We conducted a three-wave prospective study among patients with burns (N = 178) to examine the prospective influence of coping self-efficacy (CSE) perceptions on trajectories of posttraumatic stress symptoms in the first 12 months after burn injuries. Using linear growth curve modeling, we corrected for demographics, the number of surgeries during initial admittance, trait coping styles, and changing levels of health-related quality of life. CSE during initial admission was by far the strongest predictor of both initial PTSD symptoms and degree of symptom change with higher CSE levels associated with lower initial symptoms and a steeper decline of symptoms over time. Of the other variables only avoidant coping was associated with higher initial symptom levels, and only emotional expression associated with greater rate of recovery. Current findings suggest that CSE plays a pivotal role in recovery from posttraumatic stress after a burn injury, even when the role of burn-related impairments is taken into consideration. Implications of findings are discussed.

Background: It is well established that a paediatric burn injury can lead to parental post-traumatic stress symptoms. The content of parents’ memories and appraisals may reveal the traumatic experiences that need attention. Objective: To inform clinical practice, the aim of this study was to qualitatively examine parents’ (intrusive) memories and appraisals, and associated emotions, concerning the injury, the hospitalisation, and its consequences. Method: Approximately three to six months after the burn event, semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents of 18 children (0–16 years old) that had been hospitalised for a burn injury. Thematic analysis was carried out to obtain themes. Results: A central element in parents’ memories and appraisals was a sense of external or internal threat. Intrusive memories were predominantly related to the accident and first aid (i.e. threat of the injury), whereas parents’ memories about the child’s suffering were emotional but not experienced as intrusive. Later appraisals of the burn injury and its consequences included negative appraisals of the child’s increased vulnerability, responsibility of self or other, the child’s prolonged suffering and (risk of) permanent change, as well as appraisals of positive outcome and recovery. Emotions commonly reported in the context of memories and appraisals were fear, sadness, guilt, and relief. Conclusions: This study offers insight into the traumatic nature of paediatric burn injury from the parent’s perspective and provides directions for the delivery of trauma-informed (after)care.

A growing interest in person-centered care from a biopsychosocial perspective has led to increased attention to structural screening. The aim of this study was to develop an easy-to-comprehend screening instrument using single items to identify a broad range of health-related problems in adult burn survivors. This study builds on earlier work regarding content generation. Focus groups and expert meetings with healthcare providers informed content refinement, resulting in the Aftercare Problem List (APL). The instrument consists of 43 items divided into nine health domains: scars, daily life functioning, scars treatment, body perceptions, stigmatization, intimacy, mental health, relationships, financial concerns, and a positive coping domain. The APL also includes a Distress Thermometer and a question inquiring about preference to discuss the results with a healthcare provider. Subsequently, the APL was completed by 102 outpatients. To test face validity, a linear regression analysis showed that problems in three health domains, i.e., scars, mental health, and body perceptions, were significantly related to higher distress. Qualitative results revealed that a minority found the items difficult which led to further adjustment of the wording and the addition of illustrations. In summation, this study subscribes to the validity of using single items to screen for burn-related problems.

Burn survivors may benefit from screening for a broad area of problems to improve communication and inform referral needs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate clinical utility aspects such as appropriateness and acceptability to clinicians and completers of an existing, frequently used screening instrument in oncological populations, the Distress Thermometer and Problem List (DT and PL). Methods: Paediatric and adult patients visiting the outpatient clinic after admission to the burn centre were invited to complete the instrument. The DT and (problem domains of) the PL were related and compared to the need to discuss the reported problems. Results: A total of 160 patients were invited to complete the DT and PL, of which 139 agreed. The study shows evidence for appropriateness and high acceptability to clinicians and completers, although the effectiveness of the PL may be lower compared to the DT and needs adaptation to better meet the burn survivors’ situation. Discussion: The use of a screening instrument in the outpatient clinic environment has shown to be appropriate and acceptable and informs clinical practice to identify supportive needs in patients with burns. However, the PL needs to be adapted to the situation of the burn survivors.