Post-traumatic stress disorder and outcome in train passengers of the Tempi accident in Greece: Data from the Trauma and Stress Disorders Unit of the 3rd Department of Psychiatry, A.U.Th., University Hospital AHEPA

The aim of this study is to present the data from the psychiatric evaluation and treatment of passengers of the passenger train of the accident of Tempi in central Greece (28/2/2023) who were assessed and treated at the Trauma and Stress Disorders Unit of the Outpatient Clinic of the 3rd Department of Psychiatry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, at the University Hospital AHEPA. The material included two populations. The first was the total population of passengers on the passenger train (N=352). The second population was a subset of the first and consisted of those passengers who presented for diagnosis and follow-up (N=41). Frequency and percentage tables were generated, the Risk Ratio (RR) was calculated, and t-test and chi-square tests were used. Concerning the total of passengers on the train, it was estimated that 20-59 people would develop PTSD. The Trauma and Stress Disorders Unit of the 3rd Department of Psychiatry assessed and followed a total of 41 passengers, 18 males (43.90% aged 28.83±10.83 years) and 23 females (56.10% aged 32.87±14.16 years) with 34 (82.92%) of them developing PTSD, representing 2/3 of the expected PTSD cases after the accident. There was no significant effect of gender, physical injury or general psychiatric history on help-seeking, but there was an effect of proximity to the impact (wagon) and history of psychosis. The treatment included antidepressants (63.14%) and group psychotherapy (48.78%), with 58.54% showing significant improvement, and 7.32% deterioration. Males showed an overall increased likelihood of showing improvement (RR=1.53). Physical injury increased the likelihood of females not showing improvement (RR=2.44) while it did not affect men at all (RR=1.02). The findings of the present study are generally in agreement with the literature in terms of incidence and response to treatment, as well as concerning the role of gender, physical injury, and proximity to the event. An important finding was that males responded more to treatment and that physical injury adversely affected the outcome of females but not males, and this point should be considered as a novel contribution of the present study to the literature.