摘要：Post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) are often experienced by children and family members after pediatric traumatic medical events (PTMEs). Assessing families’ psychosocial risk factors is a crucial part of trauma-informed practice as it helps identify risk for PTSS in the aftermath of PTME. Objectives: Using the Psychosocial Assessment Tool 2.0 (PAT2.0), this study describes the psychosocial risk of families following PTMEs in two ways: 1. Describing the psychosocial risk defined by the PAT2.0 based on three-tiered risk levels; 2. Using latent profile analysis (LPA); identifying psychosocial risk profiles and examining how child- and injury-related factors can affect profile membership. Methods: Caregivers of 374 children following PTMEs admitted to a pediatric rehabilitation department in Israel completed the PAT2.0. Total PAT2.0 score and the seven PAT2.0 subscales (family structure/resources, social support, child problems, sibling problems, family problems, caregiver stress reactions, and family beliefs) were included in the first analysis. Mean PAT2.0 scores of three risk categories (universal, targeted, clinical) were calculated; LPA, which allows for cross-sectional latent variable mixture models to identify heterogeneity within a population, and multinomial logistic regressions using six out of the seven PAT2.0 subscales, were used to determine distinct profile differences and predictors of profile membership. Results: The three-tiered risk levels revealed were relatively high, as compared to levels in families of children with other clinical diagnoses. LPA yielded a three-profile solution: low family risk (63.53%); high caregiver stress, above-average levels of family risk (22.5%); and sibling problems, above-average levels of family risk (13.94%). Ethnicity and type of injury predicted group membership. Conclusion: Families of children following PTMEs are at increased psychosocial risk. A clinically useful approach to identifying and preventing PTSS may be to evaluate specific domain patterns rather than just the total PAT2.0 risk level alone, based on the PAT2.0 subscales.
