Abstract
Trauma is defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) as an event that includes "actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence" (p. 271). The list of traumatic events included in the DSM-5 represents a long history of psychiatry and psychology's attempts to define trauma and differentiate these events from less severe stressors. In this commentary, we suggest that this strict distinction between traumatic events and stressful events is not useful for public health. The current DSM-5 list of traumatic events may work well for identifying people with the most severe experiences and highest conditional probability of distress who need clinical care. However, the public health field has different priorities. If we think about posttraumatic psychological distress on a population scale, it is not only helping those with the most severe experiences that is needed; rather, public health requires paying attention to all people experiencing distressing stress and trauma reactions. We propose that context is crucial to the development of a population-relevant definition of trauma and provide examples of situations in which stressors have resulted in posttraumatic psychological distress and in which traumatic event reactions have been mitigated by the context in which they occur. We discuss trauma context from an epidemiologic perspective and conclude with recommendations for the field. This article is part of a Special Collection on Mental Health.