Donncha Hanna

The relationship between posttraumatic stress (PTS) and posttraumatic growth (PTG) has been extensively studied; however, the nature of the relationship remains unclear. Inconsistencies in the literature could be, in part, due to the use of variable level approaches. Person centered methods may further our understanding of this relationship, as they enable the identification of clinically meaningful subgroups based on PTS/PTG scores. This review aimed to identify commonly found subgroups of PTS and PTG, clinically relevant factors that distinguish the subgroups and to critically appraise the utility of categorizing individuals into subgroups based on PTS/PTG scores. Five databases (Embase, Medline, Web of Science, PILOTS, and PsycINFO) were searched. Seven studies (with a total of eight study samples; n = 6,776) met the eligibility criteria. A narrative synthesis of the findings revealed that the majority of the analyses ( n = 6) found three patterns of PTS/PTG. These were categorized as: (1) low PTS/PTG (representing 26.89% of the entire sample), (2) high PTS/PTG (weighted mean percentage = 20.05%), and (3) low PTS/high PTG (weighted mean percentage = 43.1%). The role of social support was examined in five studies and higher social support was consistently found to predict membership in the low PTS/high PTG class. All five studies that examined the role of trauma characteristics found that it was a significant predictor of class membership. These findings could inform the developments of tailored interventions. The utility of person-centered approaches was discussed and recommendations to improve the application and reporting of such methods were made.