The Clinical Utility of the International Trauma Interview: Clinician Perspectives on its Use Across Three Trauma-Affected Populations - 21/08/26

Doi : 10.1016/j.ejtd.2026.100745

Henriette Laugesen Attardo ^a,^b,^⁎ , Maja Bruhn ^a,^c , Hinuga Sandahl ^a,^b,^d,^e , Caroline Fabricius ^a , Ida Sophie Poschmann ^a,^b,^c , Laura Eybye Fonnesbaek ^c,^f , Sofie Folke ^g , Jessica Carlsson ^a,^b,^c

^a Competence Centre for Transcultural Psychiatry, Copenhagen University Hospital – Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark

^b Centre for Culture and the Mind, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

^c Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

^d Section of Social Medicine, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

^e Department of Occupational and Social Medicine, Holbæk University Hospital, Holbæk, Denmark

^f Psychotherapeutic Unit, Copenhagen University Hospital – Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark

^g Department of Military Psychology, Danish Veterans Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark

^⁎ Corresponding author: Hesselvangen 17, 3660 Stenlose, Denmark Hesselvangen 17, 3660 Stenlose Denmark

Sous presse. Manuscrit accepté. Disponible en ligne depuis le Friday 21 August 2026
Cet article a été publié dans un numéro de la revue, cliquez ici pour y accéder

Highlights

•	ITI allows a thorough exploration of symptoms that can guide treatment planning.
•	ITI contributes neutrally to alliances, and it is generally acceptable to clinicians.
•	Interview length, the inflexible format and poor wording challenge ITI’s utility.
•	Investing in adequate clinician training is important for proper ITI delivery.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Abstract

The International Trauma Interview (ITI) can guide clinicians in assessing posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and complex PTSD. Emerging evidence supports the ITI’s validity, but its clinical utility in routine practice remains underexplored. The aim of this study was to investigate clinician-rated utility of the ITI across three specialised PTSD clinics treating different trauma-affected populations. We collected qualitative focus group data across all clinics. Systematic quantitative data on interview duration and clinician-rated response validity for 100 interviews were collected at two clinics only. Thematic analysis with mixed-methods integration showed that from a clinician perspective, 1) the ITI’s appropriateness for clinical practice is anchored in its thoroughness, 2) time constraints challenge its accessibility, 3) client- and wording-related factors influence its practicability, and 4) its acceptability among clinicians is predominantly positive. Overall, the ITI holds valuable potential for clinical practice, but considering how to compensate for the time-consuming implementation is vital for future clinical use. To enhance the clinical utility of the ITI, we discuss its utility beyond diagnostics, adopting a more flexible interview format, examining wording and translations to enhance validity and flow, ensuring adequate clinician training, and exploring clients’ perceptions of the ITI. In conclusion, our study revealed both advantages and challenges influencing clinicians’ perceptions of the clinical utility of the ITI. We recommend further research on the ITI’s clinical utility to support its thoughtful integration into routine trauma-focused practice.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.