Master resilience trainer course quality improvement evaluation.

The Master Resilience Training (MRT) course is the U.S. Army's resilience program of record to develop soldiers as resilience trainers within their home units. The Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) recently conducted an MRT Quality Improvement Evaluation (QIE) to understand perceptions of the MRT course, determine the effectiveness of the course, and provide revision recommendations for the next iteration of the course. Soldiers who were completing the MRT course were invited to take surveys and participate in interviews. Results from quantitative and qualitative data suggest that most participants felt satisfied with the training and that it was relevant for soldiers. Most participants also agreed that the training would help them become better soldiers and leaders. Along with positive feedback about the course, participants also identified areas that could be improved. Soldier feedback along with program evaluators' observation informed recommendations for improving the overall MRT course and its implementation. Program evaluators recommend MRT participants learn fewer and less complex skills, focus on coach education throughout the course, and highlight leader development by promoting motivation and enhancing effective communication. Program evaluators recommendations for ways to improve buy-in from leaders and graduated MRTs are also discussed.

Clinical validity assessment of genes frequently tested on intellectual disability/autism sequencing panels.

PURPOSE: Neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), such as intellectual disability (ID) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), exhibit genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity, making them difficult to differentiate without a molecular diagnosis. The Clinical Genome Resource Intellectual Disability/Autism Gene Curation Expert Panel (GCEP) uses systematic curation to distinguish ID/ASD genes that are appropriate for clinical testing (ie, with substantial evidence supporting their relationship to disease) from those that are not. METHODS: Using the Clinical Genome Resource gene-disease validity curation framework, the ID/Autism GCEP classified genes frequently included on clinical ID/ASD testing panels as Definitive, Strong, Moderate, Limited, Disputed, Refuted, or No Known Disease Relationship. RESULTS: As of September 2021, 156 gene-disease pairs have been evaluated. Although most (75%) were determined to have definitive roles in NDDs, 22 (14%) genes evaluated had either Limited or Disputed evidence. Such genes are currently not recommended for use in clinical testing owing to the limited ability to assess the effect of identified variants. CONCLUSION: Our understanding of gene-disease relationships evolves over time; new relationships are discovered and previously-held conclusions may be questioned. Without periodic re-examination, inaccurate gene-disease claims may be perpetuated. The ID/Autism GCEP will continue to evaluate these claims to improve diagnosis and clinical care for NDDs.

The Impact of Just and Unjust War Events on Mental Health Need and Utilization within U.S. Service Members.

Background: Soldiers are resilient to just war events, such as killing enemy combatants and life-threatening experiences, but these same soldiers appear to struggle with unjust war events, such as killing a noncombatant or being unable to help civilian women and children in need. This study is the first to examine how just and unjust war experiences are associated with clinical health service outcomes. Methods: Two samples of soldiers in different stages of readjustment from deployment were drawn from a longitudinal, survey-based study of a US Army brigade. Measures included items related to combat events, mental health utilization, perceived mental health need, PTSD, depression, and functional impairment. Results: After controlling for other kinds of combat events, just war events (i.e., life-threatening events and killing enemy combatants) predicted outcomes in soldiers who are less than three months post-deployment, but only predicted 2 of 26 outcomes in soldiers one year post deployment. In contrast, unjust war events were found to be robust predictors of short-term and long-term outcomes related to mental health need and utilization, even after controlling for exposure to other combat events. Conclusions: The results extend previous longitudinal research that suggests that exposure to unjust war events carry a heavier long-term mental health burden than other types of events. Additionally, Soldiers exposed to unjust war events had an unmet need for care one year post deployment that was not directly tied to PTSD or depression. The results question the emphasis on life-threat within mental health pathogenesis models.