Yoga vs Cognitive Processing Therapy for Military Sexual Trauma-Related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: First-line treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), ie, trauma-focused therapy, while effective, is limited by low treatment initiation, high dropout, and high treatment refraction. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of Trauma Center Trauma-Sensitive Yoga (TCTSY) vs first-line cognitive processing therapy (CPT) in women veterans with PTSD related to military sexual trauma (MST) and the hypothesis that PTSD outcomes would differ between the interventions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multisite randomized clinical trial was conducted from December 1, 2015, to April 30, 2022, within 2 VA health care systems located in the southeast and northwest. Women veterans aged 22 to 71 years with MST-related PTSD were enrolled and randomized to TCTSY or CPT. Interventions: The TCTSY intervention (Hatha-style yoga focusing on interoception and empowerment) consisted of 10 weekly, 60-minute group sessions, and the CPT intervention (cognitive-based therapy targeting modification of negative posttraumatic thoughts) consisted of 12 weekly, 90-minute group sessions. Main Outcome and Measures: Sociodemographic data were collected via self-report survey. The primary outcome, PTSD symptom severity, was assessed using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) and PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). Assessments were conducted at baseline, midintervention, 2 weeks post intervention, and 3 months post intervention. Results: Of 200 women veterans who consented to participate, the intent-to-treat sample comprised 131 participants (mean [SD] age, 48.2 [11.2] years), with 72 randomized to TCTSY and 59 randomized to CPT. Treatment was completed by 47 participants (65.3%) in the TCTSY group and 27 (45.8%) in the CPT group, a 42.6% higher treatment completion rate in the TCTSY group (P = .03). Both treatment groups improved over time on the CAPS-5 (mean [SD] scores at baseline: 36.73 [8.79] for TCTSY and 35.52 [7.49] for CPT; mean [SD] scores at 3 months: 24.03 [11.55] for TCTSY and 22.15 [13.56]) and the PCL-5 (mean [SD] scores at baseline: 49.62 [12.19] for TCTSY and 48.69 [13.62] for CPT; mean [SD] scores at 3 months: 36.97 [17.74] for TCTSY and 31.76 [12.47]) (P < .001 for time effects). None of the group effects or group-by-time effects were significant. Equivalence analyses of change scores were not significantly different between the TCTSY and CPT groups, and the two one-sided test intervals fell within the equivalence bounds of plus or minus 10 for CAPS-5 for all follow-up time points. Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness randomized clinical trial, TCTSY was equivalent to CPT in reducing PTSD symptom severity, with both groups improving significantly. The higher treatment completion rate for TCTSY indicates its higher acceptability as an effective and acceptable PTSD treatment for women veterans with PTSD related to MST that could address current VA PTSD treatment limitations. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02640690.

Women's Healthcare Utilization Following Routine Screening for Past-Year Intimate Partner Violence in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) can have adverse health impacts and has been associated with elevated rates of healthcare service utilization. Healthcare encounters present opportunities to identify IPV-related concerns and connect patients with services. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) conducts IPV screening within an integrated healthcare system. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to compare service utilization in the 6 months following IPV screening between those screening positive and negative for past-year IPV (IPV+, IPV-) and to examine the timing and types of healthcare services accessed among women screening IPV+. DESIGN: A retrospective chart review was conducted for 8888 female VHA patients across 13 VHA facilities who were screened for past-year IPV between April 2014 and April 2016. MAIN MEASURES: Demographic characteristics (age, race, ethnicity, marital status, veteran status), IPV screening response, and healthcare encounters (based on visit identification codes). KEY RESULTS: In the 6 months following routine screening for past-year IPV, patients screening IPV+ were more likely to utilize outpatient care (aOR = 1.85 [CI 1.26, 2.70]), including primary care or psychosocial care, and to have an inpatient stay (aOR = 2.09 [CI 1.23, 3.57]), compared with patients screening IPV-. Among those with any utilization, frequency of outpatient encounters within the 6-month period following screening was higher among those screening IPV+ compared with those screening IPV-. The majority of patients screening positive for past-year IPV returned for an outpatient visit within a brief time frame following the screening visit (> 70% within 14 days, >95% within 6 months). More than one in four patients screening IPV+ had an emergency department visit within the 6 months following screening. CONCLUSIONS: Women who screen positive for past-year IPV have high rates of return to outpatient visits following screening, presenting opportunities for follow-up support. Higher rates of emergency department utilization and inpatient stays among women screening IPV+ may indicate adverse health outcomes related to IPV experience.

Adoption, penetration, and effectiveness of a secondary risk screener for intimate partner violence: Evidence to inform screening practices in integrated care settings.

OBJECTIVE: Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has implemented screening for past-year intimate partner violence (IPV) in some healthcare facilities along with secondary screening of risk for severe violence among those screening positive in order to facilitate follow-up care for high-risk patients. We evaluated the adoption, penetration, and effectiveness of secondary screening as a tool to facilitate timely follow-up services. METHODS: Retrospective review of medical records (screening and healthcare use) of 774 women screening positive for past-year IPV (IPV+) at 11 facilities nationwide from April 2014-April 2016. Chi-square and t-tests examined factors related to secondary screening. RESULTS: Three of eleven (27.3%) facilities that implemented primary IPV screening adopted secondary screening. At adopting sites, 56.4% eligible (i.e., IPV+) women received secondary screening. Among 185 IPV+ women who completed secondary screening, 33.0% screened positive for severe IPV. Screening positive during secondary screening was associated with higher rate of psychosocial care within 60 days (73.8% vs. 54.0% of IPV+ patients screening negative; p < .05), posttraumatic stress disorder diagnosis (31.1% vs. 15.3%; p < .05), and being physically threatened or harmed (>50% vs. <15%; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Secondary risk assessment following IPV screening may expedite access to psychosocial follow-up care in integrated healthcare settings. However, program uptake needs to be enhanced.