Importance of StudyFound in the Journal of Advanced Nursing. a group of Norse psychologists conducted an experimental longitudinal survey to detect whether or non there is a relationship because Health Related Quality of Life ( HRQoL ) . and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms ( PTSD ) . Mette Senneseth. Kjersti Alsaker & A ; Gerd Karin Natvig. conducted this survey. Harmonizing to the diary. the purpose of the survey was to analyze HRQoL and PTSD symptoms in the people that attend Accident and Emergency sections ( A & A ; E ) .

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

due to the fact that they suffer from some type of psychosocial crisis ( Alasker et al. 2011. 403 ) . Hereafter. this is referred to as Research 1. The survey done in Research 1 revealed that there has been an involvement in researching one’s quality of life.

and how it correlates with one’s wellness. The term HRQoL refers to the “effects of wellness. unwellness and intervention on QoL” ( Alasker et al. 2011. 403 ) . There have been a figure of surveies that suggest that traumatic life events. including.

but non limited to. sexual assault and military combat. have a negative consequence on HRQoL.

Additionally. hapless HRQoL is non merely associated with PTSD symptoms. but they are related to differences and alteration in HRQoL. and there is a negative correlativity between the two ( Alasker et al. 2011. 403 ) . The research workers hypothesized that people who seek aid at A & A ; E.

enduring from such psychosocial calamites. hold lower HRQoL than the general population of Norway at the clip of the survey. and that the participants will hold improved HRQoL after two months ( Alasker et al. 2011. 403 ) . In add-on. a 2nd hypothesis predicts that participants who have high degrees of PTSD symptoms at the clip of the survey will hold reduced symptoms after the decision of the survey at two months.Last.

the 3rd hypothesis wraps the survey up by predicating that high degrees of PTSD symptoms are associated to low HRQoL tonss in a follow-up experiment ( Alasker et Al. . 2011.

403 ) . Found in the Cyber-psychology. Behavior and Social Networking Journal. a group of research workers conducted a survey to compare the effects of VR-graded exposure therapy ( VR-GET ) versus intervention as usual ( TAU ) on people enduring from combat related PTSD ( McLay et al. 2011. 223 ) .

Robert Mclay. Dennis Wood. Jennifer Webb-Murphy. James Spira. Mark Miederholf. Jeffery Pyne and Brenda Wiederhold conducted this survey. Hereafter.

this is referred to as Research 2. The physicians responsible for carry oning this survey found that there has merely been one “randomized. controlled proof-of-concept” survey that was specifically designed for Active Duty Service Members enduring from PTSD ( McLay et al. 2011. 223 ) .

Besides. the physicians wanted to widen the “already found research gathered” from victims of PTSD. and take the survey one measure further. The research workers of Research 2 hypothesized that “patients with combat-related PTSD would be more likely to see clinically important betterments in VR-GET than intervention as usual” ( McLay et al. 2011.

224 ) . VR-GET is a practical world stimulation that combines graded practical world exposure with “physiologic monitoring and accomplishments training” ( McLay et al. 2011.

224 ) . Besides. VR-GET promotes engagement with.

instead than get awaying the events and experiences that prompt a traumatic episode.II. METHODSIn respects to Research 1. the participants in the survey had to run into three standards before they were able to take part. During the recruitment period. the research workers found participants who were go toing the A & A ; E due to a “psychosocial crisis and who consulted a psychiatric nurse.

” were 18 old ages of age or older. and those who were able to both read and understand Norwegian ( Alasker et al. 2011. 404 ) . A sum of 113 were asked to take part in the survey. Of those 113 people selected. 99 of the people participated in the baseline survey. and 41 participated in both the baseline survey.

and the follow-up survey. Aforementioned. this was an experimental longitudinal survey.

where participants were observed repeatedly over a long period of clip.There were two types of instruments that were used for the research in Research 1. The first instrument that was used was a SF-36 Health Survey. which is a “36 point self-report questionnaire that assesses eight spheres of physical and MH runing from 1-100” ( Alasker et al. 2011.

404 ) . In this study. the higher mark reveals the best HRQoL. and the lower mark reveals the poorest HRQoL ( Alasker et al.

2011. 404 ) . The 2nd instrument that was used for this survey was the Post-traumatic Symptom Scale ( PTSS-10 ) . which is a 10 point self-report questionnaire that “assesses the presence and strength of symptoms” ( Alasker et al.

2011. 404 ) . On the PTSS-10.

tonss range from 10 to 70. and a mark of 35 or greater consequences in a PTSD diagnosing ( Alasker et al. 2011. 404 ) . In add-on to the two questionnaires.

participants were encouraged to travel to solaces at the A & A ; E. The figure of audiences that each participant attended varies throughout the survey.In respects to Research 2. “participants for the survey were all Active Duty Service Members who had been diagnosed by a military mental wellness professional as holding PTSD” related to military combat ( McLay et al.

2011. 224 ) . At the terminal of the baseline appraisal. those who were qualified to take part in he analyze were asked to pull a piece of paper out of an envelop.

doing the choice of intervention wholly random. and giving the participants an equal opportunity of taking either intervention. There were a sum of 20 people that participated in this survey ; ten assigned to the VR-GET and another 10 assigned to TAU ( McLay et al. 2011. 225 ) .The two methods of Research 2 consisted of the VR-GET and the TAU.

The participants that were assigned for the VR-GET had a sequence of Sessionss that consisted of different activities. First. the healer would run into with the participant and discourse their trauma history. In the 2nd session.

participants were asked to uncover their more traumatic narratives of their military combat and Tourss. In ulterior Sessionss. the participant used the practical world helmet to live over their most traumatic events. based off of the information that was gathered about them in the earlier Sessionss. In each session. the participants were observed on their ability to confront their frights and anxiousnesss ( McLay et al. 2011.

225 ) . “Participants assigned to TAU could have any of the regular services available to them at the NMCSD and NHCP. These two installations offer full spectrum of PTSD intervention. including. but non limited to. cognitive processing therapy.

drawn-out exposure. and group therapy” ( McLay et al. 2011. 225 ) .III. ANALYSIS/RESULTSAnalysisThe research workers for Research 1 used the two self-report questionnaires to garner their informations. In add-on.

the research workers processed the informations utilizing statistical analysis with the aid of SPSS16 Processor for Windows ( Oslo. Norway ) . The research worker for this survey wants to compare the consequences of the two studies with the general population of Norway. and to win with that. they used SF-36 informations through the Norse Coordinated Living Conditions Survey from 2002. dwelling of 5131 people ( Alasker et al.

2011. 405 ) .
In Research 2. it was found that participants in the baseline survey had lower norm-based tonss in all eight HRQoL spheres in comparing to the general population of Norway.

In the follow-up survey. two months subsequently. the “participants still had lower norm-based tonss than the general population of Norway. but participants had improved their HRQoL in five of the eight spheres from the baseline survey to the follow-up study” ( Alasker et al.

2011. 406 ) .In respect to the PTSS-10 questionnaire in Research 1. among the participants in the baseline survey. 79 % of them had a PTSS-10 mark that was 35.

showing high degrees of PTSD symptoms ( Alasker et al. 2011. 406 ) . At the followup.

“59 % of the participants had a PTSS-10 mark that was 35. which shows high degrees of PTSD symptoms. which can bespeak a hazard of developing PTSD” ( Alasker et al.

2011. 406 ) .The research workers for Research 2 aimed to place which of the VR-GET or TAU would give a greater per centum of participants with a “clinically meaningful decrease in PTSD” ( McLay et al. 2011.

225 ) . The research worker succeeded in intensifying their research by look intoing the “difference in CAPS tonss at an initial appraisal and so at the post-treatment appraisal in VR-GET versus TAU” ( McLay et al. 2011.

226 ) . The CAPS is a “rating graduated table for PTSD that corresponds with the 17 symptoms of PTSD” ( McLay et al. 2011. 226 ) . Participants were classified harmonizing to whether or non they had a 30 % of larger decrease of their PTSD based on the consequences of their CAPS. two. Analysis ConsequencesTaking a expression at Research 1.

and the inquiry refering whether or non there is a nexus between PTSD symptoms and HRQoL. research workers looked at the differences in SF-36 tonss between PTSS-10 subgroups in a follow-up survey( Alasker et al. 2011. 406 ) . “The PTSS-10 high marking and low marking subgroups at the 2-month followup differed in all eight of the HRQoL spheres in the follow up study” ( Alasker et al. 2011.

406 ) . In add-on. the PTSS-10 low marking participants had improved HRQoL in six out of the eight spheres ( Alasker et al. 2011. 407 ) .

In respects to Research 2. all 10 of the participants assigned to the VR-GET were assessed with the CAPS at the post-assessment. Seven out of the 10 participants showed an betterment of 30 % or more on the CAPS. On the other manus. out of the 10 participants that were assigned to the TAU.

one did non finish a CAPS appraisal. Nevertheless. one out of the nine returning participants having the TAU revealed more than a 30 % betterments on the CAPS ( McLay et al. 2011. 226 ) . “There was no important difference between VR-GET and TAU mean CAPS scores both before and after the interventions. but there was so a important difference in the mean CAPS mark over the class of the full treatment” ( McLay et al. 2011.

226 ) .IV. DiscussionConsequences DrumheadRefering Research 1’s first hypothesis. participants of the survey reported lower HRQoL compared to the general population of Norway in all eight HRQoL spheres ( Alasker et al. 2011. 408 ) .

In respects to the 2nd hypothesis. participants in Research 1 reported high degrees of PTSD symptoms at the clip of the baseline experiment. Furthermore. PTSS-10 tonss did better from the clip of the baseline experiment to the followup. The consequences show that PTSD symptoms lessening for people enduring from a psychosocial crisis in the 2 months after go toing the A & A ; E ( Alasker et al.

2011. 408 ) . Last. refering the inquiries if there is a nexus between the degree of PTSD symptoms and HRQoL in the follow-up survey. the research workers found that a “high degree of PTSD symptoms after a two month period were linked to lower HRQoL” ( Alasker et al. 2011. 408 ) .
Consequences for Research 2Strengths and FailingsIn respects to Research 1.

there are many strengths and skulking variables that should be pointed out. One strength of the survey was that they progress of the survey was wholly up to the participant. The participant had the option as to how may consultations they wanted to go to.

and the varied determinations led to different consequences. Another strength of the survey was that they used instruments that were both appropriate to the survey. and dependable. On the contrary. there were several confusing variables in Research 1 that must be acknowledged. First. there is no grounds that anyone in this test was on any kind of anti-depressant or medicine that would impact his or her tonss on the SF-36 and the PTSS-10. Besides.

there are so many different traumatic events that would do person to demo symptoms of PTSD. The survey should restrict its participants to those who experienced similar types of injury.

As for Research 2. there were besides strengths and weaknesses to the survey. As for its strengths. the physicians did a good occupation through their choices procedure to choose a little group of people who were extremely qualified for this survey. Besides.

the test that was used to mensurate the badness of the participants PTSD was based off of 17 symptoms of PTSD. whereas the instrument used in Research 1 ( PTSS-10 ) merely focused on 10 symptoms of PTSD. Last. the ten-week span of the survey was appropriate in giving consequences. Just like any other survey. there are confusing variables that need to be identified for Research 2. Although the end was to acquire the participants in for a reappraisal at the decision of the survey ( 10 hebdomads ) . reappraisal for some did non happen until every bit far as 36 hebdomads.

With that being said. participants have plentifulness of clip to hold a backsliding. or more clip in combat that can ensue in more terrible PTSD. three. Future DirectionsThe research workers of Research 1 suggest that a “randomized control test with a control group is needed to look into the consequence of the psychosocial interactions that are given to this group” ( Alasker et al. 2011. 407 ) . In add-on.

they suggest that it is important to acquire more. information about the long term effects of acute crisis intercession on PTSD symptoms and HRQoL “given by psychiatric nurses to participants” ( Alasker et al. 2011. 410 ) .The research workers of Research 2 besides have some suggestions for farther waies of this research.

It was stated that other surveies on the subject of practical world therapy on PTSD victims. betterments in symptoms aren’t seeable until sometimes three months after intervention. For future surveies at that place needs to be a longer wait clip for the followups so that there can be the most accurate consequences.

In add-on. the diary states that careful monitoring of the participants is besides something that needs to be done more thorough in the hereafter because a participants overall wellness. aside from PTSD. must be taken into consideration when the research workers are doing observations and decisions about the participants ( McLay et al. 2011.

226 ) .Plants CitedMette Senneseth. Kjersti Alsaker. Gerd Karin Natvig. ( 2011 ) .

Health-related Quality of Life and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms in Accident and Emergency Attenders Suffering From Psychosocial Crisiss: a Longitudinal Study. Journal of Advanced Nursing 68 ( 2 ) . 402-414. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //web. ebscohost. com. bouldery.

iona. edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? sid=6c7164f6-d4f6-4ce6-8a46-f1ad579caf63 % 40sessionmgr15 & A ; vid=5 & A ; hid=24Robert N. Mclay. Dennis P.

Wood. Jennifer A. Webb-Murphy. James L. Spira. Mark D.

Wiederhold. Jeffery M. Pyne. Brenda K. Wiederhold. ( 2011 ) .

A Randomized. Control Trial of Virtual Reality-Graded Exposure Therapy for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Active Duty Service Members with Combat-Related Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Cyberpsychology. Behavior. and Social Networking Volume 14. Issue 4.

Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //web. ebscohost. com. bouldery. iona.

edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? sid=61603dcf-c639-423e-8f1e-365db0b36d61 % 40sessionmgr13 & A ; vid=4 & A ; hid=24