Caring Letters Sent by a Clinician or Peer to At-Risk Veterans: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Caring letters is an evidence-based suicide prevention intervention in acute care settings, but its outcomes among individuals who contact a national crisis line have not previously been evaluated. Objective: To examine the outcomes of the Veterans Crisis Line (VCL) caring letters intervention and determine whether there are differences in outcomes by signatory. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel randomized clinical trial compared signatories of caring letters and used an observational design to compare no receipt of caring letters with any caring letters receipt. Participants included veterans who contacted the VCL. Enrollment occurred between June 11, 2020, and June 10, 2021, with 1 year of follow-up. Analyses were completed between July 2022 and August 2023. Intervention: Veterans were randomized to receive 9 caring letters for 1 year from either a clinician or peer veteran signatory. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was suicide attempt incidence in the 12 months following the index VCL contact. Incidence of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient, outpatient, and emergency health care use were secondary outcomes. All-cause mortality was an exploratory outcome. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and χ2 tests were used to assess the differences in outcomes among the treatment and comparison groups. Results: A total of 102 709 veterans (86 942 males [84.65%]; 15 737 females [15.32%]; mean [SD] age, 53.82 [17.35] years) contacted the VCL and were randomized. No association was found among signatory and suicide attempts, secondary outcomes, or all-cause mortality. In the analysis of any receipt of caring letters, there was no evidence of an association between caring letters receipt and suicide attempt incidence. Caring letters receipt was associated with increased VHA health care use (any outpatient: hazard ratio [HR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.13; outpatient mental health: HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.17-1.22; any inpatient: HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.18; inpatient mental health: HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.07-1.21). Caring letters receipt was not associated with all-cause mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: Among VHA patients who contacted the VCL, caring letters were not associated with suicide attempts, but were associated with a higher probability of health care use. No differences in outcomes were identified by signatory. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN27551361.

Qualitative Evaluation of a Caring Letters Suicide Prevention Intervention for the Veterans Crisis Line.

OBJECTIVE: Suicide is a leading cause of death in the United States. This has prompted the U.S. surgeon general to issue a report describing actionable items to reduce suicide rates, including a recommendation to increase the use of the caring letters intervention. This intervention involves mailing brief, nondemanding messages of care. As part of the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA's) efforts to reduce suicide rates among veterans, a caring letters project was developed for veterans who contact the Veterans Crisis Line (VCL). This article describes the results of qualitative interviews conducted to better understand the experiences of veterans who received caring letters. METHODS: Beginning in 2020, all identifiable veterans who used Veterans Health Administration services and contacted the VCL received nine letters over 1 year, along with a list of mental health resources. Semistructured interviews (N=23) were conducted, and content analysis was used to identify veterans' perspectives and suggestions for improving the intervention. RESULTS: Sixteen men and seven women participated (mean age=53 years). Feedback varied, with most participants reporting that receiving caring letters had a positive impact and others noting aspects that could be improved to enhance the intervention's caring intent. Some also reported that the letters helped them engage with community resources and made them more likely to seek VA care. CONCLUSIONS: The caring letters intervention, received after contact with the VCL, was well received by participants. They described feeling appreciated, cared for, encouraged, and connected. The results of this study will inform future evaluation examining veteran outcomes.

Lessons Learned From Implementing a Caring Contacts Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendation.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Defense clinical practice guideline on the treatment of veterans at risk for suicide recommends considering caring contacts interventions after a psychiatric hospitalization for suicidal ideation or suicide attempt. This quality improvement project examined the implementation of the recommendation at a large VA health care system. The project enrolled 29% of hospitalized veterans (N=135 of 462). Enrollment barriers included lack of staff availability and veteran ineligibility due to homelessness or housing instability. Opportunities to improve the reach of the intervention in future quality improvement processes are discussed, especially because acceptability of the intervention was high among veterans.

Implementation strategy to increase clinicians' use of the caring letters suicide prevention intervention.

Caring Letters is recommended in multiple best practice guidelines; however, the Caring Letters intervention has not been widely implemented. The process of tracking, scheduling, and mailing letters for multiple patients over many months may represent a significant barrier for busy clinicians. This evaluation examined whether the use of centralized administrative support (Centralized Caring Letters; CCL) was associated with increased utilization of the intervention. These procedures were tested in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Recovery Engagement and Coordination for Health-Veterans Enhanced Treatment (REACH VET) program. In REACH VET, VA clinicians are routinely asked to consider Caring Letters as one option for veterans identified as at-risk. In this evaluation, clinicians at two VA facilities were offered assistance in the tracking, preparation, mailing, and documentation of Caring Letters for veterans they chose to enroll in CCL. The utilization of Caring Letters increased more than 14-fold after CCL was implemented. In the year that preceded CCL, 3% of REACH VET veterans were sent Caring Letters at the two sites; this increased to 43% of cases after the implementation of CCL (45% at Site 1 and 41% at Site 2). In qualitative interviews with providers, clinicians described Caring Letters as beneficial and stated that the centralized features of the program were helpful. Caring Letters were discontinued for 30% of enrolled veterans, often because of a bad address (9% of enrolled) or relocation (8% of enrolled). Although there are barriers for the use of Caring Letters, CCL was associated with a very large increase in the use of Caring Letters. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

FOCUS mHealth Intervention for Veterans With Serious Mental Illness in an Outpatient Department of Veterans Affairs Setting: Feasibility, Acceptability, and Usability Study.

BACKGROUND: Veterans with serious mental illnesses (SMIs) face barriers to accessing in-person evidence-based interventions that improve illness management. Mobile health (mHealth) has been demonstrated to be feasible, acceptable, effective, and engaging among individuals with SMIs in community mental health settings. mHealth for SMIs has not been tested within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). OBJECTIVE: This study examines the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of an mHealth intervention for SMI in the context of VA outpatient care. METHODS: A total of 17 veterans with SMIs were enrolled in a 1-month pilot trial of FOCUS, a smartphone-based self-management intervention for SMI. At baseline and posttest, they completed measures examining symptoms and functional recovery. The participants provided qualitative feedback related to the usability and acceptability of the intervention. RESULTS: Veterans completed on an average of 85.0 (SD 96.1) interactions with FOCUS over the 1-month intervention period. They reported high satisfaction, usability, and acceptability, with nearly all participants (16/17, 94%) reporting that they would recommend the intervention to a fellow veteran. Clinicians consistently reported finding mHealth-related updates useful for informing their care. Qualitative feedback indicated that veterans thought mHealth complemented their existing VA services well and described potential opportunities to adapt FOCUS to specific subpopulations (eg, combat veterans) as well as specific delivery modalities (eg, groups). In the 1-month period, the participants experienced small improvements in self-assessed recovery, auditory hallucinations, and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The FOCUS mHealth intervention is feasible, acceptable, and usable among veterans. Future work should develop and examine VA-specific implementation approaches of FOCUS for this population.

Mobile applications may be the future of veteran mental health support but do veterans know yet? A survey of app knowledge and use.

Given the substantial investment in the development of mental health mobile applications (apps), information about penetration in the patient populations of interest is critical. This study describes the proportion of veterans who are knowledgeable of and utilize the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) and Department of Defense (DoD) mental health apps. A cross-sectional survey of 140 veterans was conducted in primary care and outpatient mental health clinics at a large VA facility. Ninety-one percent of veterans (n = 127) reported smartphone ownership. Of these, 42.5% and 20.4% had heard of and used at least one of the 22 VA/DoD mental health apps, respectively. When veterans were asked to pick the individual VA/DoD apps they had previously used from a list, the proportion of participants who reported prior use ranged from 0% (Moving Forward) to 6.5% (Mindfulness Coach). Treatment for psychiatric problems relevant to the apps did not predict veteran knowledge/use of the VA/DoD apps. Rates of app use remained low among veterans reporting symptoms/diagnoses apps were designed to address (e.g., 7.5% of veterans who reported posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) had used PTSD Coach). The most common barrier to app use (endorsed by 65.7% of participants) was awareness of the apps. Expansion of existing VA/DoD efforts to educate patients and providers treating relevant conditions is indicated. Evaluation of evidence-based mobile health support specialists in clinical settings may also be indicated. This study provides critical information to guide future dissemination efforts and to help evaluate the impact of investments to date. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Virtual Standardized Patients vs Academic Training for Learning Motivational Interviewing Skills in the US Department of Veterans Affairs and the US Military: A Randomized Trial.

Importance: Despite the need for effective and scalable training in motivational interviewing (MI) that includes posttraining coaching and feedback, limited evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of using virtual (computerized) standardized patients (VSPs) in such training. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of training with a VSP on the acquisition and maintenance of MI skills compared with traditional academic study. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was a 2-group, parallel-training randomized trial of 120 volunteer health care professionals recruited from a Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense medical facility. Motivational interviewing skill was coded by external experts blinded to training group and skill assessment time points. Data were collected from October 17, 2016, to August 12, 2019. Interventions: After a computer course on MI, participants trained during two 45-minute sessions separated by 3 months. The 2 randomized training conditions included a branching storyline VSP, which provided MI skill rehearsal with immediate and summative feedback, and a control condition, which included academic study of content from the computerized MI course. Main Outcomes and Measures: Measurement of MI skill was based on recorded conversations with human standardized patients, assessed using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity 4.2.1 coding system, measured at baseline, after training, and after additional training in the randomized condition 3 months later. Results: A total of 120 volunteers (83 [69%] women), with a mean (SD) of 13.6 (10.3) years of health care experience, participated in the study; 61 were randomized to receive the intervention, and 59 were randomized to the control group. Those assigned to VSP training had significantly greater posttraining improvement in technical global scores (0.23; 95% CI, 0.03-0.44; P = .02), relational global scores (0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.81; P = .001), and the reflection-to-question ratio (0.23; 95% CI, 0.15-0.31; P = .001). Differences were maintained after the 3-month additional training session, with more improvements achieved after the 3-month training for the VSP trainees on the reflection-to- question ratio (0.15; 95% CI, 0.07-0.24; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized trial demonstrated a successful transfer of training from a VSP to human standardized patients. The VSP MI skill outcomes were better than those achieved with academic study and were maintained over time. Virtual standardized patients have the potential to facilitate dissemination of MI and may be useful for training in other evidence-based skills and treatments. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04558060.