In-office, in-home, and telehealth cognitive processing therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder in veterans: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Trauma-focused psychotherapies for combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in military veterans are efficacious, but there are many barriers to receiving treatment. The objective of this study was to determine if cognitive processing therapy (CPT) for PTSD among active duty military personnel and veterans would result in increased acceptability, fewer dropouts, and better outcomes when delivered In-Home or by Telehealth as compared to In-Office treatment. METHODS: The trial used an equipoise-stratified randomization design in which participants (N = 120) could decline none or any 1 arm of the study and were then randomized equally to 1 of the remaining arms. Therapists delivered CPT in 12 sessions lasting 60-min each. Self-reported PTSD symptoms on the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) served as the primary outcome. RESULTS: Over half of the participants (57%) declined 1 treatment arm. Telehealth was the most acceptable and least often refused delivery format (17%), followed by In-Office (29%), and In-Home (54%); these differences were significant (p = 0.0008). Significant reductions in PTSD symptoms occurred with all treatment formats (p < .0001). Improvement on the PCL-5 was about twice as large in the In-Home (d = 2.1) and Telehealth (d = 2.0) formats than In-Office (d = 1.3); those differences were statistically large and significant (d = 0.8, 0.7 and p = 0.009, 0.014, respectively). There were no significant differences between In-Home and Telehealth outcomes (p = 0.77, d = -.08). Dropout from treatment was numerically lowest when therapy was delivered In-Home (25%) compared to Telehealth (34%) and In-Office (43%), but these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: CPT delivered by telehealth is an efficient and effective treatment modality for PTSD, especially considering in-person restrictions resulting from COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02290847 (Registered 13/08/2014; First Posted Date 14/11/2014).

A randomized pilot study of MOtiVation and Enhancement (MOVE) Training for negative symptoms in schizophrenia.

INTRODUCTION: Among individuals with schizophrenia, those who have persistent and clinically significant negative symptoms (PNS) have the poorest functional outcomes and quality of life. The NIMH-MATRICS Consensus Statement indicated that these symptoms represent an unmet therapeutic need for large numbers of individuals with schizophrenia. No psychosocial treatment model addresses the entire constellation of PNS. METHOD: 51 patients with PNS were randomized into one of two groups for a period of 9 months: 1) MOtiVation and Enhancement (MOVE) or 2) treatment as usual. MOVE is a home based, manual-driven, multi-modal treatment that employs a number of cognitive and behavioral principles to address the broad range of factors contributing to PNS and their functional consequences. The components of MOVE include: Environmental supports to prompt initiation and persistence, in-vivo skills training to ameliorate deficits and encourage interaction, cognitive behavioral techniques to address self-defeating attitudes, in-vivo training in emotional processing to address affective blunting and problems in identifying emotions, and specific techniques to address the deficits in anticipatory pleasure. Patients were assessed at baseline and each 3 months with multiple measures of negative symptoms. RESULTS: Repeated measures analyses of variance for mixed models indicated significant Group by Time effects for the Negative Symptom Assessment (NSA; p<.02) and the Clinical Assessment Interview for Negative Symptoms (CAINS; p<.04). Group differences were not significant until 9 months of treatment and were not significant for the Brief Negative Symptom Scale (BNSS). CONCLUSION: Further investigation of a comprehensive treatment for PNS, such as MOVE, is warranted.

Barriers to, and strategies for, starting a long acting injection clinic in a community mental health center.

As many as 50% of patients with schizophrenia do not take oral antipsychotic medications as prescribed, yet long acting injections are rarely utilized. Community agencies that serve this population are often over-burdened and poorly funded. There are negative attitudes on the part of both physicians and consumers about injections. Transportation and logistics are often problematic. We describe the unique opportunity provided by the need for bi-weekly or monthly injections to establish a recovery-oriented group around injection visits. Our approach discusses methods and resources to help overcome some of the common barriers by establishing advocates within the agency, establishing necessary infrastructure, providing education for consumers, providers, and staff, sharing information about successful outcomes with clinic staff and working through billing issues. We also recommend public advocacy on the part of the clinic and consumers to work with state funding sources to change regulations that may limit appropriate clinical care.