Rapid Review on the Effectiveness of Telehealth Interventions for the Treatment of Behavioral Health Disorders.

INTRODUCTION: The Psychological Health Center of Excellence conducted a rapid review of the literature to investigate the effectiveness of behavioral health treatments (i.e., evidence-based psychotherapy and psychiatry) delivered in person compared to telehealth (TH; i.e., video teleconference and telephone). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The rapid review methods included a systematic search of a single database (PubMed), hand-searching of relevant systematic reviews, dual screening, single-person data abstraction verified by a second person, and dual risk of bias assessment. Due to heterogeneity across studies, no quantitative analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), eight of which were non-inferiority trials, evaluated the effectiveness of TH via telephone or video teleconferencing compared to in-person (IP) delivery for patient populations with posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and mixed diagnoses. The majority of RCTs and all but one of the eight non-inferiority trials found that clinical outcomes did not differ between TH and IP treatment delivery. Two studies found that subgroups with higher symptom severity (hopelessness and anxiety disorders, respectively) in the TH group had worse treatment-related outcomes than IP participants with similar symptom profiles. The majority of studies found no significant differences in satisfaction with care, quality of the therapeutic alliance, or study discontinuation between TH and IP groups. CONCLUSION: Based on evidence from 22 RCTs, the use of TH platforms, including video conference and telephone modalities, generally produces similar outcomes as face-to-face provision of psychotherapy and psychiatry services.

Explosive ordnance disposal personnel in the U.S. military have higher risk of insomnia and post-traumatic stress disorder: a large retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: We examined the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), affective disorders, alcohol/substance-related disorders, traumatic brain injury (TBI) and insomnia, among explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) technicians compared to the general population of active-duty non-EOD personnel in the U.S. military. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative and healthcare utilization data from fiscal year 2004 (FY2004) to FY2015 for this comparison. We used propensity score matching to balance baseline covariates, and discrete-time hazard models to compare the odds of occurrence of the outcomes. RESULTS: EOD personnel had higher odds of having a new diagnosis of insomnia (odds ratio [OR] = 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.22-1.45) and PTSD (OR = 1.23; 95% CI:1.08-1.41) than did non-EOD personnel. EOD technicians had lower odds of having a new diagnosis of affective disorders (OR = 0.83; 95% CI:0.79-0.87) and alcohol/substance-related disorders (OR = 0.59; 95% CI:0.54-0.64) than did non-EOD personnel. There was little evidence of a difference in the odds of a TBI diagnosis (OR = 1.07; 95% CI:0.99-1.16). CONCLUSIONS: As reliance on EOD forces continues, ongoing vigilance of the stressors, health sequelae and disincentives to access mental health care among this military occupation should be monitored and mitigated wherever possible.

Evaluating measures of combat deployment for U.S. Army personnel using various sources of administrative data.

PURPOSE: This study's purpose is to inform future research decisions about optimal measures for identifying combat deployments. We aim to evaluate four commonly utilized measures available in population-level administrative data to identify combat deployments in recent military operations among active duty Army personnel. METHODS: We compare these measures in three ways: (1) agreement (assessing the extent to which soldiers were differentially identified as combat deployed via each measure); (2) validity (calculating the sensitivity of each measure against a criterion measure); and (3) corroboration (examining how each measure predicted subsequent incidence of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder). RESULTS: We found that using personnel records to identify deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, and/or Kuwait captured over 98% of combat-related deployments identified via self-reported measures. The addition of Kuwait allowed for detection of nearly 100% of battle injuries, improving sensitivity from 94.5% to 99.8%. However, self-reported combat exposure measures showed the largest differential in subsequent incidence of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. Completeness and accuracy of different combat deployment measures varied significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Using personnel records to identify deployment to Iraq, Afghanistan, and/or Kuwait was the most valid and comprehensive measure of combat deployment. However, self-reported combat exposure measures were more predictive of combat-related outcomes.