Leveraging available metadata in VA PTSD clinics and generating benchmarks for clinically significant change.

OBJECTIVE: Measurement-based care is designed to track symptom levels during treatment and leverage clinically significant change benchmarks to improve quality and outcomes. Though the Veterans Health Administration promotes monitoring progress within posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) clinical teams, actionability of data is diminished by a lack of population-based benchmarks for clinically significant change. We reported the state of repeated measurement within PTSD clinical teams, generated benchmarks, and examined outcomes based on these benchmarks. METHOD: PTSD Checklist for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition data were culled from the Corporate Data Warehouse from the pre-COVID-19 year for Veterans who received at least eight sessions in 14 weeks (episode of care [EOC] cohort) and those who received sporadic care (modal cohort). We used the Jacobson and Truax (1991) approach to generate clinically significant change benchmarks at clinic, regional, and national levels and calculated the frequency of cases that deteriorated, were unchanged, improved, or probably recovered, using our generated benchmarks and benchmarks from a recent study, for both cohorts. RESULTS: Both the number of repeated measurements and the cases who had multisession care in the Corporate Data Warehouse were very low. Clinically significant change benchmarks were similar across locality levels. The modal cohort had worse outcomes than the EOC cohort. CONCLUSIONS: National benchmarks for clinically significant change could improve the actionability of assessment data for measurement-based care. Benchmarks created using data from Veterans who received multisession care had better outcomes than those receiving sporadic care. Measurement-based care in PTSD clinical teams is hampered by low rates of repeated assessments of outcome. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Expected symptom change trajectories for the early identification of probable treatment nonresponse in VA PTSD specialty care clinics: A proof-of-concept.

The purpose of measurement-based care (MBC) is to detect treatment nonresponse sufficiently early in treatment to adjust treatment plans and prevent failure or dropout. Thus, the potential of MBC is to provide the infrastructure for a flexible, patient-centered approach to evidence-based care. However, MBC is underutilized across the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) specialty clinics, likely because no actionable, empirically determined guidelines for using repeated measurement effectively are currently available to clinicians. With data collected as part of routine care in VA PTSD specialty clinics across the United States in the year prior to COVID-19 (n = 2,182), we conducted a proof-of-concept for a method of generating session-by-session benchmarks of probable patient nonresponse to treatment, which can be visualized alongside individual patient data using the most common measure of PTSD symptoms used in VA specialty clinics, the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (PCL-5). Using survival analysis, we first identified the probability of cases reaching clinically significant change at each session, as well as any significant moderators of treatment response. We then generated a multilevel model with initial symptom burden predicting the trajectory of PCL-5 scores across sessions. Finally, we determined the slowest changing 50% and 60% of all cases to generate benchmarks at each session for each level of the predictor(s) and then assessed the accuracy of these benchmarks at each session for classifying treatment responders and nonresponders. The final models were able to accurately identify nonresponders as early as the sixth session of treatment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

In-office, in-home, and telehealth cognitive processing therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder in veterans: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Trauma-focused psychotherapies for combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in military veterans are efficacious, but there are many barriers to receiving treatment. The objective of this study was to determine if cognitive processing therapy (CPT) for PTSD among active duty military personnel and veterans would result in increased acceptability, fewer dropouts, and better outcomes when delivered In-Home or by Telehealth as compared to In-Office treatment. METHODS: The trial used an equipoise-stratified randomization design in which participants (N = 120) could decline none or any 1 arm of the study and were then randomized equally to 1 of the remaining arms. Therapists delivered CPT in 12 sessions lasting 60-min each. Self-reported PTSD symptoms on the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) served as the primary outcome. RESULTS: Over half of the participants (57%) declined 1 treatment arm. Telehealth was the most acceptable and least often refused delivery format (17%), followed by In-Office (29%), and In-Home (54%); these differences were significant (p = 0.0008). Significant reductions in PTSD symptoms occurred with all treatment formats (p < .0001). Improvement on the PCL-5 was about twice as large in the In-Home (d = 2.1) and Telehealth (d = 2.0) formats than In-Office (d = 1.3); those differences were statistically large and significant (d = 0.8, 0.7 and p = 0.009, 0.014, respectively). There were no significant differences between In-Home and Telehealth outcomes (p = 0.77, d = -.08). Dropout from treatment was numerically lowest when therapy was delivered In-Home (25%) compared to Telehealth (34%) and In-Office (43%), but these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: CPT delivered by telehealth is an efficient and effective treatment modality for PTSD, especially considering in-person restrictions resulting from COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02290847 (Registered 13/08/2014; First Posted Date 14/11/2014).

A Public Health Framework for Preventing Mental Disorders in the Context of Pandemics.

The COVID-19 pandemic has universally threatened the building blocks of mental health, well-being, and quality of life, namely, expectations of safety, connectedness, hope, and individual and societal efficacy. Consequently, unprecedently large numbers of individuals are significantly stressed and many are at risk for relapse of mental health problems, exacerbations of existing mental and behavioral health problems, and new onset clinical problems. Because of the scope of the problem, a population-based public health perspective is needed, which in the context of disasters has well-established theories and prevention approaches. Public health approaches to disasters and pandemics focus on preventing subclinical problems from becoming clinical disorders, in comparison to clinical care approaches that focus on treating established disorders. Fortunately, specialty care clinicians who typically think about assessing and treating established disorders have the training and clinical competencies to deliver prevention-focused interventions. This paper is designed to help specialty care clinicians who use cognitive-behavioral strategies to understand the biopsychosocial impacts and resource deficits associated with COVID-19-related stressors and the public health perspective to address them. We also provide ways clinicians can help people who are suffering from significant stress and resource deficits bounce back and regain functioning. We describe psychological first aid, stress management, repeated ecological assessment, writing about stressors, problem-solving, and behavioral activation approaches to assist individuals at risk for enduring stress-linked problems.