Telephone veteran peer coaching for mental health treatment engagement among rural veterans: The importance of secondary outcomes and qualitative data in a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of telephone motivational coaching delivered by veteran peers to improve mental health (MH) treatment engagement among veterans. METHODS: Veterans receiving primary care from primarily rural VA community-based outpatient clinics were enrolled. Veterans not engaged in MH treatment screening positive for ≥1 MH problem(s) were randomized to receive veteran peer-delivered feedback on MH screen results and referrals plus 4 sessions of telephone motivational coaching (intervention) versus veteran peer-delivered MH results and referrals without motivational coaching (control). Blinded telephone assessments were conducted at baseline, 8, 16, and 32 weeks. Cox proportional hazard models compared MH clinician-directed treatment initiation between groups; descriptive analyses compared MH treatment retention, changes in MH symptoms, quality of life, and self-care. FINDINGS: Among 272 veterans screening positive for ≥1 MH problem(s), 45% who received veteran peer telephone motivational coaching versus 46% of control participants initiated MH treatment (primary outcome) (hazard ratio: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.76-1.57), representing no between-group differences. In contrast, veterans receiving veteran peer motivational coaching achieved significantly greater improvements in depression, posttraumatic stress disorder and cannabis use scores, quality of life domains, and adoption of some self-care strategies than controls (secondary outcomes). Qualitative data revealed that veterans who received veteran peer motivational coaching may no longer have perceived a need for MH treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among veterans with MH problems using predominantly rural VA community clinics, telephone peer motivational coaching did not enhance MH treatment engagement, but instead had positive effects on MH symptoms, quality of life indicators, and use of self-care strategies.

Analyzing free-text survey responses: An accessible strategy for developing patient-centered programs and program evaluation.

Despite widespread availability of yoga in the Veterans Health Administration (VA), it remains unclear how to best evaluate yoga programs. This is particularly problematic for programs aimed at veterans with mental health concerns, as evaluation typically focuses narrowly upon mental health symptom severity, even though program participants may have other health-related priorities. We analyzed responses to free-text questions on 237 surveys completed by veterans with mental health concerns enrolled in a yoga program at six VA clinics in Louisiana to characterize veteran participants' experiences with yoga. Qualitative analysis resulted in 15 domains reflecting veterans' individual health-related values and priorities. We use results to illustrate the potential for analysis of free-text responses to reveal valuable insights into patient experiences, demonstrating how these data can inform patient-centered program evaluation. The approach we present is more accessible to those responsible for decision-making about local programs than conventional methods of analyzing qualitive evaluation data.

Biofeedback for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a prevalent condition that currently lacks highly effective therapies for its management. Biofeedback has been proposed as a therapy that may help individuals learn to exert conscious control over sympatho-vagal balance as an indirect method of symptom management. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of biofeedback-based interventions for IBS in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) Group Specialized Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) from inception to 24 July 2019. We also searched reference lists from published trials, trial registries, device manufacturers, conference proceedings, theses, and dissertations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We judged randomized controlled trials to be eligible for inclusion if they met the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback definition of biofeedback, and if they compared a biofeedback intervention to an active, sham, or no-treatment control for the management of IBS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were IBS global or clinical improvement scores and overall quality of life measures. Secondary outcome measures were adverse events, assessments of stool frequency and consistency, changes in abdominal pain, depression, and anxiety. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. We used GRADE criteria to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight randomized trials with a total of 300 adult participants for our analysis. We did not identify any trials in children. Four trials assessed thermal biofeedback. One trial assessed rectosigmoidal biofeedback. Two trials assessed heart rate variability biofeedback. Two trials assessed electrocutaneous biofeedback. Comparators were: no treatment (symptom monitoring group; three studies), attention control (pseudomeditation; two studies), relaxation control (one study), counseling (two studies), hypnotherapy (one study), standard therapy (one study), and sham biofeedback (one study). We judged all trials to have a high or unclear risk of bias. Global/Clinical improvement The clinical benefit of biofeedback plus standard therapy compared to standard therapy alone was uncertain (RR 4.20, 95% CI 1.40 to 12.58; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The same study also compared biofeedback plus standard therapy to sham biofeedback plus standard therapy. The clinical benefit in the biofeedback group was uncertain (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.80; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The clinical benefit of heart rate biofeedback compared to hypnotherapy was uncertain when measured with the IBS severity scoring system (IBS-SSS) (MD -58.80, 95% CI -109.11 to -8.49; 1 study, 61 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to counseling, the effect of heart rate biofeedback was unclear when measured with a composite symptom reduction score (MD 7.03, 95% CI -51.07 to 65.13; 1 study, 29 participants; low-certainty evidence) and when evaluated for clinical response (50% improvement) (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.45; 1 study, 29 participants; low-certainty evidence). The clinical benefit of thermal biofeedback used in a multi-component psychological intervention (MCPI) compared to no treatment was uncertain when measured with a composite clinical symptom reduction score (MD 30.34, 95% CI 8.47 to 52.21; 3 studies, 101 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and when evaluated as clinical response (50% improvement) (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62; 3 studies, 101 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to attention control, the effects of thermal biofeedback within an MCPI were unclear when measured with a composite clinical symptom reduction score (MD 4.02, 95% CI -21.41 to 29.45; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and when evaluated as clinical response (50% improvement) (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.69, 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life A single trial used overall quality of life as an outcome measure, and reported that both the biofeedback and cognitive therapy groups improved after treatment. The trial did not note any between-group differences, and did not report any outcome data. Adverse events Only one of the eight trials explicitly reported adverse events. This study reported no adverse events in either the biofeedback or cognitive therapy groups (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.12; 29 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently not enough evidence to assess whether biofeedback interventions are effective for controlling symptoms of IBS. Given the positive results reported in small trials to date, biofeedback deserves further study in people with IBS. Future research should include active control groups that use high provider-participant interaction, in an attempt to balance non-specific effects of interventions between groups, and report both commonly used outcome measures (e.g. IBS-SSS) and historical outcome measures (e.g. the composite primary symptom reduction (CPSR) score) to allow for meta-analysis with previous studies. Future studies should be explicit in their reporting of adverse events.

A yoga program for the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in veterans.

The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of a yoga program as an adjunctive therapy for improving post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in Veterans with military-related PTSD. Veterans (n = 12) participated in a 6 week yoga intervention held twice a week. There was significant improvement in PTSD hyperarousal symptoms and overall sleep quality as well as daytime dysfunction related to sleep. There were no significant improvements in the total PTSD, anger, or quality of life outcome scores. These results suggest that this yoga program may be an effective adjunctive therapy for improving hyperarousal symptoms of PTSD including sleep quality. This study demonstrates that the yoga program is acceptable, feasible, and that there is good adherence in a Veteran population.