Search

Introduction U.S. Army healthcare providers' use of profiles to document and communicate behavioral health (BH) condition limitations to commanders is vital to understanding both the individual soldier's BH readiness for missions and, as an aggregate, the unit's overall BH readiness status. Quantitative work exploring the link between soldier attitudes toward BH profiles and treatment utilization found that profiles may actually promote increases in treatment-seeking behavior in those receiving conventional BH services. BH provider attitudes on the subject, however, have not been quantitatively explored. Using data from the recently described Behavioral Health Readiness and Decision-Making Instrument (B-REDI) study, the current inquiry addresses this by examining BH providers' pre-/post-B-REDI attitudes toward BH profiles, including therapeutic alliance, to better understand how BH profiles may impact BH treatment. Methods This study was approved by the WRAIR Institutional Review Board and is part of the larger B-REDI study. BH providers (n  = 307) across five installations supporting active duty U.S. Army Divisions completed surveys longitudinally across three time points from September 2018 to March 2019. The survey specific to this study included five items, developed by WRAIR, assessing BH provider attitudes toward BH profiles. Of the providers who completed the survey, 250 (81%) consented to participate in the study and 149 (60%) completed the 3-month follow-up survey. Results Over 80% of BH providers expressed agreement with each of three items assessing rationale for issuing BH profiles in both the pre- and post B-REDI period. Specifically, most providers agreed that profiles facilitate commander support to the soldier, afford soldiers resources for recovery, and give commanders increased understanding of soldier health for mission planning. Twenty-six percent of BH providers agreed, 46% were neutral, and 28% disagreed on whether profile impact on the soldier was positive or not in the pre-B-REDI period, but there was a significant positive trend relative to baseline in the post B-REDI period. The vast majority of providers (≥94%) did not endorse agreement that BH profiles negatively impact therapeutic alliance in either the pre- or post-B-REDI period. Conclusions Assuming that therapeutic alliance and perceptions of BH profile impact on soldiers are useful proxy measures of how treatment utilization may be affected by profiling, this inquiry fails to establish any meaningful negative association between them. This may provide some additional reassurance to BH providers and policymakers that efforts to improve readiness decision-making, such as B-REDI, and increased profiling in conventional military BH settings may not negatively impact treatment utilization rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Military spouses are an understudied population with respect to intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration. Due to the unique demands of service members' jobs, military couples are documented to experience particular individual, couple, and family-level risk factors that may lead to IPV perpetration. Using the frustration-aggression hypothesis and considering the possibility of mutual violence, we examined (a) the direct effects of stressful events, marital discord, and work–family conflict on IPV perpetration among military spouses and (b) the indirect effect of anger arousal between stressful events, marital discord, and work–family conflict on IPV perpetration. This study is a secondary analysis of data drawn from a survey of army spouses conducted by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in 2012. The sample consists of 314 female spouses of active-duty members (white 75%, enlisted 80%). After controlling for covariates (including spouse race, rank, household size, age, living distance from military installation), the direct effects of marital discord and anger on IPV perpetration were statistically significant. Also, the direct effects of marital discord and work–family conflict on anger were significant. The path model demonstrated that the indirect effects of marital discord and work–family conflict on IPV perpetration via anger were significant. Finally, most physical and verbal violence was reported to occur in the form of mutual violence with their partners. Study findings suggest that the pathway of risk factors impacting IPV might differ depending on the sources of stress. The Family Advocacy Program, military social work practitioners, and other behavioral health providers should consider domains of risk and provide support to military spouses that is specifically tailored to these risk factors. Furthermore, considering the mediating role of anger arousal in the relationship between marital discord, work–family conflict and IPV, programs to address anger might be helpful to reduce IPV among military spouse perpetrators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Delivery of best-practice care for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a priority for clinicians working with active duty military personnel and veterans. The PTSD Clinicians Exchange, an Internet-based intervention, was designed to assist in disseminating clinically relevant information and resources that support delivery of key practices endorsed in the Veterans Administration (VA)-Department of Defense (DoD) Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for the Management of Posttraumatic Stress. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to examine the effectiveness of the Clinicians Exchange intervention in increasing familiarity and perceived benefits of 26 CPG-related and emerging practices. The intervention consisted of ongoing access to an Internet resource featuring best-in-class resources for practices, self-management of burnout, and biweekly e-mail reminders highlighting selected practices. Mental health clinicians (N = 605) were recruited from three service sectors (VA, DoD, community); 32.7% of participants assigned to the Internet intervention accessed the site to view resources. Individuals who were offered the intervention increased their practice familiarity ratings significantly more than those assigned to a newsletter-only control condition, d = 0.27, p = .005. From baseline to 12-months, mean familiarity ratings of clinicians in the intervention group increased from 3.0 to 3.4 on scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely); mean ratings for the control group were 3.2 at both assessments. Clinicians generally viewed the CPG practices favorably, rating them as likely to benefit their clients. The results suggest that Internet-based resources may aid more comprehensive efforts to disseminate CPGs, but increasing clinician engagement will be important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: It is expected that future multi-domain operational (MDO) combat environments will be characterized by limited capabilities for immediate combat stress control support services for soldiers or immediate evacuation from theater. The operational requirements of the future battlefield make it unlikely that current models for behavioral health (BH) treatment could be implemented without significant adjustments. We conducted a qualitative study with Special Forces medics and operators and soldiers who had deployed to austere conditions in small groups in an effort to inform construction of a BH service delivery model for an MDO environment. The objectives of this study were (1) characterizing stressors and BH issues that were encountered and (2) describing mitigation strategies and resources that were useful or needed in these types of deployments.Materials and Methods: Six focus groups were conducted at three army installations with 23 active duty soldiers, including three groups of medics using a semi-structured interview guide focused on stressors they encountered during deployments to austere conditions, and the impact of those stressors on mission and focus. Focus group recordings were transcribed, imported into NVivo software (version 12), and independently coded by two researchers. An analysis was then conducted to develop themes across participants. The study was reviewed by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research Human Subjects Protection Board.Results: Behavioral health concerns were commonly cited as a stressor in far forward environments. Other common stressors included ineffective or inexperienced leaders, as well as poor team dynamics (e.g., communication and cohesion). Four primary strategies were mentioned as mitigations for deployment stressors: leadership, morale, resilience training, and strength of the team. When asked about resources or training that would have helped with these types of deployments, participants frequently mentioned the availability of BH providers and development of new and realistic BH skills trainings for non-providers and leaders.Conclusions: Current models for treating BH problems need to be adapted for the future MDO environments in which soldiers will be expected to deploy. Understanding what issues need to be addressed in these environments and how they can best be delivered is an important first step. This study is the first to use qualitative results from those who have already deployed to such environments to describe the stressors and BH issues that were most commonly encountered, the mitigation strategies used, and the resources that were useful or needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]