Meaning in life moderates the association between morally injurious experiences and suicide ideation among U.S. combat veterans: Results from the National Health and Resilience in Veterans Study.

OBJECTIVE: Effectively responding to suicide risk among veterans involves further developing understanding of reactions to combat experiences, including life-threatening events, traumatic losses, and morally injurious experiences. An important determinant of whether stressors lead to poor mental health outcomes is the perception of meaning. The current study aimed to determine whether global meaning (i.e., general beliefs, goals, and sense of purpose in life) moderates the relationship between morally injurious experiences and suicide ideation among combat veterans. METHOD: This analysis examined 564 participants in the National Health and Resilience in Veterans Study, which surveyed a nationally representative sample of U.S. military veterans, who reported a history of deployment to a combat zone. Multivariable logistic regressions examined interactions between morally injurious experiences and global meaning as predictors of the likelihood of current suicide ideation. RESULTS: There were significant interactions between global meaning and 2 morally injurious experience subtypes-transgressions by others and betrayal experiences. Higher global meaning was associated with significantly lower likelihood of experiencing suicide ideation at higher levels of transgression by others and betrayal experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans who report higher levels of morally injurious experiences involving transgressions by others and betrayal experiences in the presence of higher levels of global meaning are significantly less likely to experience suicide ideation. Continued research is needed to determine whether interventions aimed at cultivating global meaning may help mitigate suicide risk in combat veterans with high exposure to certain potentially morally injurious experiences. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The psychometric properties of the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality rating scale.

OBJECTIVE: The CAMS Rating Scale (CRS) is an adherence measure for the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS), a suicide-specific clinical intervention. This study examined the ability of the CRS to assess adherence to CAMS. METHODS: Video-recorded therapy sessions of clinicians delivering either CAMS or Enhanced Care-As-Usual (E-CAU) were rated with the CRS. These ratings (N = 98) were used to evaluate criterion validity, internal consistency, and factor structure. RESULTS: Criterion validity and factor analyses did not support the organization of the CRS into its current subscales. Furthermore, the identified factor model and item-level statistics revealed weak CRS items. Finally, internal consistency was higher among CAMS clinicians than among clinicians delivering E-CAU. CONCLUSION: These results establish the CRS as a measure that can effectively assess the adherence to CAMS in its current form. Potential revisions to future iterations of the CRS are discussed.

Assessing the Reliability of the CAMS Rating Scale Using a Generalizability Study.

Background: An important consideration when conducting randomized controlled trials is treatment differentiation. Direct observation helps ensure that providers in different treatment groups are delivering distinct interventions. One direct observation method is the use of a measure to rate clinician performance when delivering an intervention. Aims: This generalizability study evaluated the reliability of the CAMS Rating Scale (CRS), a measure used to assess delivery of the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS). Method: Digitally recorded tapes of clinicians delivering either CAMS or Enhanced Care-As-Usual (E-CAU) were coded using the CRS. Sessions (N = 36) were each coded by two raters, and encompassed four clinicians, four time points, and 34 unique patients across two treatment groups. A reliability coefficient (i.e., G coefficient) and the percentages of variance contributed by each component of the measurement model were obtained. Results: The CRS reliably differentiates CAMS from E-CAU, minimizes measurement error relative to expected variance sources, and continues to demonstrate high inter-rater reliability. Limitations: The absence of blind raters, a formal training protocol for the rating team, and ratings from all clinician-patient dyads at all time points was a limitation. Conclusion: The CRS is a reliable treatment differentiation measure that can play an integral role in studies evaluating CAMS.

Word count as an indicator of suicide risk in an inpatient setting.

The current study replicates a previously used methodology with a suicidal inpatient sample regarding word counts generated by participants writing about suicidal constructs. Word counts (i.e., the number of written words) on the Suicide Status Form from initial sessions with suicidal inpatients were compared to self-rated suicide risk scores as well as to continuous and repeated measures of hopelessness and suicide ideation assessed over the course of inpatient care. Results showed that higher word counts were associated with initially higher suicide ideation scores that steadily declined over the course of treatment. Lower word counts were associated with lower initial hopelessness scores that increased during treatment before ultimately decreasing. In addition, word count was not found to be a significant predictor of self-rated suicide risk. Clinical implications of these data and future directions are discussed.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality versus Enhanced Care as Usual With Suicidal Soldiers.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes a randomized controlled trial called "Operation Worth Living" (OWL) which compared the use of the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) to enhanced care as usual (E-CAU). We hypothesized that CAMS would be more effective than E-CAU for reducing suicidal ideation (SI) and suicide attempts (SA), along with secondary behavioral health and health care utilization markers for U.S. Army Soldier outpatients with significant SI (i.e., > 13 on Beck's Scale for Suicide Ideation). METHOD: Study participants were 148 Soldiers who presented to a military outpatient behavioral health clinic. There were 73 Soldiers in the experimental arm of the trial who received adherent CAMS; 75 Soldiers received E-CAU. Nine a-priori treatment outcomes (SI, past year SA, suicide-related emergency department (ED) admits, behavioral health-related ED admits, suicide-related inpatient psychiatric unit (IPU) days, behavioral health-related IPU days, mental health, psychiatric distress, resiliency) were measured through assessments at Baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-Baseline (with a 78% retention of intent-to-treat participants at 12 months). RESULTS: Soldiers in both arms of the trial responded to study treatments in terms of all primary and secondary outcomes (effect sizes ranged from 0.63 to 12.04). CAMS participants were significantly less likely to have any suicidal thoughts by 3 months in comparison to those in E-CAU (Cohen's d = 0.93, p=.028). CONCLUSIONS: Soldiers receiving CAMS and E-CAU significantly improved post-treatment. Those who received CAMS were less likely to report SI at 3 months; further group differences were not otherwise seen.

Assessing and treating different suicidal states in a danish outpatient sample.

The studies presented compare two methodologies for categorizing suicidal patients based on clinical data. Discussion follows regarding implications for risk assessment and treatment. In these studies, 52 outpatient subjects were placed into different groups based on coding their "suicidal motivation" (Study 1) and their "internal struggle" ratings (Study 2) using data collected at intake. Self-report ratings of 6 Suicide Status Form (SSF) Core Constructs (Psychological Pain, Stress, Agitation, Hopelessness, Self-Hate, and Overall Risk of Suicide) recorded both at intake and at completion of treatment were then compared to determine differences in Core Construct ratings among groups at different time points. In Study 1, overall differences among motivation groups (Life-motivated, Ambivalent, and Death-motivated) were significant for ratings at treatment completion of Overall Risk of Suicide, Self-Hate, and Psychological Pain. In Study 2, overall differences among groups (Wish to live, Ambivalent, and Wish to die) were significant for ratings at intake of Overall Risk of Suicide. At completion of treatment, overall differences among groups were significant for ratings of Overall Risk of Suicide, Hopelessness, and Self-Hate. In addition, significant interactions were found between test time and group for Overall Risk of Suicide and Self-Hate. Results suggest that categorizing suicidal patients by motivation and by the nature of their internal struggle could be beneficial to differential risk assessment with implications for clinical treatment.