Development of Training to Prepare Army Medics to Address Behavioral Health Needs of Soldiers in Far-Forward Environments Utilizing Mobile App Technology.

INTRODUCTION: Multi-domain operational combat environments will likely restrict key components of current behavioral health (BH) service delivery models. Combat teams in far-forward outposts or extended missions may need to rely on their own internal assets to manage combat and operational stress reactions for extended periods of time. As such, combat medics are expected to take on additional responsibilities as providers of BH support for isolated teams. As they receive limited BH training, medics require additional training to sufficiently respond to combat and operational stress reactions in their assigned teams. This study provided combat medics with a BH training and a mobile application-based support tool that would assist them in identifying and responding to BH concerns in their soldiers. The current analysis examines pre- to post-training changes in attitudes related to utilizing BH skills. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We created a brief training aimed to increase medics' ability and confidence regarding managing BH issues. Its development was part of a study on the feasibility of the Soldier and Medic Autonomous Connectivity Independent System for Remote Environments (AIRE) apps (NOCTEM, LLC), a digital system designed for far-forward BH and sleep monitoring and management. Participants were combat medics from two Army combat brigades preparing for a training rotation through a combat training center (CTC). A total of 16 medics consented to participation with nine medics available at the follow-up after the field exercise. Medics were surveyed before the training and after their return from the CTC. RESULTS: In pre-training surveys, most medics indicated it was within their scope to assess for stress/anxiety, suicidal risk, stress reaction, and sleep problems; assist soldiers with optimizing work performance; and provide interventions for BH concerns and sleep problems. Less than half believed it was within their scope to assess and address team communication issues or provide intervention for stress reactions. After the CTC rotation, more medics endorsed that it was in their scope to provide interventions for acute stress reactions to traumatic events. Before the CTC rotation, at most 60% of the group felt at least moderately confident in utilizing the BH skills of discussing problems, assessing for concerns, and providing interventions. After CTC, the confidence levels for each skill increased or remained the same for most medics. Intervention skills had the highest proportion of medics (66%) reporting increased confidence in using the skills. CONCLUSIONS: A larger proportion of medics believed it was within their scope of work and felt confident in assessing BH problems, and a smaller proportion believed it is within their scope of work and felt confident in applying interventions. The training increased most medics' confidence to administer interventions for BH and team communication issues. Similar training programs can help medics serve as support for a wide variety of circumstances when the brigade's mental health teams are inaccessible. Additionally, the Medic AIRE app expanded the ability to evaluate and provide interventions without extensive training in treatment modalities or BH conditions. This concept shows promise for providing medics with actionable tools when training time is limited such as during preparation for extended deployments.

Suicide Behavior Results From the U.S. Army's Suicide Prevention Leadership Tool Study: The Behavioral Health Readiness and Suicide Risk Reduction Review (R4).

INTRODUCTION: The U.S. Army developed a new tool called the Behavioral Health Readiness and Suicide Risk Reduction Review (R4) for suicide prevention. A 12-month evaluation study with the primary objective of testing the hypothesis (H1) that Army units receiving R4 would demonstrate improved outcomes in suicidal-behavior measures following the intervention, relative to control, was then conducted. The results of analyses to answer H1 are herein presented. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The R4 intervention (R4-tools/instructions/orientation) evaluation study, Institutional Review Board approved and conducted in May 2019-June 2020, drew samples from two U.S. Army divisions and employed a repeated measurement in pre-/post-quasi-experimental design, including a nonequivalent, but comparable, business-as-usual control. Intervention effectiveness was evaluated using self-report responses to suicide-related measures (Suicide Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised/total-suicide behaviors/ideations/plans/attempts/non-suicidal self-injuries) at 6-/12-month intervals. Analyses examined baseline to follow-up linked and cross-sectional cohorts, incidence/prevalence, and intervention higher-/lower-use R4 subanalyses. RESULTS: Both divisions demonstrated favorable in-study reductions in total-suicide burden, with relatively equivalent trends for total-suicide behaviors, total-suicide risk (Suicide Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised), suicidal ideations, and non-suicidal self-injuries. Although both demonstrated reductions in suicide plans, the control showed a more robust trend. Neither division demonstrated a significant reduction in suicide attempts, but subgroup analyses showed a significant reduction in pre-coronavirus disease 2019-attempt incidence among those with higher-use R4 relative to control. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of harm associated with the R4 intervention. R4 effectiveness as a function of R4 itself requires confirmatory study. R4 is judged an improvement (no evidence of harm + weak evidence of effectiveness) over the status quo (no safety data or effectiveness studies) with regard to tool-based decision-making support for suicide prevention in the U.S. Army.

Far Forward Behavioral Health Service Delivery in Future Combat Environments: A Qualitative Needs Assessment.

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.

Behavioral Health Provider Attitudes Toward Behavioral Health Profiles in the U.S. Army.

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.

Results of the Behavioral Health Readiness Evaluation and Decision-Making Instrument Study.

INTRODUCTION: Recent reports have demonstrated behavioral health (BH) system and individual provider challenges to BH readiness success. These pose a risk to winning on the battlefield and present a significant safety issue for the Army. One of the most promising areas for achieving better BH readiness results lies in improving readiness decision-making support for BH providers. The Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) has taken the lead in addressing this challenge by developing and empirically testing such tools. The results of the Behavioral Health Readiness Evaluation and Decision-Making Instrument (B-REDI) field study are herein described. METHODS: The B-REDI study received WRAIR Institutional Review Board approval, and BH providers across five U.S. Army Forces Command installations completed surveys from September 2018 to March 2019. The B-REDI tools/training were disseminated to 307 providers through random clinic assignments. Of these, 250 (81%) providers consented to participate and 149 (60%) completed both initial and 3-month follow-up surveys. Survey items included a wide range of satisfaction, utilization, and proficiency-level outcome measures. Analyses included examinations of descriptive statistics, McNemar's tests pre-/post-B-REDI exposure, Z-tests with subgroup populations, and chi-square tests with demographic comparisons. RESULTS: The B-REDI resulted in broad, statistically significant improvements across the measured range of provider proficiency-level outcomes. Net gains in each domain ranged from 16.5% to 22.9% for knowledge/awareness (P = .000), from 11.1% to 15.8% for personal confidence (P = .001-.000), and from 6.2% to 15.1% for decision-making/documentation (P = .035-.002) 3 months following B-REDI initiation, and only one (knowledge) failed to maintain a statistically significant improvement in all of its subcategories. The B-REDI also received high favorability ratings (79%-97% positive) across a wide array of end-user satisfaction measures. CONCLUSIONS: The B-REDI directly addresses several critical Army BH readiness challenges by providing tangible decision-making support solutions for BH providers. Providers reported high degrees of end-user B-REDI satisfaction and significant improvements in all measured provider proficiency-level domains. By effectively addressing the readiness decision-making challenges Army BH providers encounter, B-REDI provides the Army BH health care system with a successful blueprint to set the conditions necessary for providers to make more accurate and timely readiness determinations. This may ultimately reduce safety and mission failure risks enterprise-wide, and policymakers should consider formalizing and integrating the B-REDI model into current Army BH practice.

Methodology of the U.S. Army's Suicide Prevention Leadership Tool Study: The Behavioral Health Readiness and Suicide Risk Reduction Review (R4).

INTRODUCTION: The Secretary of the U.S. Army issued two directives in late 2017 to directly combat the problem of suicide in the U.S. Army. The first was to develop an Army tool to assist commanders and first-line leaders in preventing suicide and improving behavioral health (BH) outcomes, which has been previously published as the BH Readiness and Risk Reduction Review (R4). The second was to conduct an evaluation study of the tool with Army units in the field. This study is the first to empirically examine the Army's tool-based methods for identifying and caring for the health and welfare of soldiers at risk for suicide, and this article outlines the methodology employed to study the effectiveness of the R4 tools and accomplish the Secretary's second directive. METHODS: The Walter Reed Army Institute of Research Institutional Review Board approved the R4 study. The study employed a repeated measurements in pre/post quasi-experimental design, including a nonequivalent but comparable business-as-usual control group. The R4 intervention consisted of the R4 tools, accompanying instructions, and an orientation. Samples were drawn from two geographically separated U.S. Army divisions in the continental United States, each composed of four comparable brigades. Study implementation consisted of three phases and three data collections over the course of 12 months. Soldiers completed anonymous survey instruments to assess a range of health factors, behaviors, characteristics, tool-related decision-making processes, and the frequency, type, and quality of interactions between soldiers and leaders. RESULTS: The R4 study commenced on May 6, 2019, and concluded on June 4, 2020. Sample size goals were achieved for both the divisions at all three data collection time points. CONCLUSIONS: The methodology of the R4 study is critical for the U.S. Army from both a precedential and an outcome-based standpoint. Despite the use of many previous tools and programs for suicide prevention, this is the first time the Army has been able to empirically test the effectiveness of tool-supported decision-making among Army units in a rigorous fashion. The methodology of such a test is a critical marker for future interventional inquiries on the subject of suicide in the Army, and the results will allow for more informed decision-making by leaders when approaching these ongoing challenges.

Risk of Secondary Traumatic Stress in Treating Traumatized Military Populations: Results from the PTSD Clinicians Exchange.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined risk factors for secondary traumatic stress (STS) in behavioral health clinicians and whether access to the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Clinicians Exchange website mitigated STS risk. METHODS: A diverse sample of clinicians (N = 605) treating traumatized military populations in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Department of Defense, and community practice settings were randomized to a newsletter-only control group or the exchange group. The exchange website included resources for treating PTSD and promoting clinician well-being. Online surveys were administered at 0-, 6-, and 12-months postrandomization. Regression analyses were used to examine the link among risk factors, exchange access, and STS. RESULTS: Baseline clinician demographics, experience, total caseload, appeal of evidence-based practices (EBPs), and likelihood of adopting EBPs if required were not linked with STS at the 12-month assessment period. Providing care at the VA, more burnout, less compassion satisfaction, greater trauma caseload, less openness to new EBPs, and greater divergence from EBP procedures were linked with greater STS. Only burnout and divergence were associated with STS after accounting for other significant STS risk factors. Exchange and control group clinicians reported similar STS levels after accounting for burnout and divergence. CONCLUSIONS: Given that burnout was linked with STS, future intervention may use techniques targeting burnout and STS (eg, emotion regulation strategies). Research exploring the link between divergence from EBPs and STS may inform EBP dissemination efforts and STS interventions. Finally, results highlight the need for research optimizing STS intervention efficacy among clinicians treating military populations.

Soldier Attitudes Toward Behavioral Health Profiles in the US Army.

INTRODUCTION: Behavioral health (BH) readiness is a critical component of U.S. Army personnel readiness. Medical providers issue BH profiles in order to communicate BH-related duty limitations to the commander and reflect BH force readiness on both micro/macro-levels. A recent report indicates BH profile underutilization may be significantly elevating U.S. Army safety and mission-failure risks, and a study of BH provider decision-making suggests some providers may be hesitant to use profiles due to concerns that soldiers' attitudes toward BH profiles may negatively impact treatment utilization. This potential link, however, has not been empirically examined. This study addresses this gap by assessing soldiers' attitudes towards BH profiles to better understand how BH profiles may impact treatment utilization and explore for any BH profile-related stigma effect. METHODS: Approved by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) Institutional Review Board as part of the Land Combat Study II, the survey specific to this study included eight WRAIR-developed items assessing soldier attitudes toward BH profiles. Soldiers (N = 1,043) from two active duty U.S. Army brigades completed cross-sectional, anonymous surveys in 2017-2018. Soldier self-reported BH care utilization was assessed and used to create sub-groups for analysis. RESULTS: A majority of soldiers indicated that being placed on a BH profile would make them as or more likely to seek (71%) and no more or less likely to drop out (84%) of BH care. Among soldiers who had received BH care, BH profiles were associated with more favorable treatment seeking attitudes among those inclined to access conventional BH services and less favorable treatment seeking and maintenance attitudes among those inclined to access BH services from sources incapable of issuing profiles. Negative attitudes towards BH profiles were significantly more prevalent when compared to physical injury profiles, except in the group who had received BH care from a source incapable of issuing a profile. No significant proportional differences were observed among soldiers toward the rationale for BH profiles. Almost all soldiers (95% or greater) preferred their BH condition not come to the commander's attention during pre-deployment screening (SRP), choosing either BH profile or crisis options instead. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest soldiers who would be less likely to seek or more likely to drop out of BH care due to a BH profile may be those that are less likely to access conventional BH services in the first place. This may provide some preliminary reassurance to conventional providers that increased BH profiling practices may not be inversely proportional to the amount of BH care delivered and may encourage treatment-seeking behaviors among the population they serve. Soldiers seeking BH care from sources incapable of issuing a profile may be sensitive to a potential BH profile-related stigma effect (possibly more global profile-related effect in this group), which should be factored into policy outreach efforts. A BH profile represents a more palatable BH duty limitation disclosure option for many soldiers, and supports the merits of a disclosure process that is earlier than SRP for promoting risk mitigation and more honest appraisals of BH mission-readiness levels.