancer centers. These studies have shown in which circumstances screening is successful and when it is unsuccessful. New evidence from large-scale studies has confirmed that screening for distress does not universally improve patient-reported outcomes without uptake by frontline clinicians, simple interpretation of scores, and adequate healthcare resources to ensure that timely interventions and adequate follow-up are offered in all cases with unmet needs. Further attention should also be given to an important subgroup of patients who are identified as distressed but nevertheless decline professional help. Without all key components of high quality of care in place, routine screening is perceived as an unnecessary burden by patients and staff. Yet when integrated into a holistic high-quality healthcare model, screening for distress has the potential to improve the well-being of patients and caregivers.