| Summary: | Background: This study identified, addressed and validated risk factors that can be measured in the peri-traumatic period which may eventually be used in predicting the development of traumatic stress. Many people in South Africa possibly suffer from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) if we consider the extent of trauma exposures that is apparent within the South African population. Traumatised individuals are at risk but may remain undiagnosed and untreated. It makes sense for first line and primary health care practitioners (i.e., not highly qualified psychological practitioners) to screen for risk since they have the initial contact with trauma individuals. A relatively easy screening instrument that can be administered time efficiently would be useful in this regard. The principles of this instrument are that it needs to be objectively measurable, quick and easy to administer. No consistent measure geared towards identifying risk factors in such a manner immediately post trauma currently exists in South Africa. Objectives: The overall aim was to start a process of designing a psychometric instrument that is valid in predicting the development of traumatic stress. Since this is the initial stage of constructing a new measure, content validity was of utmost importance. It became imperative to ensure that items were not only relevant and appropriate, but also accurate and capable in identifying at-risk individuals. The proposed end goal is to develop effective identification strategies in South Africa geared towards helping victims of traumatic events. Method: A pilot psychometric questionnaire was compiled using three major international reviews, South African research on known risk factors, and literature on PTSD risk assessment considerations. This preliminary assembled item pool was used as a departure point and evaluated quantitatively as well as qualitatively by expert reviewers who have research and/or clinical experience with PTSD in a South African context. Their feedback resulted in either the omission or the modification of certain items; for some items, further exploration was recommended. The questionnaire was further scrutinised and modified accordingly after qualitative interviews with and critical feedback from the intended administrators or primary health care professionals, namely Registered Counsellors (RCs) and/or nursing staff from a participating general government hospital and a non-government organisation. Findings: Expert reviewers did not agree consistently across all the items. At times they rated certain items as relevant according to the necessity of the information rather than with regards to the relevance of the content of the item – in terms of prediction of PTSD. It was also observed that intended administrators did not always agree with expert reviewers.
|
|---|
