Costs, benefits, and cost-benefit of Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality versus enhanced treatment as usual.

Suicide rates have been steadily increasing in both the U.S. general population and military, with significant psychological and economic consequences. The purpose of the current study was to examine the economic costs and cost-benefit of the suicide-focused Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) intervention versus enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU) in an active duty military sample using data from a recent randomized controlled trial of CAMS versus ETAU. The full intent-to-treat sample included 148 participants (mean age 26.8 years ± 5.9 SD years, 80% male, 53% White). Using a micro-costing approach, the cost of each condition was calculated at the individual level from a healthcare system perspective. Benefits were estimated at the individual level as cost savings in past-year healthcare expenditures based on direct care reimbursement rates. Cost-benefit was examined in the form of cost-benefit ratios and net benefit. Total costs, benefits, cost-benefit ratios, and net benefit were calculated and analyzed using general linear mixed modeling on multiply imputed datasets. Results indicated that treatment costs did not differ significantly between conditions; however, CAMS was found to produce significantly greater benefit in the form of decreased healthcare expenditures at 6-month follow-up. CAMS also demonstrated significantly greater cost-benefit ratios (i.e., benefit per dollar spent on treatment) and net-benefit (i.e., total benefit less the cost of treatment) at 12-month follow-up. The current study suggests that beyond its clinical effectiveness, CAMS may also convey potential economic advantages over usual care for the treatment of suicidal active duty service members. Our findings demonstrate cost savings in the form of reduced healthcare expenditures, which theoretically represent resources that can be reallocated toward other healthcare system needs, and thus lend support toward the overall value of CAMS.

Impact of financial reimbursement on retention rates in military clinical trial research: A natural experiment within a multi-site randomized effectiveness trial with active duty service members.

INTRODUCTION: Achieving adequate retention rates in clinical trials is essential to ensuring meaningful results. Although financial reimbursement is an effective strategy to increase participant retention, current policies restrict the use of federal funds to reimburse U.S. active duty Service members for research participation. It is unknown whether permitting financial reimbursement among this population would improve trial retention rates. A recent randomized effectiveness trial received approval to provide reimbursement to Service member participants several months after recruitment began, creating a natural experiment to study the effects of financial reimbursement on retention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Active duty Service members recruited from six U.S. military treatment facilities (N = 666) were enrolled in a collaborative care study and completed assessments at baseline, three-, six-, and 12-months. Data on study assessment completion rates at three- and six-months were analyzed using the mixed-effects binary logit model to determine the probabilities of completing assessments based on reimbursement status. RESULTS: Participants who received reimbursement were significantly more likely to complete study assessments at both time-points than participants who did not receive reimbursement (p < 0.01). Survey completion was 5% and 4% greater among participants offered reimbursement at three- and six-month time-points, respectively. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that providing Service members with reimbursement for research participation is associated with modest increases in retention rates in clinical trials. Findings provide useful insight for researchers, funding agencies, and policy-makers in considering retention strategies to maximize the value and impact of military research.

Rescaling the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for Use in Primary Care.

The Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist (PCL) is a 17-item self-report measure of PTSD symptom severity that has demonstrated excellent psychometric properties across a variety of settings, purposes, and populations. The PCL is widely used in busy Department of Defense primary care settings as part of routine PTSD screening, requiring that it is easy for patients to complete and providers to score. The clinical utility of the PCL may be improved through use of a zero-anchored Likert-type response scale by providing intuitive anchors for respondents and fewer calculations for clinic staff; however, changes to the response scale may invalidate the known psychometric properties of the measure. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the equivalence of a zero-anchored PCL to the traditional one-anchored PCL. Differences in total scores were examined using inferential confidence intervals. Substantial overlap of the inferential confidence intervals and small Rg (maximum probable difference) value of 0.68 indicated that the zero-anchored PCL is equivalent to the one-anchored PCL on the basis of our specified delta (amount of difference considered inconsequential). These findings support the use of a zero-anchored PCL in clinical practice, and more broadly, the use of zero-anchored measures in the larger field of psychological assessment.

Deployment, combat, and risk of multiple physical symptoms in the US military: a prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Multiple physical symptoms (MPS) have historically been observed after deployment to a combat zone and are often disabling in nature. This study examined longitudinal trends in MPS status and its relationship to deployment in U.S. military service members. METHODS: Using longitudinal data from panel 1 participants in the Millennium Cohort Study (n = 76,924), MPS status was assessed at three time points (2001-2008) using the 15-item Patient Health Questionnaire. Probability of reporting MPS was analyzed using mixed-effects multinomial logit regression, with time and deployment experience as main explanatory variables. RESULTS: After adjustment for demographic, military, and health characteristics, service members who deployed with combat were significantly more likely to report MPS at each time point compared with those not deployed (odds ratio [OR] and 95% confidence interval [CI] for wave 1 = 1.49 [1.47-1.52], wave 2 = 1.73 [1.69-1.78], wave 3 = 2.08 [2.03-2.12]), and those who deployed without combat (OR and CI for wave 1 = 2.66 [2.59-2.74], wave 2 = 1.81 [1.75-1.87]; wave 3 = 1.68 [1.63-1.74]). CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal trends indicate that the probability of reporting MPS has increased consistently over time only for those deployed, regardless of combat experience.

Operating characteristics of the PTSD checklist in a military primary care setting.

The Department of Defense (DoD) is implementing universal behavioral health screening for all DoD health-care beneficiaries presenting to military primary care clinics. The PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version (PCL-C; Weathers, Litz, Herman, Huska, & Keane, 1993) is used for the identification of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); however, the operating characteristics of the PCL-C remain unstudied in this population. This study examined the operating characteristics of the PCL-C in a sample of 213 patients from 3 Washington, D.C., area military primary care clinics. Blinded raters independently assessed PTSD using the PTSD Symptom Scale Interview (Foa, Riggs, Dancu, & Rothbaum, 1993) as the diagnostic criterion standard. The receiver operating characteristic curve revealed that PCL-C scores accounted for 92% of the area under the curve. A PCL-C score of 31 optimized sensitivity (0.93) and specificity (0.90), and the multilevel likelihood ratio was 5.50 (95% confidence interval [2.26, 13.37]). Internal consistency (0.97) and test-retest reliability (0.87 after a median 13 days) were strong. Results suggest that a PCL-C score of 31 is the optimal cutoff score for use in a military primary care setting serving active duty service members, dependents, and retirees. These findings offer military primary care providers preliminary data to interpret PCL-C scores and to inform treatment decisions as part of routine clinical practice.