Correction: Mobile Insight in Risk, Resilience, and Online Referral (MIRROR): Psychometric Evaluation of an Online Self-Help Test.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/19716.].

Mobile Insight in Risk, Resilience, and Online Referral (MIRROR): Psychometric Evaluation of an Online Self-Help Test.

BACKGROUND: Most people who experience a potentially traumatic event (PTE) recover on their own. A small group of individuals develops psychological complaints, but this is often not detected in time or guidance to care is suboptimal. To identify these individuals and encourage them to seek help, a web-based self-help test called Mobile Insight in Risk, Resilience, and Online Referral (MIRROR) was developed. MIRROR takes an innovative approach since it integrates both negative and positive outcomes of PTEs and time since the event and provides direct feedback to the user. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to assess MIRROR's use, examine its psychometric properties (factor structure, internal consistency, and convergent and divergent validity), and evaluate how well it classifies respondents into different outcome categories compared with reference measures. METHODS: MIRROR was embedded in the website of Victim Support Netherlands so visitors could use it. We compared MIRROR's outcomes to reference measures of PTSD symptoms (PTSD Checklist for DSM-5), depression, anxiety, stress (Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21), psychological resilience (Resilience Evaluation Scale), and positive mental health (Mental Health Continuum Short Form). RESULTS: In 6 months, 1112 respondents completed MIRROR, of whom 663 also completed the reference measures. Results showed good internal consistency (interitem correlations range .24 to .55, corrected item-total correlations range .30 to .54, and Cronbach alpha coefficient range .62 to .68), and convergent and divergent validity (Pearson correlations range -.259 to .665). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA+CFA) yielded a 2-factor model with good model fit (CFA model fit indices: χ219=107.8, P<.001, CFI=.965, TLI=.948, RMSEA=.065), conceptual meaning, and parsimony. MIRROR correctly classified respondents into different outcome categories compared with the reference measures. CONCLUSIONS: MIRROR is a valid and reliable self-help test to identify negative (PTSD complaints) and positive outcomes (psychosocial functioning and resilience) of PTEs. MIRROR is an easily accessible online tool that can help people who have experienced a PTE to timely identify psychological complaints and find appropriate support, a tool that might be highly needed in times like the coronavirus pandemic.

Development and psychometric evaluation of the Transdiagnostic Decision Tool: matched care for patients with a mental disorder in need of highly specialised care.

BACKGROUND: Early identification of patients with mental health problems in need of highly specialised care could enhance the timely provision of appropriate care and improve the clinical and cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies. Recent research on the development and psychometric evaluation of diagnosis-specific decision-support algorithms suggested that the treatment allocation of patients to highly specialised mental healthcare settings may be guided by a core set of transdiagnostic patient factors. AIMS: To develop and psychometrically evaluate a transdiagnostic decision tool to facilitate the uniform assessment of highly specialised mental healthcare need in heterogeneous patient groups. METHOD: The Transdiagnostic Decision Tool was developed based on an analysis of transdiagnostic items of earlier developed diagnosis-specific decision tools. The Transdiagnostic Decision Tool was psychometrically evaluated in 505 patients with a somatic symptom disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder. Feasibility, interrater reliability, convergent validity and criterion validity were assessed. In order to evaluate convergent validity, the five-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and the ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A) were administered. RESULTS: The six-item clinician-administered Transdiagnostic Decision Tool demonstrated excellent feasibility and acceptable interrater reliability. Spearman's rank correlations between the Transdiagnostic Decision Tool and ICECAP-A (-0.335), EQ-5D-5L index (-0.386) and EQ-5D-visual analogue scale (-0.348) supported convergent validity. The area under the curve was 0.81 and a cut-off value of ≥3 was found to represent the optimal cut-off value. CONCLUSIONS: The Transdiagnostic Decision Tool demonstrated solid psychometric properties and showed promise as a measure for the early detection of patients in need of highly specialised mental healthcare.

Development and Evaluation of the Dutch Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5).

Background: In 2013, the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale, the golden standard to assess PTSD, was adapted to the DSM-5 (CAPS-5). Objective: This project aimed to develop a clinically relevant Dutch translation of the CAPS-5 and to investigate its psychometric properties. Method: We conducted a stepped translation including Delphi rounds with a crowd of 44 Dutch psychotrauma experts and five senior psychotrauma experts. Using partial crowd-translations, two professional translations and the official Dutch translation of the DSM-5, each senior expert aggregated one independent translation. Consensus was reached plenary. After back-translation, comparison with the original CAPS-5 and field testing, a last round with the senior experts resulted in the final version. After implementation clinicians conducted CAPS-5 interviews with 669 trauma-exposed individuals referred for specialized diagnostic assessment. Reliability of the Dutch CAPS-5 was investigated through internal consistency and interrater reliability analyses, and construct validity through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results: CAPS-5 total severity score showed high internal consistency (α = .90) and interrater reliability (ICC = .98, 95% CI: .94-.99). CAPS-5 diagnosis showed modest interrater reliability (kappa = .59, 95% CI: .20-.98). CFA with alternative PTSD models revealed adequate support for the DSM-5 four-factor model, but a six-factor (Anhedonia) model fit the data best. Conclusions: The Dutch CAPS-5 is a carefully translated instrument with adequate psychometric properties. Current results add to the growing support for more refined (six and seven) factor models for DSM-5 PTSD indicating that the validity and clinical implications of these models should be objective of further research.

Antecedentes: En el año 2013 la Escala para el TEPT Aplicada por el Clínico, la prueba estándar para evaluar el TEPT, fue adaptada al DSM-5 (CAPS-5).Objetivo: Este proyecto apuntó a desarrollar una traducción holandesa clínicamente relevante de la Escala para el TEPT Aplicada por el Clínico adaptada al DSM-5 (CAPS-5) e investigar sus propiedades psicométricas.Método: Realizamos una traducción escalonada, incluyendo fases del método Delphi con un grupo de 44 expertos holandeses en psicotrauma y cinco expertos de larga trayectoria en psicotrauma. Utilizando traducciones en grupo parciales, dos traducciones profesionales y la traducción holandesa oficial del DSM-5, cada experto experimentado sumó una traducción independiente. Se alcanzó un conceso pleno. Después de traducciones inversas, comparación con el CAPS-5 original y ensayo de campo, una última fase con los expertos experimentados resultó en la versión definitiva. Tras la implementación, los clínicos realizaron entrevistas aplicando CAPS-5 a 669 individuos expuestos a trauma referidos por evaluación diagnóstica especializada. Se investigó la fiabilidad del CAPS-5 holandés a través de consistencia interna y análisis de confiabilidad, y se estableció su validez a través de análisis factorial de tipo confirmatorio.Resultados: El puntaje de severidad total del CAPS-5 mostró alta consistencia interna (α = .90) y confiabilidad (ICC = .98, 95% IC: .94 - .99). El diagnóstico de CAPS-5 mostró una modesta confiabilidad (kappa = .59, 95% CI: .20 - .98). El análisis factorial de tipo confirmatorio con modelos alternativos de TEPT reveló un respaldo adecuado para el modelo de 4 factores del DSM-5, pero un modelo de 6 factores (Anhedonia) se ajusta mejor a los datos.Conclusiones: El CAPS-5 holandés es un instrumento cuidadosamente traducido con adecuadas propiedades psicométricas. Nuestros resultados se suman al respaldo creciente para modelos de factores (seis y siete) más refinados para el TEPT según el DSM-5, indicando que la validez y las implicaciones clínicas de estos modelos deberían ser objeto de futuras investigaciones.

Deployment-related mental health support: comparative analysis of NATO and allied ISAF partners.

BACKGROUND: For years there has been a tremendous gap in our understanding of the mental health effects of deployment and the efforts by military forces at trying to minimize or mitigate these. Many military forces have recently systematized the mental support that is provided to support operational deployments. However, the rationale for doing so and the consequential allocation of resources are felt to vary considerably across North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) International Security Assistance (ISAF) partners. This review aims to compare the organization and practice of mental support by five partnering countries in the recent deployment in Afghanistan in order to identify and compare the key methods and structures for delivering mental health support, describe bottlenecks and illustrate new developments. METHOD: Information was collected through document analysis and semi-structured interviews with key military mental healthcare stakeholders. The review resulted from close collaboration between key military mental healthcare professionals within the Australian Defense Forces (ADF), Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), United Kingdom Armed Forces (UK), Netherlands Armed Forces (NLD), and the United States Army (US). Key stakeholders were interviewed about the mental health support provided during a serviceperson's military career. The main items discussed were training, prevention, early identification, intervention, and aftercare in the field of mental health. RESULTS: All forces reported that much attention was paid to mental health during the individual's military career, including deployment. In doing so there was much overlap between the rationale and applied methods. The main method of providing support was through training and education. The educative focus was to strengthen the mental resilience of individual soldiers while providing a range of mental healthcare services. All forces had abandoned standard psychological debriefing after critical incidents. Instead, by default, mental healthcare professionals acted to support the leader and peer led "after action" reviews. All countries provided professional mental support close to the front line, aimed at early detection and early return to normal activities within the unit. All countries deployed a mental health support team that consisted of a range of mental health staff including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, mental health nurses, and chaplains. There was no overall consensus in the allocation of mental health disciplines in theatre. All countries (except the US) provided troops with a third location decompression (TLD) stop after deployment, which aimed to recognize what the deployed units had been through and to prepare them for transition home. The US conducted in-garrison 'decompression', or 'reintegration training' in the US, with a similiar focus to TLD. All had a reasonably comparable infrastructure in the field of mental healthcare. Shared bottlenecks across countries included perceived stigma and barriers to care around mental health problems as well as the need for improving the awareness and recognition of mental health problems among service members. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrated that in all five partners state-of-the-art preventative mental healthcare was included in the last deployment in Afghanistan, including a positive approach towards strengthening the mental resilience, a focus on self-regulatory skills and self-empowerment, and several initiatives that were well-integrated in a military context. These initiatives were partly/completely implemented by the military/colleagues/supervisors and applicable during several phases of the deployment cycle. Important new developments in operational mental health support are recognition of the role of social leadership and enhancement of operational peer support. This requires awareness of mental problems that will contribute to reduction of the barriers to care in case of problems. Finally, comparing mental health support services across countries can contribute to optimal preparation for the challenges of military deployment.