1 Center for Urban Epidemiologic Studies, New York Academy of Medicine, New York, NY.
2 Division of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY.
3 National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC.
4 Bellevue Hospital Center, New York, NY.
5 Schulman, Ronca, and Bucuvalas, Inc., New York, NY.
Received for publication December 20, 2002; accepted for publication April 3, 2003.
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
disasters; disease progression; stress disorders, post-traumatic; terrorism
Abbreviations: Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder; SCID, Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM IIIR.
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
To determine trends in the prevalence of probable PTSD in the general population of New York City after the September 11 attacks, we conducted three surveys in the first 6 months after the attacks. We used identical measures of probable PTSD in the three surveys to enable comparability. This study was designed 1) to estimate the changing prevalence of probable PTSD and subsyndromal PTSD using a validated PTSD screening instrument and 2) to assess the association of sociodemographic characteristics and key event exposures with acute and persistent probable PTSD.
![]() |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
In all three surveys, we used random digit dialing to reach a person at a residential telephone number and to obtain verbal consent. The overall cooperation rate for the surveys was 64.3 percent for survey 1, 63.5 percent for survey 2, and 60.1 percent for the New York City sample of survey 3. As an illustration of how these rates were calculated, we highlight here sampling details for the New York City subsample in survey 3. In survey 3, we dialed a total of 18,633 phone numbers in New York City. Among these, 5,086 were identified as not in service, and 4,084 numbers were not valid for other reasons (e.g., fax lines or businesses). Of the 9,463 valid numbers, 2,708 were not answered on any of the 10 calls. From the remaining 6,755 numbers, 685 were never answered except by answering machines (messages were left), and 575 numbers were not eligible for other reasons (mainly languages other than English, Spanish, and Chinese or long-term health problems). We spoke with a total of 5,495 households; of these 1,805 were callbacks still not reached at the end of the study to complete the screening for eligibility. Among the 3,690 households with a resolved contact, 1,362 refused to complete the initial screening for the interviewing. Among the 2,328 screened, 117 persons screened out of the survey, and 2,211 were eligible for the study. There were 518 who were not interviewed because the quota for their gender and zone had been filled. We completed interviews with 1,530 of the remaining 1,693 persons, 71 refused after qualifying, and 92 were in callback status at study completion. The overall cooperation rate for the survey, calculated according to industry standards, was 60.1 percent. This cooperation rate is based on the sum of the number of completed interviews, quota outs, and screen outs (i.e., 1,530 + 518 + 117) divided by the sum of completed interviews, quota outs, screen outs, refusals, and premature terminations (i.e., 1,530 + 518 + 117 + 1,362 + 71).
Sampling weights were developed and applied to our data to correct potential selection bias related to the number of household telephones, persons in the household, and oversampling. Further discussions of the methods and results from survey 1 are published elsewhere (1, 46).
Data collection
All interviews were conducted by trained interviewers who used a computer-assisted telephone interview system. Interviews were available in English and Spanish for the first two surveys and in English, Spanish, and Chinese for the third survey. All three surveys were approximately 35 minutes long, and the measures used were consistent among surveys to allow for comparison. The Institutional Review Board of the New York Academy of Medicine reviewed and approved these studies.
In all surveys, we asked respondents questions using a structured questionnaire. We asked questions about demographic characteristics (age, race/ethnicity, gender, yearly household income, education, and marital status), assessed proximity to the disaster site, and asked about September 11 event experiences. We asked about stressors (e.g., prior traumatic event experience, divorce, death in the family) in the respondents lifetime, in the 12 months prior to September 11, and since September 11. We created a composite variable from the event experiences to identify people who were directly affected by the September 11 attacks. This variable included having been in the World Trade Center complex during the attacks, having been injured during the attacks, losing possessions or property, having a friend or relative killed, losing a job due to the attacks, or being involved in the rescue efforts. We measured perievent panic attack using a modified version of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for panic attack (phrased to detect symptoms experienced during or shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks) (7). We asked about panic symptomatology specifically "in the first few hours" after the events of September 11. The presence of four or more symptoms contributed to a diagnosis of perievent panic attacks.
We used the National Womens Study PTSD module to measure PTSD symptoms in each survey. The National Womens Study PTSD module was validated in a field trial against the PTSD module of the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM IIIR (SCID) (8) administered by mental health professionals (9). In the field trial, interrater kappa coefficients were 0.85 for the diagnosis of lifetime PTSD and 0.86 for the diagnosis of current PTSD. Comparing the National Womens Study PTSD module with the SCID, we found that the kappa coefficient of the National Womens Study PTSD module with SCID diagnosis of PTSD was 0.77 for lifetime PTSD and 0.71 for current PTSD (8, 9).
The National Womens Study PTSD module assesses the presence of criteria B, C, and D symptoms and determines the content for content-specific PTSD symptoms (e.g., content of dreams or nightmares). In all three surveys, we assessed current probable PTSD based on the presence of necessary PTSD criteria B, C, and D symptoms within the previous 30 days. To measure probable PTSD that was related to the September 11 attacks, all reexperiencing symptoms (criterion B) and all content-specific (e.g., avoidance of thoughts or feelings) avoidance symptoms (criterion C) were required to be related to the September 11 attacks. A subset of avoidance symptoms and all the arousal symptoms (criterion D; e.g., being easily startled or jumpy) could be linked directly only to the attacks by time frame (occurrence since September 11). In the second and third surveys, we also assessed probable PTSD since September 11 that was related to the attacks.
We calculated the prevalence of subsyndromal PTSD according to the method of Blanchard et al. (10, 11). Persons who had symptoms consistent with criterion B and either criterion C or D were classified as having subsyndromal PTSD. The prevalence of current (past 30 days) subsyndromal PTSD was calculated in all three surveys.
Statistical analyses
We report the prevalence of current probable PTSD and subsyndromal PTSD related to the September 11 attacks among respondents living in Manhattan south of 110th Street and New York City. We present data on the prevalence of probable PTSD and subsyndromal PTSD among residents of Manhattan living south of 110th Street in each of the three surveys stratified by whether respondents were directly affected by the attacks or not. We used chi-square tests to identify significant bivariate associations of sociodemographic characteristics and event exposures with probable PTSD since the September 11 attacks as assessed in survey 3. We also examined the associations of sociodemographic characteristics and event exposures with current probable PTSD assessed in survey 3 among persons who met criteria for probable PTSD after the September 11 attacks. We used multivariable logistic regression analyses to assess the adjusted relations between the variables that were statistically associated (p < 0.1) with current probable PTSD assessed in survey 3 among persons who ever met the criteria for probable PTSD after the attacks.
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Postdisaster longitudinal studies, primarily studying symptom progression among direct survivors of disasters, have reported more persistent PTSD symptoms compared with our findings in the general population of New York City. In a report about survivors of a mass shooting episode in Texas, only about one half of the PTSD cases identified at any time over a 3-year period after the shooting was in remission at the 3-year follow-up (13). In a follow-up of a group of litigant survivors of the Buffalo Creek dam collapse from 2 to 14 years after the disaster, about half of the cases of probable PTSD persisted in the long term (14). However, these studies are of direct victims of mass disasters, a subgroup that is substantially different from persons in the general New York City population who experienced the September 11 attacks. Persons who were in the World Trade Center complex or who were injured during the attacks are probably the groups most comparable with the survivors studied after most disasters. Because these groups represent a very small proportion of the New York City population, we recruited few of these persons in our general population surveys. We note, however, that the prevalence of probable PTSD related to September 11 among persons who were in the World Trade Center during the attacks was 36.7 percent in our study, comparable with the prevalence of PTSD among persons who were in or near the Murrah Federal Building that was the target of the Oklahoma City bombing (15).
Other studies among persons who experienced personal traumatic events have documented rapid symptom resolution in the first 6 months after traumatic event experiences. The National Comorbidity Survey showed a steep decline in PTSD symptoms in the first year after a traumatic event (16). Longer-term studies of the longitudinal course of PTSD, particularly among Vietnam War veterans, also suggest that only a third of PTSD cases persists chronically (17, 18). Prospective studies of patients hospitalized because of a traumatic event, female rape victims, and persons who were affected by motor vehicle accidents have shown that more than half of the cases of PTSD remit in the first 36 months after onset (11, 19, 20).
In our assessments, we found that, although there was resolution of more than two thirds of the cases of probable PTSD in the first 6 months after September 11, 5.3 percent of the persons in New York City still met criteria for subsyndromal PTSD 6 months after September 11. Persons with subsyndromal symptomatology have been shown to have functional impairment accompanying their symptoms (21, 22). Reports from New York City service providers have documented continuing elevated use of mental health services in the New York City area in the first 6 months after September 11 (23). These results, taken together, suggest that clinically meaningful mental health consequences of the September 11 attacks may persist among New York City residents beyond the resolution of full syndromal PTSD.
The observation that persons who were directly affected by the attacks had a consistently higher prevalence of PTSD symptoms than persons who were not directly affected is consistent with current understanding of event exposure intensity and its relation to PTSD symptoms. For example, one postdisaster study of PTSD among employees of a hotel that was hit by a plane showed that employees who were onsite, and thus more directly affected by the event, had a higher prevalence and more prolonged duration of PTSD than offsite employees (24).
Recent research after the September 11 attacks has also documented PTSD symptoms among persons not directly affected by the attacks (1, 25). Persons living in New York City who were not directly affected by the attacks were likely indirectly affected through multiple avenues including word of mouth, watching the events in person or on television, and the disruption of services that was ubiquitous in New York City. Other research after September 11 and other disasters has suggested an association between television viewing and PTSD symptoms (3, 26, 27). These observations warrant further, more definitive, longitudinal evaluations.
Our observation that marital status and social support were predictors of PTSD onset after September 11 is consistent with findings from other research (2830) and suggests that, in the general population, specific groups may be at particular risk of the psychological consequences of disasters and may warrant more focused screening. Previous authors have shown that predictors of recovery from PTSD are less apparent than predictors of PTSD after disasters (13, 31). Involvement in the rescue effort was a predictor of ongoing PTSD in this study, consistent with other research among rescue personnel (32). Our finding that perievent emotional reactions may be important predictors of PTSD in the short term and long term is consistent with previous work (2, 33, 34) and suggests that early interventions to address these emotional reactions may have the potential to reduce the incidence of PTSD after disasters (35). We found that job loss stemming from the September 11 attacks played a role in predicting both PTSD and symptom persistence. Job loss is likely accompanied by ongoing day-to-day adverse experiences that have been shown to perpetuate PTSD symptoms (36). The importance of job loss for symptom persistence highlights the complex relations between individual experiences (i.e., the job loss itself) and features of the recovery environment (i.e., the availability of jobs) and suggests that societal factors may be important determinants of symptom persistence after disasters.
Limitations
Several study limitations should be noted. We present results from three cross-sectional surveys carried out 1 month, 4 months, and 6 months after September 11. Although these surveys can provide a population estimate of the progression of psychological outcomes after this disaster, a definitive assessment of the prognosis of symptoms after a mass trauma can be obtained only from a cohort assessment. However, in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, it was not feasible to develop a protocol for participant recruitment that included disclosure of personal identifiers that would enable follow-up and to still launch the study described here in the first month after the attacks. Because starting the study quickly was considered a priority for this research, the currently described serial cross-sectional design with anonymous participant recruitment was chosen. We describe elsewhere in more detail other rationale and logistic difficulties encountered in establishing a rapid assessment of mental health in New York City in the first few months after September 11 (4). It is possible that our findings, rather than reflecting progression of PTSD in the general population, actually represent the remission of symptoms in some persons and the development of delayed symptoms in different persons. There are three reasons why this was unlikely to be the case. First, most studies of PTSD have found that there are few cases of delayed onset of PTSD with the overwhelming majority of cases starting immediately after the traumatic event (15). This suggests that persons who still reported PTSD symptoms 6 months after the event had symptoms that had been persistent since September 11 and that the results we report reflect resolution in some participants and persistent symptoms in others. Second, we used a validated PTSD measure with specifically worded questions to reflect prospective assessment in each survey. Thus, participants were asked first about symptoms since September 11 and subsequently asked about symptoms that were still present at the time of the interview. This suggests that persons who reported current probable PTSD in survey 3 had symptoms that had persisted since the attacks. Third, we have previously shown replicability of the estimates of PTSD since September 11 in these surveys with different periods of recall, suggesting that all three surveys were effectively measuring symptoms related to the events of September 11 (37).
Other potential limitations to this study include the potential impact of the case ascertainment measure used and sampling bias. With respect to the former, it is possible that, since the National Womens Study PTSD module is linked to event content only for content-specific symptoms, our probable PTSD prevalence is an overestimate of the true burden of psychopathology. There are two reasons why this is unlikely to be the case. First, we report substantially lower prevalence of probable PTSD in the general population 1 month after September 11 than did the only other published representative population sample estimates of PTSD in New York City during the same time frame (3). Second, a comparison between the probable PTSD prevalence assessed using the PTSD symptom checklist as compared with the National Womens Study PTSD module, conducted on a subsample of 229 participants in survey 2, suggested that the National Womens Study PTSD module provides a conservative estimate of the prevalence of probable PTSD compared with the aforementioned checklist (38). With respect to sampling bias, it is possible that our telephone sampling selectively sampled persons who were different from the rest of the population. Comparison of our sample to census characteristics provides some reassurance in this regard. In addition, we were able to replicate our estimates of event exposure prevalence and symptom prevalences in each of the three surveys, suggesting that only systematic sampling bias present in all three surveys is plausible. One such possible bias may arise from persons with post-traumatic stress symptoms being less likely to participate in the survey. This would suggest that our reported prevalences are an underestimate of the true burden of pyschopathology in the general population. Another possible source of sampling bias could have been out-migration of New York City residents. If New York City residents with post-traumatic stress symptoms were more likely to move out of the City after September 11, it is possible that our estimates of declining probable PTSD prevalence reflect fewer people remaining in the City with post-traumatic stress symptoms, also suggesting that our estimates are an underestimate of the true probable PTSD prevalence. However, we note that, although some residents did leave New York City after September 11, it is unlikely that this out-migration had a substantial impact on our population prevalence estimates. Moreover, it is difficult to generalize from these results to the context of other disasters. In the New York City post-September 11 context, other ongoing traumas (e.g., the anthrax threats) could have affected the prevalence and progression of symptoms detected in our surveys. Finally, our detection of predictors of ongoing PTSD was limited by the low statistical power available that precluded definitive assessments of the determinants of ongoing PTSD.
Conclusions
The September 11 terrorist attacks were associated with an unprecedented loss of life and with a subsequent period of national concern about other potential terrorist attacks. In this context, the decline in probable PTSD cases in the general population is reassuring. However, there were a substantial number of cases of probable PTSD related to the September 11 attacks among New Yorkers who were not directly affected by the attacks. This highlights the importance of considering the effect of mass traumatic events on the general population in public mental health planning. The absence of clear individual predictors of persistence of PTSD in this study suggests that there may be important unmeasured features of the recovery environment, such as economic uncertainty and the ongoing threat of terrorist attacks, that may influence the progression of symptoms in the postdisaster period. Future prospective studies should determine the prognostic role of these factors and the long-term progression of PTSD and comorbidity in the New York City metropolitan area.
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
---|
The authors acknowledge the assistance of Mark Morgan; the interviewers at Schulman, Ronca, and Bucuvalas, Inc.; Dr. Jennifer Stuber; Dr. Donald Hoover; and Melissa Tracy throughout this study.
![]() |
NOTES |
---|
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|