sexual and gender minority individuals present with higher

1
Sexual and Gender Minority Individuals Present with Higher Rates of Presumptive PTSD in a Residential Treatment Setting for Eating Disorders Timothy D. Brewerton, MD 1,2,3 , Ismael Gavidia, MSc 3 , Giulia Suro, PhD 3, Molly McShane, MD, MPH 3,4 1 Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC USA, 2 Timothy D. Brewerton, MD, LLC, Mt. Pleasant, SC USA, 3 Monte Nido & Affiliates, Miami, FL USA, 4 Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Health, Florida International University Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA Trauma histories and resultant posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and its symptoms are strongly associated with eating disorders (EDs), which are known to occur across all sexual orientations and gender identities. Prior traumas and PTSD have also been reported to occur significantly more frequently in individuals identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, non-binary, or other (LGBTQ+). Although higher rates of traumatic events and PTSD have been reported to occur in individuals presenting to higher levels of ED care, little is known about rates of PTSD and related comorbidity in LGBTQ+ individuals with EDs. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE A sample of 570 adults with DSM-5 EDs admitted to residential treatment (RT) gave informed consent and completed a series of validated assessments: o Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) o Eating Disorder Inventory-2 (EDI-2) o Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) o Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) o Eating Disorder Quality of Life (EDQOL) scale The rates of current presumptive PTSD (PTSD+) and no PTSD (PTSD-) by LGBTQ+ status were determined by responses on the Life Events Checklist (LEC-5) for criterion A and the PTSD Symptom Checklist for DSM- 5 (PCL-5) for criteria B-E. This research project was approved by the Salus IRB. METHODOLOGY RESULTS (CONTINUED) Individuals with EDs admitted to RT who identify as LGBTQ+ had significantly higher scores on the PCL-5 as well as significantly higher prevalence rates (63%) of presumptive current PTSD when compared to cisgender heterosexual individuals (45%). The LGBTQ+ group also reported greater severity of ED, depressive, and trait anxiety symptoms. These findings add to the literature calling for the development, implementation, and assessment of integrated treatment protocols for ED-PTSD+. In addition, trauma-informed treatment approaches that address the specific needs of LGBTQ+ individuals indicated. CONCLUSIONS RESULTS Nearly 25% of individuals self-reported as LGBTQ+. ED diagnoses significantly differed across the groups (see Figure 1) with the LGBTQ+ group having lower rates of AN-R and higher rates of OSFED (c 2 < .003). The PCL-5 total scores were significantly higher in the LGBTQ+ group (41.9±18.9) than the non-LGBTQ+ group (34.0±20.8, t=4.0, p.001) (Figure 2). Rates of presumptive PTSD were higher in the LGBTQ+ group (.63±.48) compared to the non- LGBTQ+ group (.45±.50, t=-3.58, p.001) (Figure 3). The LGBTQ+ group also had significantly higher scores on the EDEQ (Figure 4), EDI-II (Figure 5), the PHQ-9 (Figure 6), and the STAI-Trait (Figure 7) but not the STAI-State or the EDQOL. Figure 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% PTSD+ PTSD- 63% 37% 45% 55% Per Cent with PTSD+ v. PTSD- LGBTQ+ Non-LGBTQ+ ***p < .001, Chi-square 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 LGBTQ+ Non-LGBTQ+ PCL-5 Total Score ***p < .001, t-test 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 LGBTQ+ Non-LGBTQ+ EDEQ Global Score *p < .04, t-test 98 100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114 116 LGBTQ+ Non-LGBTQ+ EDI-II Total Score *p < .03, t-test 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 LGBTQ+ Non-LGBTQ+ PHQ-9 Score *p < .03, t-test 59.5 60 60.5 61 61.5 62 62.5 63 63.5 64 LGBTQ+ Non-LGBTQ+ STAI-Trait Score *p < .02, t-test 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 AN-R AN-BP BN OSFED ED Diagnoses by LGBTQ+ Status LGBTQ+ Non-LGBTQ+ **p = .003, Chi-square *post-hoc significance < .05 * * Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 3 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7

Upload: others

Post on 12-Nov-2021

2 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Sexual and Gender Minority Individuals Present with Higher Rates of Presumptive PTSD in a Residential Treatment Setting for Eating Disorders

Timothy D. Brewerton, MD 1,2,3, Ismael Gavidia, MSc 3, Giulia Suro, PhD 3, Molly McShane, MD, MPH 3,4

1 Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC USA, 2 Timothy D. Brewerton, MD, LLC, Mt. Pleasant, SC USA, 3 Monte Nido & Affiliates, Miami, FL USA, 4Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Health, Florida International University Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA

• Trauma histories and resultant posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and its symptoms are strongly associated with eating disorders (EDs), which are known to occur across all sexual orientations and gender identities.

• Prior traumas and PTSD have also been reported to occur significantly more frequently in individuals identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, non-binary, or other (LGBTQ+).

• Although higher rates of traumatic events and PTSD have been reported to occur in individuals presenting to higher levels of ED care, little is known about rates of PTSD and related comorbidity in LGBTQ+ individuals with EDs.

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

• A sample of 570 adults with DSM-5 EDs admitted to residential treatment (RT) gave informed consent and completed a series of validated assessments: o Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) o Eating Disorder Inventory-2 (EDI-2)o Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9)o Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)o Eating Disorder Quality of Life (EDQOL) scale

• The rates of current presumptive PTSD (PTSD+) and no PTSD (PTSD-) by LGBTQ+ status were determined by responses on the Life Events Checklist (LEC-5) for criterion A and the PTSD Symptom Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) for criteria B-E.

• This research project was approved by the Salus IRB.

METHODOLOGY

RESULTS (CONTINUED)

• Individuals with EDs admitted to RT who identify as LGBTQ+ had significantly higher scores on the PCL-5 as well as significantly higher prevalence rates (63%) of presumptive current PTSD when compared to cisgender heterosexual individuals (45%).

• The LGBTQ+ group also reported greater severity of ED, depressive, and trait anxiety symptoms.

• These findings add to the literature calling for the development, implementation, and assessment of integrated treatment protocols for ED-PTSD+.

• In addition, trauma-informed treatment approaches that address the specific needs of LGBTQ+ individuals indicated.

CONCLUSIONSRESULTS

• Nearly 25% of individuals self-reported as LGBTQ+. • ED diagnoses significantly differed across the groups

(see Figure 1) with the LGBTQ+ group having lower rates of AN-R and higher rates of OSFED (c2 < .003).

• The PCL-5 total scores were significantly higher in the LGBTQ+ group (41.9±18.9) than the non-LGBTQ+ group (34.0±20.8, t=4.0, p≤.001) (Figure 2).

• Rates of presumptive PTSD were higher in the LGBTQ+ group (.63±.48) compared to the non-LGBTQ+ group (.45±.50, t=-3.58, p≤.001) (Figure 3).

• The LGBTQ+ group also had significantly higher scores on the EDEQ (Figure 4), EDI-II (Figure 5), the PHQ-9 (Figure 6), and the STAI-Trait (Figure 7) but not the STAI-State or the EDQOL.

Figure 1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

PTSD+ PTSD-

63%

37%45%

55%

Per Cent with PTSD+ v. PTSD-

LGBTQ+ Non-LGBTQ+

***p < .001, Chi-square

05

1015202530354045

LGBTQ+Non-LGBTQ+

PCL-5 Total Score

***p < .001, t-test

3.53.63.73.83.94

4.14.24.34.44.5

LGBTQ+Non-LGBTQ+

EDEQ Global Score

*p < .04, t-test

98100102104106108110112114116

LGBTQ+ Non-LGBTQ+

EDI-II Total Score

*p < .03, t-test

16

16.5

17

17.5

18

18.5

LGBTQ+ Non-LGBTQ+

PHQ-9 Score

*p < .03, t-test

59.560

60.561

61.562

62.563

63.564

LGBTQ+ Non-LGBTQ+

STAI-Trait Score

*p < .02, t-test

05

1015202530354045

AN-R AN-BP BN OSFED

ED Diagnoses by LGBTQ+ Status

LGBTQ+ Non-LGBTQ+

**p = .003, Chi-square*post-hoc significance <.05

*

*

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 3

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7