Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) may be a common issue in primary care in the UK, but there have been no studies of all-cause PTSD in general samples of attenders in this country. The current paper thus explores the extent and distribution of probable PTSD among patients attending general practices in England. Cross-sectional survey data from adult patients (n = 1058) attending 11 general practices in southwest England were analysed. Patients were recruited from waiting rooms and completed anonymous questionnaires, including measures of depression, anxiety and risky alcohol use. Current probable PTSD was measured using the 4-item Primary Care PTSD Scale (PC-PTSD). Results indicated 15.1% of patients that exhibited probable PTSD (PC-PTSD ≥ 3), with higher levels observed in practices from deprived areas. There were 53.8% of patients with probable PTSD that expressed the desire for help with these issues. The analyses suggested that rates were lowest among older adults, and highest among patients who were not in cohabitating relationships or were unemployed. Measures of anxiety and depression were associated with 10-fold and 16-fold increases in risk of probable PTSD, respectively, although there were no discernible associations with risky drinking. Such preliminary findings highlight the need for vigilance for PTSD in routine general practice in the UK, and signal a strong need for additional research and attention in this context. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a psychiatric condition that is linked with high levels of functional impairment and poor quality of life (Schnurr & Lunney, 2016), as well as physical health problems (Pacella, Hruska, & Delahanty, 2013). The disorder may develop following exposure to potentially traumatic events including serious accidents or disasters, exposure to war and conflict, sexual or physical assault (including intimate partner violence; IPV), and life threatening illnesses (Darves-Bornoz et al., 2008). Negative psychological reactions are common sequelae to such events and are often transitory. However, for a significant minority of survivors these symptoms may progress into a disorder characterised by intrusive re-experiencing of the event (through intrusive thoughts, visual or auditory memories and dreams), avoidance of reminders (e.g. places, people and thoughts), alterations in cognitions or mood (e.g. shame, guilt, negative cognitions), and hyperarousal (e.g. hypervigilance, exaggerated startle response; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Population-based studies indicate around one third of adults in England report at least one major traumatic event in their lifetime, and 4.4% suffer from probable PTSD in the past month (McManus, Bebbington, Jenkins, Brugha, & NHS Digital, & UK Statistics Authority, 2016). Treatment guidelines from the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, 2018) recommend trauma-focussed therapies (which target traumatic experiences and memories) as first-line treatments for PTSD, while also recognising benefits from some pharmacotherapies when patients are unwilling or unable to engage with psychological therapies. However, studies suggest around half of PTSD sufferers fail to receive mental health treatment (McManus et al., 2016), which can be delayed for many years due to stigma and low recognition of the disorder (Iversen et al., 2011; Kantor, Knefel, & Lueger-Schuster, 2017). Conversely, PTSD is associated with high use of generalist healthcare services (Kartha et al., 2008), including primary care, and may be encountered commonly in these environments. Effective treatments for PTSD can only be delivered if relevant conditions are recognised (NICE, 2018), and as such, there may be an important role for primary care in improving the uptake and delivery of evidence-based therapies. Guidelines from NICE recommend inquiring about PTSD when people are involved in major disasters, and also among high risk populations including refugees and asylum seekers (NICE, 2018). However, international evidence suggests that rates of PTSD in generalist medical settings, such as routine primary care, may also be significant and indicate an important context for identification and intervention strategies. Much of this research has been situated in military contexts in the U.S., where there is an expansive system of specific care for current and ex-service personnel and family members, while smaller numbers of studies have addressed civilian services. Systematic reviews of this literature have indicated prevalence estimates which vary widely across studies and settings (from 2 to 39%; Greene, Neria, & Gross, 2016), with a quantitative synthesis (based on k = 15 studies of screening tools from the U.S.) indicating a mean prevalence of 13.5% for PTSD in primary care (Spoont et al., 2015). The small number of studies from outside the U.S. estimate around 8% of men (11% of women) attending primary care exhibit PTSD in Israel (Taubman-Ben-Ari, Rabinowitz, Feldman, & Vaturi, 2001), and comparable figures of 9% among men (17% among women) in Spain (Gómez-Beneyto, Salazar-Fraile, Martí-Sanjuan, & Gonzalez-Luján, 2006). In contrast, we know of only one relevant study in UK primary care that has investigated rates of PTSD, and this identified 32% of general practice patients with a history of myocardial infarction (n = 111) who also exhibited probable PTSD (Jones, Chung, Berger, & Campbell, 2007).
There is a strong need for additional studies of PTSD in primary care settings which are situated across international jurisdictions. In large part, this is because evidence from cross-national studies indicates that traumatic events are distributed unequally across countries (including high income countries), while there is also international variation in overall levels of PTSD and particularly high rates observed in high income countries (Koenen et al., 2017). Furthermore, there are important differences in the nature and organisation of health services across countries which means that existing U.S. evidence has limited generalisability to other jurisdictions. In the UK, for example, there is a publicly funded system of universal health care, called the National Health Service (NHS), which incorporates primary care services that are characterised by near universal registration of patients with a single practice, and services which are free at the point of delivery in most cases (Roland, Guthrie, & Thomé, 2012). While economic and health inequalities would seem to have widened in the U.S. (Dickman, Himmelstein, & Woolhandler, 2017), there is evidence that such universal health systems contribute towards reduced social and socio-economic disparities in access to medical services (Asaria et al., 2016; Cookson et al., 2017), thereby increasing utilisation by disadvantaged populations that may be particularly vulnerable to major types and frequencies of traumatic events (e.g. violence victimisation) and PTSD (Frissa et al., 2013; Roberts, Gilman, Breslau, Breslau, & Koenen, 2011).
Furthermore, the availability of universal health care in the UK, in particular, has limited the need for a system of specific care for ex-service personnel, such that most military veterans who report combat trauma and related mental health problems will also obtain care in the public system (versus veteran-specific services that are the main provider of care for veteran populations in the U.S.; Macmanus & Wessely, 2013). In the context of scant evidence that relates to the UK, as well as increased emphasis on responses to trauma-related mental health in the context of COVID-19 (Horesh & Brown, 2020), the aims of the current paper were to: