Citation

Kira IA, Fawzi MH, Fawzi MM. Traumatology 2013; 19(3): 179-195.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2013, Green Cross Academy of Traumatology, Publisher APA Journals)

DOI

10.1177/1534765612459892

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

There is an intricate divide between three major valid paradigms in studying traumatic processes: The psychiatric paradigm that focused mostly on the survival types of traumas and on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the psychoanalytic and developmental theories that focused on the effects of abandonment, maltreatment and betrayal, and the intergroup paradigm that focused on discrimination, genocide, and torture. The goal was to test the validity and utility of a framework that integrated the three trauma paradigms on mental health clients (MHC). Two studies were conducted in the USA and Egypt. In the first study 399 MHC were tested using cumulative trauma scale that utilizes the new framework and measures of mental health variables. The second study tested 432 MHC in a university psychiatric clinic in Egypt, utilizing comparable measures. The trauma profiles were examined and matched to the symptom profiles, psychiatric comorbidities, and global level of functioning. Egyptian participants reported relatively higher level of poverty, personal identity traumas (i.e., sexual abuse), and role identity traumas, while participants in the U.S. sample, that included refugees in addition to Americans, have more traumas of oppression, discrimination, torture, uprootedness, and abandonment. While cumulative trauma was associated with physical and mental health symptoms and comorbidities in both studies, different trauma profile of each predicted different configurations of symptoms. Current studies provided evidence of the validity and utility of the integrated new traumatology model, and its potential contribution to driving trauma field forward.

Language: en