Comparison of two screeners predicting the future development of depression and posttraumatic stress disorder in Black men after serious injury

Background To assess the predictive performance of two established, short clinical screeners in predicting the future development of post-injury depression and PTSD. Methods This was a prospective, cohort design with a 3-month follow-up. Black adult male trauma patients were enrolled at an urban, Level 1 trauma center. The Penn Richmond Screener and the Post-traumatic Adjustment Scale (PAS) were collected in-hospital. Participants were categorized as depressed using the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms-Self Report and as positive for PTSD using the PTSD Check List - 5 (PCL-5) at 3-months post-discharge. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of each screener were calculated. We used receiver operating curve (ROC) analyses to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) with 95% CI to assess predictive performance of each screener. Results A cohort of 623 hospitalized, injured Black men were enrolled during acute hospitalization. 503 participants (80.6%) were retained at 3-months and formed the analytic sample. Mean age was 36.8 years (SD 15.4), 53.1% of injuries were intentional; median injury severity score was 9. At 3 months, 35.3% had moderate to severe depression, 32.7% had significant PTSD symptoms, and 22.4% met criteria for both depression and PTSD. Penn Richmond Screener: sensitivity 0.68, specificity 0.56, and AUC 0.62 for PTSD, and sensitivity 0.64, specificity 0.63, and AUC 0.64 for depression. PAS: sensitivity 0.59, specificity 0.73, and AUC 0.66 for PTSD, and sensitivity 0.75, specificity 0.49, and AUC 0.62 for depression. Conclusions This study validated the performance of both screeners within the same population, allowing a direct comparison. Two predictive screeners, developed through different methods and in different countries, showed comparable predictive ability. These findings indicate that risk markers for adverse psychological consequences of traumatic injury share some core similarities across populations and countries. (C) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.