Prevalence rates are still lacking for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and complex PTSD (CPTSD) diagnoses based on the new ICD-11 criteria. In a nationwide representative German sample (N = 2524; 14–99 years), exposure to traumatic events and symptoms of PTSD or CPTSD were assessed with the International Trauma Questionnaire. A clinical variant of CPTSD with a lower threshold for core PTSD symptoms was also calculated, in addition to conditional prevalence rates dependent on trauma type and differential predictors. One-month prevalence rates were as follows: PTSD, 1.5%; CPTSD, 0.5%; and CPTSD variant, 0.7%. For PTSD, the highest conditional prevalence was associated with kidnapping or rape, and the highest CPTSD rates were associated with sexual childhood abuse or rape. PTSD and CPTSD were best differentiated by sexual violence. Combined PTSD and CPTSD (ICD-11) rates were in the range of previously reported prevalences for unified PTSD (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition; ICD-10). Evidence on differential predictors of PTSD and CPTSD is still preliminary.

Objectives: This study investigated the frequency of traumatic experiences, prevalence rates of ICD‐11 post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and complex PTSD (CPTSD), and overlap with ICD‐10 classified disorders in outpatient psychiatry.Method: Overall, 165 Danish psychiatric outpatients answered the International Trauma Questionnaire, the Life Event Checklist, and the World Health Organization Well‐being Index. ICD‐10 diagnoses were extracted from the hospital record. Chi‐square analysis, t‐tests, and conditional probability analysis were used for statistical analysis.Results: Nearly, all patients (94%) had experienced at least one traumatic event. CPTSD (36%) was more common than PTSD (8%) and had considerable overlap with ICD‐10 affective, anxiety, PTSD, personality, adjustment and stress‐reaction disorders, and behavioural and emotional disorders with onset usually occurring in childhood and adolescence. ICD‐11 PTSD overlapped with ICD‐10 anxiety, PTSD, adjustment and stress‐reaction disorders, and behavioural and emotional disorders with onset usually occurring in childhood and adolescence. A subgroup of patients with ICD‐10 PTSD (23%) did not meet criteria for ICD‐11 PTSD or CPTSD.Conclusion: Traumatic experiences are common. ICD‐11 CPTSD is a highly prevalent disorder in psychiatric outpatients. One quarter with ICD‐10 PTSD did not meet criteria for either ICD‐11 PTSD or CPTSD. PTSD and CPTSD had considerable overlap with ICD‐10 disorders.

Background: Fatalism, known as the propensity to believe that one’s destiny is externally determined, has so far been examined selectively, and not yet in a cross-cultural study. Moreover, a general, non-data-based speculation assumes that fatalism occurs to a lesser extent in countries of the Global North than in the Global South. Objective: Fatalism as a global psychological belief seems to have a prima facie validity, but this is to be investigated by measurement equivalence calculations across different countries from different world regions. Furthermore, socio-demographic and cultural geographic associations with fatalism scores will be investigated. Method: A six items fatalism scale was introduced in six large population-based samples from Europe, Africa, and Latin America (total n = 6ʹ537). Testing of invariance followed standardized procedures for cross-cultural comparisons with a comprehensive parallel analysis. Regression analyses provided information on associations with socio-demography and cultural geography. Results: The fatalism construct divided into accentuated pessimistic and non-judgmental subscores in five of the six countries. The German sample showed the highest fatalism scores compared to almost all other countries. In particular higher age and lower educational attainment determine fatalism scores across countries. An explorative analysis of the associations between PTSD symptoms and fatalism scores for African countries revealed small correlations. Discussion: Fatalism as indicated by its subscores seems not to be an exclusive phenomenon of countries with higher economic and socio-cultural vulnerability. For all countries, sociodemographic groups can be identified in which these parts of a traditional belief system are more pronounced. Only for a subset of the countries examined has it been possible to analyse the associations with trauma. Further elaborated analyses in other samples should follow.

Background and aims: Buying-shopping disorder and its transferability to the online sector is controversial. This study investigates in-store and online shopping patterns by comparing data-based modeling to a diagnostic cut-off approach. Further aims were to test model equivalence for gender and identify socio-demographic risk factors.Methods: In a representative survey, the Bergen Shopping Addiction Scale (BSAS) was applied, using both an online and in-store version. Latent class analyses were followed by multinomial logistic regression analyses to investigate socio-demographic variables. Measurement invariance across genders was tested with multi-group comparisons.Results: With N = 1,012, 3-class solutions provided the best model fit for both in-store and online shopping. Most individuals (76, 86%) were grouped in non-addicted classes, followed by risky (21, 11%) and addicted classes (both 3%). Twenty-eight percent of individuals in the online addicted shopping class remained unidentified using the cut-off. For online shopping, only lower age and education differentiated classes significantly.Discussion: Results indicate a close link between online and in-store shopping, albeit with distinguishing features. The cut-off yielded findings discrepant from class probabilities. That buying-shopping disorder mainly affects younger women of lower educational level must be questioned, given the limited associations identified.Conclusions: It is important not only to consider different settings of pathological shopping, but also to focus on groups that may not have appeared at risk in previous investigations (e.g., men, older age). The BSAS cut-off warrants further research.

Background: Lifetime traumatic events are known to have a detrimental long-term impact on both mental and physical health. Yet, heterogeneity in the stress response regarding well-being in adults is not well understood. This study investigates effects of cumulative trauma on latent trajectories of two indices of well-being, subjective health and life satisfaction in a large representative sample by means of latent variable modelling techniques. Methods: Data from the pairfam study wave 2–9, a longitudinal representative survey was used (N = 10,825). Individuals reported on lifetime trauma type exposure on wave 7 and indicated levels of life satisfaction and health at each wave. Different types of latent Variable Mixture Models were applied in an iterative fashion. Conditional models investigated effects of cumulative trauma load. Results: The best fitting model indicated three latent trajectories for life, and four for health, respectively. Trauma load significantly predicted class membership: Higher exposure was associated with non-stable trajectories for both indices but followed complex patterns of both improving and decreasing life satisfaction and health. Trauma load also explained variability within classes. Conclusions: The current study expands on evidence to the long-term development of health and life satisfaction in response to traumatic events from a latent variable modelling perspective. Besides detrimental effect, it also points to functional adaptation after initial decline and increased well-being associated with trauma exposure. Thus, response to traumatic stress is marked by great heterogeneity. Future research should focus on variables beyond exposure to trauma that can further identify individuals prone to trajectories of declining well-being.

Background: Prevalence rates for lifetime cannabis use and cannabis use disorder are much higher in people with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder than in those without. CANreduce 2.0 is an intervention that is generally effective at reducing cannabis use in cannabis misusers. This self-guided web-based intervention (6-week duration) consists of modules grounded in motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioral therapy. Objective: We aimed to evaluate whether the CANreduce 2.0 intervention affects cannabis use patterns and symptom severity in adults who screen positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder more than in those who do not. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of data from a previous study with the inclusion criterion of cannabis use at least once weekly over the last 30 days. Adults with and without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (based on the Adult Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder Self-Report screener) who were enrolled to the active intervention arms of CANreduce 2.0 were compared regarding the number of days cannabis was used in the preceding 30 days, the cannabis use disorder identification test score (CUDIT) and the severity of dependence scale score (SDS) at baseline and the 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were Generalized Anxiety Disorder score, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale score, retention, intervention adherence, and safety. Results: Both adults with (n=94) and without (n=273) positive attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder screening reported significantly reduced frequency (reduction in consumption days: with: mean 11.53, SD 9.28, P<.001; without: mean 8.53, SD 9.4, P<.001) and severity of cannabis use (SDS: with: mean 3.57, SD 3.65, P<.001; without: mean 2.47, SD 3.39, P<.001; CUDIT: with: mean 6.38, SD 5.96, P<.001; without: mean 5.33, SD 6.05, P<.001), as well as anxiety (with: mean 4.31, SD 4.71, P<.001; without: mean 1.84, SD 4.22, P<.001) and depression (with: mean 10.25, SD 10.54; without: mean 4.39, SD 10.22, P<.001). Those who screened positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder also reported significantly decreased attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder scores (mean 4.65, SD 4.44, P<.001). There were no significant differences in change in use (P=.08), dependence (P=.95), use disorder (P=.85), attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder status (P=.84), depression (P=.84), or anxiety (P=.26) between baseline and final follow-up, dependent on positive attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder screening. Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom severity at baseline was not associated with reduced cannabis use frequency or severity but was linked to greater reductions in depression (Spearman ρ=.33) and anxiety (Spearman ρ=.28). Individuals with positive attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder screening were significantly less likely to fill out the consumption diary (P=.02), but the association between continuous attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom severity and retention (Spearman ρ=−0.10, P=.13) was nonsignificant. There also was no significant intergroup difference in the number of completed modules (with: mean 2.10, SD 2.33; without: mean 2.36, SD 2.36, P=.34), and there was no association with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom severity (Spearman ρ=−0.09; P=.43). The same was true for the rate of adverse effects (P=.33). Conclusions: Cannabis users screening positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder may benefit from CANreduce 2.0 to decrease the frequency and severity of cannabis dependence and attenuate symptoms of depression and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder-related symptoms. This web-based program’s advantages include its accessibility for remote users and a personalized counselling option that may contribute to increased adherence and motivation to change among program users. Trial Registration: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 11086185; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11086185