Suicide Behavior Results From the U.S. Army's Suicide Prevention Leadership Tool Study: The Behavioral Health Readiness and Suicide Risk Reduction Review (R4).

INTRODUCTION: The U.S. Army developed a new tool called the Behavioral Health Readiness and Suicide Risk Reduction Review (R4) for suicide prevention. A 12-month evaluation study with the primary objective of testing the hypothesis (H1) that Army units receiving R4 would demonstrate improved outcomes in suicidal-behavior measures following the intervention, relative to control, was then conducted. The results of analyses to answer H1 are herein presented. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The R4 intervention (R4-tools/instructions/orientation) evaluation study, Institutional Review Board approved and conducted in May 2019-June 2020, drew samples from two U.S. Army divisions and employed a repeated measurement in pre-/post-quasi-experimental design, including a nonequivalent, but comparable, business-as-usual control. Intervention effectiveness was evaluated using self-report responses to suicide-related measures (Suicide Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised/total-suicide behaviors/ideations/plans/attempts/non-suicidal self-injuries) at 6-/12-month intervals. Analyses examined baseline to follow-up linked and cross-sectional cohorts, incidence/prevalence, and intervention higher-/lower-use R4 subanalyses. RESULTS: Both divisions demonstrated favorable in-study reductions in total-suicide burden, with relatively equivalent trends for total-suicide behaviors, total-suicide risk (Suicide Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised), suicidal ideations, and non-suicidal self-injuries. Although both demonstrated reductions in suicide plans, the control showed a more robust trend. Neither division demonstrated a significant reduction in suicide attempts, but subgroup analyses showed a significant reduction in pre-coronavirus disease 2019-attempt incidence among those with higher-use R4 relative to control. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of harm associated with the R4 intervention. R4 effectiveness as a function of R4 itself requires confirmatory study. R4 is judged an improvement (no evidence of harm + weak evidence of effectiveness) over the status quo (no safety data or effectiveness studies) with regard to tool-based decision-making support for suicide prevention in the U.S. Army.

Methodology of the U.S. Army's Suicide Prevention Leadership Tool Study: The Behavioral Health Readiness and Suicide Risk Reduction Review (R4).

INTRODUCTION: The Secretary of the U.S. Army issued two directives in late 2017 to directly combat the problem of suicide in the U.S. Army. The first was to develop an Army tool to assist commanders and first-line leaders in preventing suicide and improving behavioral health (BH) outcomes, which has been previously published as the BH Readiness and Risk Reduction Review (R4). The second was to conduct an evaluation study of the tool with Army units in the field. This study is the first to empirically examine the Army's tool-based methods for identifying and caring for the health and welfare of soldiers at risk for suicide, and this article outlines the methodology employed to study the effectiveness of the R4 tools and accomplish the Secretary's second directive. METHODS: The Walter Reed Army Institute of Research Institutional Review Board approved the R4 study. The study employed a repeated measurements in pre/post quasi-experimental design, including a nonequivalent but comparable business-as-usual control group. The R4 intervention consisted of the R4 tools, accompanying instructions, and an orientation. Samples were drawn from two geographically separated U.S. Army divisions in the continental United States, each composed of four comparable brigades. Study implementation consisted of three phases and three data collections over the course of 12 months. Soldiers completed anonymous survey instruments to assess a range of health factors, behaviors, characteristics, tool-related decision-making processes, and the frequency, type, and quality of interactions between soldiers and leaders. RESULTS: The R4 study commenced on May 6, 2019, and concluded on June 4, 2020. Sample size goals were achieved for both the divisions at all three data collection time points. CONCLUSIONS: The methodology of the R4 study is critical for the U.S. Army from both a precedential and an outcome-based standpoint. Despite the use of many previous tools and programs for suicide prevention, this is the first time the Army has been able to empirically test the effectiveness of tool-supported decision-making among Army units in a rigorous fashion. The methodology of such a test is a critical marker for future interventional inquiries on the subject of suicide in the Army, and the results will allow for more informed decision-making by leaders when approaching these ongoing challenges.

Fidelity to Best Practices of Psychiatric Assessments in Army Behavioral Health Settings.

While civilian and military psychiatric clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) exist for psychiatric assessments, data are lacking on providers' adherence to these criteria. This study evaluated the use of psychiatric CPGs' assessment criteria by Army behavioral health providers (BHPs). In a weighted cross-sectional survey, 348 BHPs were evaluated on their assessment of a systematically selected patient on 15 total domains recommended by the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense CPGs for substance use disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, and major depressive disorder. The proportion of BHPs providing high-quality assessment and the association between high-quality assessment and BHP and patient characteristics were examined. Using the weighted sample, 80% of BHPs provided a high-quality assessment. BHPs who saw ≥20 patients per week were significantly more likely to provide high-quality assessments compared with BHPs who saw <20 patients per week [odds ratio (OR)=1.72, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-2.92]. Patients diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder [adjusted OR (AOR)=0.42, 95% CI=0.18-0.96] or whose BHPs did not assess patients' current overall physical health (AOR=0.26, 95% CI=0.07-0.97) or lifetime duration of treatment for mental health (AOR=0.03, 95% CI=0.01-0.20) were less likely to receive high-quality assessments. A majority of Army BHPs are conducting high-quality assessments for the 3 most common mental disorders in military populations. If recommendations to increase fidelity to assessment could be implemented, more patients could receive optimized care.

Psychiatrists' Comfort Using Computers and Other Electronic Devices in Clinical Practice.

This report highlights findings from the Study of Psychiatrists' Use of Informational Resources in Clinical Practice, a cross-sectional Web- and paper-based survey that examined psychiatrists' comfort using computers and other electronic devices in clinical practice. One-thousand psychiatrists were randomly selected from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile and asked to complete the survey between May and August, 2012. A total of 152 eligible psychiatrists completed the questionnaire (response rate 22.2 %). The majority of psychiatrists reported comfort using computers for educational and personal purposes. However, 26 % of psychiatrists reported not using or not being comfortable using computers for clinical functions. Psychiatrists under age 50 were more likely to report comfort using computers for all purposes than their older counterparts. Clinical tasks for which computers were reportedly used comfortably, specifically by psychiatrists younger than 50, included documenting clinical encounters, prescribing, ordering laboratory tests, accessing read-only patient information (e.g., test results), conducting internet searches for general clinical information, accessing online patient educational materials, and communicating with patients or other clinicians. Psychiatrists generally reported comfort using computers for personal and educational purposes. However, use of computers in clinical care was less common, particularly among psychiatrists 50 and older. Information and educational resources need to be available in a variety of accessible, user-friendly, computer and non-computer-based formats, to support use across all ages. Moreover, ongoing training and technical assistance with use of electronic and mobile device technologies in clinical practice is needed. Research on barriers to clinical use of computers is warranted.

Planning Patient-Centered Health Homes for Medicaid Psychiatric Patients at Greatest Risk for Intensive Service Use.

This study identified characteristics of Medicaid psychiatric patients at risk of hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits to identify their service delivery needs. A total of 4,866 psychiatrists were randomly selected from the AMA Physician Masterfile; 62 % responded, 32 % met eligibility criteria and reported on 1,625 Medicaid patients. Patients with schizophrenia, substance use disorders, suicidal and violent ideation/behavior, and psychotic, substance use, or manic symptoms were at high risk for intensive service use, along with homeless and incarcerated patients. Patients with schizophrenia or psychotic symptoms represented 37 % of patients, but used 73 % of all hospital days and 61 % of all ED visits. Patients with substance use problems comprised 21 % of patients, but used nearly half of all ED visits. Our findings highlight opportunities to enhance treatments and interventions, and inform the development of patient-centered health homes to address the needs of patients at high risk for intensive service use.

APIRE Practice Research Network: accomplishments, challenges, and lessons learned.

The Practice Research Network (PRN) was established in 1993 to bridge the gap between the science base and the clinical practice of psychiatry by expanding the generalizability of findings and involving clinicians in the development and conduct of research. It began as a nationwide network of psychiatrists and has evolved to conduct large-scale, clinical and policy research studies using randomly selected samples of psychiatrists from the AMA Physician Masterfile. This paper provides an overview of major PRN initiatives and the impact of these studies. It describes the benefits to clinicians of participating in PRN research, as well as strategies developed to address key challenges.

Mental health treatment access and quality in the army: survey of mental health clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to identify factors affecting timely, quality mental health and substance abuse treatment for service members and characterize patients at the greatest risk of having problems accessing treatment. METHODS: An electronic survey was emailed to 2,310 Army mental healthcare providers. After providers with undeliverable emails and who self-reported not being behavioral health providers were excluded, 543 (26%) of the remaining 2,104 providers responded. This represented approximately a quarter of all Army behavioral health providers at the time of the survey. Of these 543 providers, 399 (73%) reported treating at least one service member during their last typical work week and provided clinically detailed data on one systematically selected service member. RESULTS: The majority of the clinicians reported being able to spend sufficient time with patients (91.8%) and schedule encounters to meet patients' needs (82.4%). The clinicians also identified services where treatment access was more limited and patient subgroups with an unmet need for additional clinical care or services. Specifically, a significant proportion of clinicians reported that they were "never, rarely, or sometimes" able to provide or arrange for mental health treatment for the sampled service member's children (52.0%), provide or arrange for marriage and family therapy (40.1%), coordinate care effectively with primary care (36.7%), provide or arrange for care/case management (28.3%), or provide or arrange for substance abuse treatment (24.9%). Patients with more severe symptoms and diagnostic and clinical complexity had higher rates of problems with treatment access. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight opportunities to improve access to timely, quality treatment for service members and their families.

Use of evidence-based treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder in Army behavioral healthcare.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the extent to which evidence-based psychotherapy (EBP) and psychopharmacologic treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are provided to U.S. service members in routine practice, and the degree to which they are consistent with evidence-based treatment guidelines. METHOD: We surveyed the majority of Army behavioral health providers (n = 2,310); surveys were obtained from 543 (26%). These clinicians reported clinical data on a total sample of 399 service member patients. Of these patients, 110 (28%) had a reported PTSD diagnosis. Data were weighted to account for sampling design and nonresponses. RESULTS: Army providers reported 86% of patients with PTSD received evidence-based psychotherapy (EBP) for PTSD. As formal training hours in EBPs increased, reported use of EBPs significantly increased. Although EBPs for PTSD were reported to be widely used, clinicians who deliver EBP frequently reported not adhering to all core procedures recommended in treatment manuals; less than half reported using all the manualized core EBP techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is necessary to understand why clinicians modify EBP treatments, and what impact this has on treatment outcomes. More data regarding the implications for treatment effectiveness and the role of clinical context, patient preferences, and clinical decision-making in adapting EBPs could help inform training efforts and the ways that these treatments may be better adapted for the military.

Collaborative care to improve the management of depressive disorders: a community guide systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: To improve the quality of depression management, collaborative care models have been developed from the Chronic Care Model over the past 20 years. Collaborative care is a multicomponent, healthcare system-level intervention that uses case managers to link primary care providers, patients, and mental health specialists. In addition to case management support, primary care providers receive consultation and decision support from mental health specialists (i.e., psychiatrists and psychologists). This collaboration is designed to (1) improve routine screening and diagnosis of depressive disorders; (2) increase provider use of evidence-based protocols for the proactive management of diagnosed depressive disorders; and (3) improve clinical and community support for active client/patient engagement in treatment goal-setting and self-management. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A team of subject matter experts in mental health, representing various agencies and institutions, conceptualized and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on collaborative care for improving the management of depressive disorders. This team worked under the guidance of the Community Preventive Services Task Force, a nonfederal, independent, volunteer body of public health and prevention experts. Community Guide systematic review methods were used to identify, evaluate, and analyze available evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: An earlier systematic review with 37 RCTs of collaborative care studies published through 2004 found evidence of effectiveness of these models in improving depression outcomes. An additional 32 studies of collaborative care models conducted between 2004 and 2009 were found for this current review and analyzed. The results from the meta-analyses suggest robust evidence of effectiveness of collaborative care in improving depression symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.34); adherence to treatment (OR=2.22); response to treatment (OR=1.78); remission of symptoms (OR=1.74); recovery from symptoms (OR=1.75); quality of life/functional status (SMD=0.12); and satisfaction with care (SMD=0.39) for patients diagnosed with depression (all effect estimates were significant). CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care models are effective in achieving clinically meaningful improvements in depression outcomes and public health benefits in a wide range of populations, settings, and organizations. Collaborative care interventions provide a supportive network of professionals and peers for patients with depression, especially at the primary care level.

Parity and the use of out-of-network mental health benefits in the FEHB program.

Two current congressional bills mandate parity for benefits for mental disorders with benefits for medical/surgical conditions in private insurance when mental health benefits are provided; the bills differ in regard to benefit levels and access to out-of-network coverage. This study assessed clinicians' and beneficiaries' participation in managed care networks in the national capital area under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) parity program. Approximately one-third of the clinicians studied participated in FEHB networks, and only 44 percent of FEHB patients received care from network clinicians. Out-of-network mental health benefits are an important policy consideration to ensure access to mental health treatment under parity proposals.

Challenges in increasing access to buprenorphine treatment for opiate addiction.

The aims of this study are to assess psychiatrists' comfort using office-based opiate agonist treatment (OBOT) and to identify psychiatrist characteristics associated with OBOT comfort. A random sample of 2,323 AMA Masterfile of Physicians psychiatrists were surveyed through the 2002 APIRE National Survey of Psychiatric Practice (NSSP). Of the 52% responding (N = 1,203), 80.6% (SE = 1.8%) were not comfortable providing OBOT. Males, addiction-certified psychiatrists, and those treating substance abuse patients were more comfortable providing OBOT. These findings highlight significant barriers in providing buprenorphine treatment. Increasing the understanding of specific financing and services delivery barriers that clinicians face is needed to inform the development of effective integrated services models and policies to facilitate OBOT implementation.

Variations in use of second-generation antipsychotic medication by race among adult psychiatric patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined variations in the use of second-generation antipsychotic medication among African-American and non-Hispanic white patients in a national sample of adults who were treated by psychiatrists. METHODS: This study used data from studies of psychiatric patients and treatments that were conducted by the American Psychiatric Institute for Research and Education's (APIRE's) Practice Research Network (PRN). Psychiatrists provided detailed clinical data for 126 African-American patients and 574 white patients who were randomly selected and for whom antipsychotic medications were prescribed. The study assessed differences by race in the use of second-generation antipsychotic medication, adjusting for clinical, sociodemographic, and health-system characteristics, including patients' source of payment for treatment. RESULTS: African-American patients were less likely than white patients to receive second-generation antipsychotic medications (49 percent compared with 66 percent). After the analysis statistically adjusted for clinical, sociodemographic, and health-system characteristics, African-American patients remained less likely than white patients to receive second-generation antipsychotics. CONCLUSIONS: Because African Americans tended to receive medications that are not first-line recommended treatments and that have a greater risk of producing tardive dyskinesia and extrapyramidal side effects, African Americans could be expected to suffer diminished clinical status. This disparity may also contribute to lower rates of adherence and to more frequent emergency department visits and psychiatric hospitalizations among African Americans