Examining the Role of Self-Harm in the Relationship between Emergency Department Service Utilization and Trauma-Induced Homelessness among Homeless Individuals in Texas.

Homelessness is a complex public health problem in the United States. Current or ongoing history of trauma among individuals adds to the complexity and challenges of homelessness. Our study assessed the moderating role of self-harm in the association between emergency department (ED) service utilization and trauma-induced homelessness (TIH) among adults in Texas. Homeless adults (N = 282) who completed their baseline Vulnerability Index Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Prescreen Tool survey between February 2021 and February 2022 at a Local Mental Health Authority in Texas were selected. The outcome variable, TIH, was assessed by current period of homelessness due to experiencing trauma or abuse. The main independent variable was ED utilization, while self-harm in the past year was assessed as the moderating variable. A multivariate logistic regression with a moderation analysis was conducted while adjusting for the covariates. Individuals who utilized ED services and engaged in self-harm and risky behaviors had greater odds of experiencing current period of TIH. Male respondents were less likely to experience TIH. Finally, engaging in self-harm significantly moderated the association between ED service use and TIH. This study may help inform efforts to develop tailored interventions and promote resilience-based approaches to improve health outcomes among individuals experiencing homelessness due to TIH.

Evolution of the peer specialist role during COVID-19: Challenges and opportunities for innovation beyond the COVID-19 era.

OBJECTIVE: To examine peer specialist role-related challenges and opportunities in adapting to a new model of service provision during and beyond the COVID-19 era. METHOD: This mixed-methods study analyzes data from a survey (n = 186) as well as in-depth interviews (n = 30) with certified peer specialists in Texas. RESULTS: Peers described facing several challenges related to COVID-19 service delivery (e.g., fewer options for providing peer support, issues with access to reliable technology) as well as challenges related to adapting to changes to the peer role (e.g., challenges supporting people in services' community resource needs, challenges building rapport with people in services virtually). However, results also indicate that a new model of service provision during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic presented peers with new opportunities to provide enhanced peer services, new career development opportunities, and new opportunities related to increased job flexibility. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Results suggest the importance of developing trainings on providing virtual peer support, increasing technological access for peers and individuals in services, and providing peers with flexible job options and resiliency-focused supervision. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Do screening and a randomized brief intervention at a Level 1 trauma center impact acute stress reactions to prevent later development of posttraumatic stress disorder?

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% to 40% of trauma survivors experience posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma reports that early screening and referral has the potential to improve outcomes and that further study of screening and intervention for PTSD would be beneficial. This prospective randomized study screened hospitalized patients for traumatic stress reactions and assessed the effect of a brief intervention in reducing later development of PTSD. METHODS: The Primary Care PTSD (PC-PTSD) screen was administered to admitted patients. Patients with symptoms were randomized to an intervention or control group. The brief intervention focused on symptom education and normalization, coping strategies, and utilizing supports. The control group received a 3-minute educational brochure review. Both groups completed in-hospital interviews, then 45- and 90-day telephone interviews. Follow-up collected the PTSD checklist-civilian (PCL-C) assessment and qualitative data on treatment-seeking barriers. RESULTS: The PC-PTSD screen was successful in predicting later PTSD symptoms at both 45 days (ß = 0.43, p < 0.001) and 90 days (ß = 0.37, p < 0.001) even after accounting for depression. Correlations of the intervention with the PCL-C scores and factor score estimates did not reach statistical significance at either time point (p = 0.827; p = 0.838), indicating that the brief intervention did not decrease PTSD symptoms over time. Of those at or above the PCL-C cutoff at follow-ups, a minority had sought treatment for their symptoms (43.2%). Primary barriers included focusing on their injury or ongoing rehabilitation, financial concerns, or location of residence. CONCLUSION: The PC-PTSD screen identified patients who later assess positive for PTSD using the PCL-C. The brief intervention did not reduce 45- and 90-day PTSD development. Follow-up interviews revealed lack of treatment infrastructure in the community. It will be important for trauma centers to align with community resources to address the treatment needs of at-risk patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective randomized controlled trial, level II.