中国科学院心理健康重点实验室知识库

目的：比较我国心身疾病患者在和诊断标准下创伤后应激障碍发生率和共病率的差异。方法：被试为485名亲身经历过创伤事件的心身疾病患者。采用创伤后应激障碍症状清单（PTSD Checklist for DSM-5,PCL-5）评估创伤后应激障碍症状，采用病人健康问卷（Patient Health Questionnaire,PHQ-9）和广泛性焦虑量表（Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7,GAD-7）评估抑郁和焦虑症状。结果：DSM-5和ICD-11标准下PTSD的发生率分别为49.7%和38.4%，使用DSM-5标准PTSD发生率显著高于ICD-11标准。在仅符合DSM-5 PTSD阳性个体中与抑郁和焦虑的共病率分别为88.4%和81.2%，仅符合ICD-11阳性个体中与抑郁和焦虑的共病率分别为42.9%和64.3%。ICD-11标准可显著降低与抑郁的共病率，但是不能显著降低与焦虑的共病率。结论：使用DSM-5和ICD-11不同诊断标准在发病率及与抑郁共病率方面存在显著差异。

Objective: This study aimed at comparing the prevalence and comorbidity differences of PTSD according to ICD-11 and DSM-5 definition anion psychosomatic patients. Methods: A total of 485 adults exposed to traumatic events were included in this study. The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 was used to measure PTSD symptoms. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) were used to measure depression, and anxiety symptoms. Results: The DSM-5 prevalence rate was significantly higher than ICD-11 criteria. The ICD-11 criteria could significantly reduce the rate of comorbidity with MDD but not GAD. Conclusion: The results revealed that the ICD-11 and DSM-5 provided different prevalence of PTSD and comorbidity rates with MDD. This study carries implications for under-standing the nature of the definition of PTSD and adds to knowledge about organizing and application of these two global applied criteria of PTSD.

国家自然科学基金项目（U21A20364,31971020和32300918）;; 国家社会科学基金重大项目（20ZDA079）;; 应急管理部消防救援总局重点研发项目（2020XFZD07）;; 中国科学院心理研究所自主部署项目（E2CX4115CX和E1CX161005）支持