Impact of veteran-led peer mentorship on posttraumatic stress disorder.

Peer mentorship shows promise as a strategy to support veteran mental health. A community-academic partnership involving a veteran-led nonprofit organization and institutions of higher education evaluated a collaboratively developed peer mentor intervention. We assessed posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), postdeployment experiences, social functioning, and psychological strengths at baseline, midpoint, and 12-week discharge using the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), Deployment Risk and Resilience Inventory-2, Social Adaptation Self-evaluation Scale, and Values in Action Survey. Brief weekly check-in surveys reinforced mentor contact and assessed retention. The sample included 307 veterans who were served by 17 veteran peer mentors. Mixed-effects linear models found a modest effect for PTSD symptom change, with a mean PCL-5 score reduction of 4.04 points, 95% CI [-6.44, -1.64], d = 0.44. More symptomatic veterans showed a larger effect, with average reductions of 9.03 points, 95% CI [-12.11, -5.95], d = 0.77. There were no significant findings for other outcome variables. Compared to younger veterans, those aged 32-57 years were less likely to drop out by 6 weeks, aORs = 0.32-0.26. Week-by-week hazard of drop-out was lower with mentors ≥ 35 years old, aHR = 0.62, 95% CI [0.37, 1.05]. Unadjusted survival differed by mentor military branch, p = .028, but the small mentor sample reduced interpretability. Like many community research efforts, this study lacked a control group, limiting the inferences that can be drawn. Continued study of veteran peer mentorship is important as this modality is often viewed as more tolerable than therapy.

Patient experiences in making PTSD treatment decisions.

Although there is a range of effective posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatments, the number of patients who receive those treatments is disappointingly low (Finley et al., 2015; Maguen et al., 2018). Very little research has examined the patient experience of deciding on a PTSD treatment option and how that experience influences treatment preference and selection. In a sample of 12 veterans and 10 providers, we recorded the sessions in which providers discussed PTSD treatment options with their patients and then interviewed patients to ask their impressions of those same sessions. Specifically, using qualitative analysis, we sought to understand (a) patient preferences and experiences of choosing a PTSD treatment option, (b) what information patients retain from treatment planning sessions, and (c) why patients chose a given treatment. Almost all the patients in this sample chose an evidence-based psychotherapy but could remember little about the options afterward. Patients reported that providers presented options neutrally and that they made shared decisions with their providers. Most could talk through their reasons for coming to a decision and felt comfortable with the decision, but decisions were often made heuristically rather than deliberatively. Surprisingly, a few patients had a hard time explaining why they chose a specific treatment, were not conscious of their exact reasons for choosing a treatment, or seemed unable to remember why they chose a treatment. We also noticed subtle ways in which providers' discussions influenced treatment choice. Implications for practice are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The "trauma pitch": How stigma emerges for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans seeking disability compensation.

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder continues to be a highly stigmatized disease for the veteran population and stigma, experienced as a mark of discredit or shame, continues to be identified as the main deterrent in treatment seeking. Little attention has been paid to how the process of obtaining service-connected disability status can amplify veterans' perceptions of being stigmatized. The following ethnographic study identified how combat veterans experienced stigma in processing through Veterans Affairs care and the effects of linking a Posttraumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis with disability compensation. Stigma was identified in two inter-related areas: 1) the structural level in the Veterans Affairs disability claims process and 2) the individual level in interactions with Veterans Affairs service providers. Findings based on veterans' narratives suggest that the disability claims process, requiring multiple repetitions of personal trauma, coupled with perceptions of institutional stigmas of malingering, created bureaugenic effects: a worsening of symptoms caused by bureaucratic protocols intended to help veterans. This process influenced first time treatment users of the Veterans Affairs by deterring treatment-seeking behavior but was not found to affect veterans who had already initiated treatment. Despite the experience of stigma and commodification of their suffering through disability and diagnostic screening, veterans still sought disability compensation. Veterans viewed this compensation as acknowledgment of their loss and validation of their sacrifice.

Engaging veteran stakeholders to identify patient-centred research priorities for optimizing implementation of lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement in research agenda setting is increasingly being seen as a strategy to improve the responsiveness of healthcare to patient priorities. Implementation of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer is suboptimal, suggesting that research is needed. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe an approach by which a Veteran patient group worked with other stakeholders to develop a research agenda for LDCT screening and to describe the research questions that they prioritized. METHODS: We worked with Veterans organizations to identify 12 Veterans or family members at risk for or having experience with lung cancer to form a Patient Advisory Council (PAC). The PAC met repeatedly from June 2018 to December 2020, both independently and jointly, with stakeholders representing clinicians, health administrators and researchers to identify relevant research topics. The PAC prioritized these topics and then identified questions within these areas where research was needed using an iterative process. Finally, they ranked the importance of obtaining answers to these questions. RESULTS: PAC members valued the co-learning generated by interactions with stakeholders, but emphasized the importance of facilitation to avoid stakeholders dominating the discussion. The PAC prioritized three broad research areas-(1) the impact of insurance on uptake of LDCT; (2) how best to inform Veterans about LDCT; and (3) follow-up and impact of screening results. Using these areas as guides, PAC members identified 20 specific questions, ranking as most important (1) innovative outreach methods, (2) the impact of screening on psychological health, and (3) the impact of outsourcing scans from VA to non-VA providers on completion of recommended follow-up of screening results. The latter two were not identified as high priority by the stakeholder group. CONCLUSIONS: We present an approach that facilitates co-learning between Veteran patients and providers, researchers and health system administrators to increase patient confidence in their ability to contribute important information to a research agenda. The research questions prioritized by the Veterans who participated in this project illustrate that for this new screening technology, patients are concerned about the practical details of implementation (e.g., follow-up) and the technology's impact on quality of life. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Veterans and Veteran advocates contributed to our research team throughout the entire research process, including conceiving and co-authoring this manuscript.

Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs and Pharmacist Orientation Toward Dispensing Controlled Substances.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to understand how pharmacists viewed and used a newly implemented prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP). We also sought to understand pharmacist orientation toward dispensing of controlled substances and the people who obtain them. METHODS: We conducted three mini focus groups. The focus group findings were used to inform the design of a structured survey. We emailed a survey to 160 pharmacists who were employed in one statewide community chain store; we obtained 48 survey responses. RESULTS: Focus groups findings suggested that, in relation to the dispensing of scheduled prescription medication, pharmacists were either "healthcare" oriented, "law-enforcement" oriented, or an orientation that combined these two perspectives. Surveys suggested that pharmacists found PDMPs easy to use and that they used them frequently - often to contact physicians directly. Surveys suggested that pharmacists were typically either "healthcare" oriented or "mixed" (combined perspectives). Pharmacist orientation was associated with the frequency with which they counseled patients about medication risk and the frequency with which they used the PDMP as the basis for contacting prescribers. CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing tracking of pharmacists' use of PDMPs is important both at the implementation stage and as PDMPs develop over time. The orientation construct developed here is useful in understanding pharmacist behavior and attitudes towards patients potentially at risk for misuse of controlled substance medications. Further research on this construct could shed light on barriers and incentives for pharmacist PDMP participation and use and provide guidance for pharmacist training, ultimately enhancing patient care.