Increasing the Acceptability of Lethal Means Safety Counseling for Firearms: Tips and Scripts.

In lethal means safety counseling (LMSC), clinicians encourage patients to limit their access to common and lethal means of suicide, especially firearms. However, previous studies have shown that clinicians may hesitate to deliver this evidence-based intervention, in part because of concerns that patients might not find such discussions acceptable. Based on a published review of 18 qualitative studies examining diverse perspectives on LMSC, we discuss strategies that may help clinicians increase the acceptability of LMSC among their patients and present supporting scripts, rationales, and resources. The studies included in the review examined the perspectives of clinicians, patients, firearm owners, and other relevant groups across a wide range of clinical settings on LMSC for firearms. The authors of these studies recommend that clinicians approach LMSC in a nonjudgmental manner with awareness of their own biases, demonstrate cultural competency by acknowledging the role of firearms in patients' lives, and adapt LMSC to patients' previous experiences with firearms, safety, and injury. Clinicians may also want to contextualize and provide a rationale for LMSC, decide whether or not to directly ask about access to firearms, and recommend a range of storage options tailored to the patient. Free locking devices or discount coupons for purchasing such devices may increase the acceptability and efficacy of these discussions. The strategies recommended in this paper are the first to be based on a comprehensive set of relevant studies. Future research is needed to examine whether these strategies do in fact increase the acceptability of LMSC and promote other outcomes such as increased feasibility and efficacy.

The effectiveness of financial incentives for COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review.

Financial incentives are a controversial strategy for increasing vaccination. In this systematic review, we evaluated: 1) the effects of incentives on COVID-19 vaccinations; 2) whether effects differed based on study outcome, study design, incentive type and timing, or sample sociodemographic characteristics; and 3) the cost of incentives per additional vaccine administered. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Econlit up to March 2022 for terms related to COVID, vaccines, and financial incentives, and identified 38 peer-reviewed, quantitative studies. Independent raters extracted study data and evaluated study quality. Studies examined the impact of financial incentives on COVID-19 vaccine uptake (k = 18), related psychological outcomes (e.g., vaccine intentions, k = 19), or both types of outcomes. For studies of vaccine uptake, none found that financial incentives had a negative effect on uptake, and most rigorous studies found that incentives had a positive effect on uptake. By contrast, studies of vaccine intentions were inconclusive. While three studies concluded that incentives may negatively impact vaccine intentions for some individuals, they had methodological limitations. Study outcomes (uptake versus intentions) and study design (experimental versus observational frameworks) appeared to influence results more than incentive type or timing. Additionally, income and political affiliation may moderate responses to incentives. Most studies evaluating cost per additional vaccine administered found that they ranged from $49-75. Overall, fears about financial incentives decreasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake are not supported by the evidence. Financial incentives likely increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. While these increases appear to be small, they may be meaningful across populations. Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42022316086 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022316086).

Do financial incentives increase mental health treatment engagement? A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Engagement in mental health treatment is low, which can lead to poor outcomes. We evaluated the efficacy of offering patients financial incentives to increase their mental health treatment engagement, also referred to as contingency management. METHOD: We meta-analyzed studies offering financial incentives for mental health treatment engagement, including increasing treatment attendance, medication adherence, and treatment goal completion. Analyses were run within a multilevel framework. All study designs were included, and sensitivity analyses were run including only randomized and high-quality studies. RESULTS: About 80% of interventions incentivized treatment for substance use disorders. Financial incentives significantly increased treatment attendance (Hedges' g = 0.49, [0.33, 0.64], k = 30, I2 = 83.14), medication adherence (Hedges' g = 0.95, [0.47, 1.44], k = 6, I2 = 87.73), and treatment goal completion (Hedges' g = 0.61, [0.22, 0.99], k = 5, I2 = 60.55), including completing homework, signing treatment plans, and reducing problematic behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives increase treatment engagement with medium to large effect sizes. We provide strong evidence for their effectiveness in increasing substance use treatment engagement and preliminary evidence for their effectiveness in increasing treatment engagement for other mental health disorders. Future research should prioritize testing the efficacy of incentivizing treatment engagement for mental health disorders aside from substance use. Research must also identify ways to incentivize treatment engagement that improve functioning and long-term outcomes and address ethical and systemic barriers to implementing these interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Palliative Care and Documented Suicide: Association Among Veterans With High Mortality Risk.

CONTEXT: Palliative care consultations (PCCs) are associated with reduced physical and psychological symptoms that are related to suicide risk. Little is known, however, about the association between PCCs and death from suicide among patients at high risk of short-term mortality. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between the number of PCCs and documentation of suicide in a cohort of Veterans at high risk of short-term mortality, before and after accounting for Veterans' sociodemographic characteristics and clinical conditions. METHODS: An observational cohort study was conducted using linked Veterans Affairs clinical and administrative databases for 580,620 decedents with high risk of one-year mortality. Logistic regression models were used to examine the association between number of PCCs and documentation of suicide. RESULTS: Higher percentages of Veterans who died by suicide were diagnosed with chronic pulmonary disease as well as mental health/substance use conditions compared with Veterans who died from other causes. In adjusted models, one PCC in the 90 days prior to death was significantly associated with a 71% decrease in the odds of suicide (OR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.23-0.37, P < 0.001) and two or more PCCs were associated with a 78% decrease (OR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.15-0.33, P < 0.001). Associated "number needed to be exposed" estimates suggest that 421 Veterans in this population would need to receive at least one PCC to prevent one suicide. CONCLUSION: While acknowledging the importance of specialized mental health care in reducing suicide among high-risk patients, interventions delivered in the context of PCCs may also play a role.

Addressing anhedonia to increase depression treatment engagement.

Anhedonia, or reward system dysfunction, is associated with poorer treatment outcomes among depressed individuals. The role of anhedonia in treatment engagement, however, has not yet been explored. We review research on components of reward functioning impaired in depression, including effort valuation, reward anticipation, initial responsiveness, reward learning, reward probability, and reward delay, highlighting potential barriers to treatment engagement associated with these components. We then propose interventions to improve treatment initiation and continuation by addressing deficits in each component of reward functioning, focusing on modifications of existing evidence-based interventions to meet the needs of individuals with heightened anhedonia. We describe potential settings for these interventions and times at which they can be delivered during the process of referring individuals to mental health treatment, conducting intakes or assessments, and providing treatment. Additionally, we note the advantages of using screening processes already in place in primary care, workplace, school, and online settings to identify individuals with heightened anhedonia who may benefit from these interventions. We conclude with suggestions for future research on the impact of anhedonia on treatment engagement and the efficacy of interventions to address it. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Many depressed individuals who might benefit from treatment do not initiate it or discontinue early. One barrier to treatment engagement may be anhedonia, a core symptom of depression characterized by loss of interest or pleasure in usual activities. We describe brief interventions to improve treatment engagement in individuals with anhedonia that can be implemented during the referral process or early in treatment. We argue that interventions aiming to improve treatment engagement in depressed individuals that target anhedonia may be particularly effective.

Increasing the Impact of Interventions Incentivizing Psychiatric Treatment Engagement: Challenges and Opportunities.

Individuals with psychiatric disorders often struggle to initiate and engage in treatment. Financial incentives improve treatment engagement, including treatment attendance, medication adherence, and abstinence from substance use. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) recently made the first large-scale, successful effort to implement incentive-based interventions in substance use disorder treatment. Health care systems, including the VA, can increase the impact of these interventions by extending them to target a range of psychiatric disorders, adapting them for specific clinical contexts, using insights from behavioral economics, and partnering with corporations to fund incentives and implement interventions.

Adding cognitive therapy to antidepressant medications decreases suicidal ideation.

BACKGROUND: Psychotherapy for depression and antidepressant medications have both been associated with decreases in suicidal ideation. Studies have not examined whether adding psychotherapy to antidepressant medications further reduces suicidal ideation relative to medications alone in adults. METHODS: Participants (N = 452) were randomized to 7 months of treatment with antidepressant medications or combined treatment with both medications and cognitive therapy for depression. We examined change in the suicide items from the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) across treatment using Bayesian generalized linear mixed models for non-continuous outcomes. RESULTS: Suicidal ideation decreased across treatment. When measured with the BDI, participants receiving both cognitive therapy and antidepressant medications showed 17% greater reductions in suicidal ideation relative to those receiving medications alone; this effect remained significant when controlling for depression severity. While the same pattern was observed when suicidal ideation was measured with the HDRS, the effect was smaller (7%) and not statistically significant. When BDI and HDRS scores were combined, participants receiving both therapy and medications showed 9% greater reductions in suicidal ideation relative to those receiving medications alone; this effect was marginally significant when controlling for depression severity. LIMITATIONS: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial designed to treat depression, in which suicidal ideation was assessed using single-item measures. CONCLUSIONS: Adding cognitive therapy to antidepressant medications may reduce suicidal ideation to a greater extent than medications alone. Pending replication, combination treatment may be preferred for individuals with suicidal ideation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00057577.

Distress and anhedonia as predictors of depression treatment outcome: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

Two core features of depression include depressed mood (heightened distress) and anhedonia (reduced pleasure). Despite their centrality to depression, studies have not examined their contribution to treatment outcomes in a randomized clinical trial providing mainstream treatments like antidepressant medications (ADM) and cognitive therapy (CT). We used baseline distress and anhedonia derived from a factor analysis of the Mood and Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire to predict remission and recovery in 433 individuals with recurrent/chronic major depressive disorder. Patients were provided with only ADM or both ADM and CT. Overall, higher baseline distress and anhedonia predicted longer times to remission within one year and recovery within three years. When controlling for treatment condition, distress improved prediction of outcomes over and above anhedonia, while anhedonia did not improve prediction of outcomes over and above distress. Interactions with treatment condition demonstrated that individuals with higher distress and anhedonia benefited from receiving CT in addition to ADM, whereas there was no added benefit of CT for individuals with lower distress and anhedonia. Assessing distress and anhedonia prior to treatment may help select patients who will benefit most from CT in addition to ADM. For the treatments and outcome measures tested, utilizing distress to guide treatment planning may yield the greatest benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00057577.