Cited by 1,303Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchMigration, Health and TraumaSleep and related disorders

The primary care PTSD screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5): development and evaluation within a veteran primary care sample

Open access
Prins, Annabel, Bovin, Michelle J., Smolenski, Derek J., Marx, Brian P., Kimerling, Rachel, Jenkins-Guarnieri, Michael A., Kaloupek, Danny G., Schnurr, Paula P. +3 more·2016·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is associated with increased health care utilization, medical morbidity, and tobacco and alcohol use. Consequently, screening for PTSD has become increasingly common in primary care clinics, especially in Veteran healthcare settings where trauma exposure among patients is common.Objective The objective of this study was to revise the Primary Care PTSD screen (PC-PTSD) to reflect the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria for PTSD (PC-PTSD-5) and to examine both the diagnostic accuracy and the patient acceptability of the revised measure.Design We compared the PC-PTSD-5 results with those from a brief psychiatric interview for PTSD. Participants also rated screening preferences and acceptability of the PC-PTSD-5.Participants A convenience sample of 398 Veterans participated in the study (response rate = 41 %). Most of the participants were male, in their 60s, and the majority identified as non-Hispanic White.Measures The PC-PTSD-5 was used as the screening measure, a modified version of the PTSD module of the MINI-International Neuropsychiatric Interview was used to diagnose DSM-5 PTSD, and five brief survey items were used to assess acceptability and preferences.Key results The PC-PTSD-5 demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.941; 95 % C.I.: 0.912- 0.969). Whereas a cut score of 3 maximized sensitivity (κ[1]) = 0.93; SE = .041; 95 % C.I.: 0.849-1.00), a cut score of 4 maximized efficiency (κ[0.5] = 0.63; SE = 0.052; 95 % C.I.: 0.527-0.731), and a cut score of 5 maximized specificity (κ[0] = 0.70; SE = 0.077; 95 % C.I.: 0.550-0.853). Patients found the screen acceptable and indicated a preference for administration by their primary care providers as opposed to by other providers or via self-report.Conclusions The PC-PTSD-5 demonstrated strong preliminary results for diagnostic accuracy, and was broadly acceptable to patients.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11606-016-3703-5

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders-4th edition (DSM-IV). Arlington: APA; 1994.
  2. Lecrubier, Y, Sheehan, DV, Weiller, E, et al. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): reliability and validity according to the CIDI. Eur Psychiatry. 1997; 12(5):224-31.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prins, A., Bovin, M. J., Smolenski, D. J., Marx, B. P., Kimerling, R., Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., Kaloupek, D. G., Schnurr, P. P., Kaiser, A. P., Leyva, Y. E., & Tiet, Q. Q.
Affiliations
  • VA Palo Alto Health Care System (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • Dartmouth College (US)
  • San Francisco VA Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Prins, Annabel
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2016-05-11
Volume
31
Issue
10
Pages
1206-1211
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W2375701190
Cited by
1,303
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 126 · 2025: 188 · 2024: 157 · 2023: 222 · 2022: 199 · 2021: 164 · 2020: 151 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 8 · 2015: 1
FWCI
41.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (IIR10-347)
  • Health Services Research and Development (IIR10-347)
  • International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Migration, Health and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD screening, DSM-5 PTSD criteria, primary care, veterans, diagnostic accuracy, cut-off values, screening acceptability, Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview, trauma exposure, screening preferences, self-report screening, alcohol and tobacco use, health care utilization, medical morbidity
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Humans, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Primary Health Care, Sensitivity and Specificity, Socioeconomic Factors, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, United States, Veterans, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Young Adult, Patient Preference

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review