The Good, The Bad, The Uncertain: Diverse Provider Experiences with Telemental Health During COVID-19.

This study assessed mental health provider attitudes and perceptions of telemental health (TMH) prior to and during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The study expands on earlier work by providing a more detailed qualitative analysis of provider perceptions of TMH, including its efficacy, advantages, and limitations. The current study is part of a larger mixed methods project utilizing a repeated cross-sectional design. An online survey was administered to a sample of 1,448 mental health providers. Of the survey participants, 934 offered narrative responses to open-ended questions and were included in the present study. Qualitative data was analyzed using a coding team and the Consensual Qualitative Research paradigm. Providers described both positive and negative feelings about using TMH during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Several advantages were identified, with providers clearly appreciating the role of TMH in allowing them to work continuously and safely during the public health emergency. An array of negative views and concerns were also expressed, including that TMH may not be optimal or effective in certain settings or situations. A portion of respondents also indicated a preference for face-to-face care and illuminated ways they found TMH lacking or limited.

In Their Own Words: Veteran Experiences with Evidence-Based Treatments for PTSD in the Veterans Health Administration.

The aim of the present study was to increase the understanding of veteran experiences with receiving an evidence-based psychotherapy (EBPs) for PTSD (Cognitive Processing Therapy and Prolonged Exposure therapy) in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (VA). Eighteen veterans who participated in the study were being seen in the outpatient PTSD clinic at a New England VA and had elected to participate in an EBP. The study assessed veteran experiences with, and outcomes from, treatment through the use of both quantitative and qualitative assessment tools. A rigorous data analytic approach, Consensual Qualitative Research, was applied to narrative data. Results fell into seven domains: Previous EBP & Outcome, Barriers to Treatment, Treatment Process, Treatment Outcome, Treatment Drop Out, and Feelings about Treatment. Overall, veterans reported diverse reactions to the EBPs for PTSD and identified both positive and negative aspects of the treatments. They identified multiple barriers to treatment completion and provided insight into their thoughts and feelings during the treatment protocol. Veterans who chose to drop out of treatment prematurely identified the factors that contributed to this decision. In this way, the study offers an initial but important look at veteran perceptions of and experiences with EBPs for PTSD.

In Their Own Words: Clinician Experiences and Challenges in Administering Evidence-Based Treatments for PTSD in the Veterans Health Administration.

The aim of the present study was to increase the understanding of clinician experiences with administering two evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) for PTSD (Cognitive Processing Therapy and Prolonged Exposure therapy) in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (VA). The study assessed clinician perceptions through the use of two, one-hour focus groups and employed a rigorous data analysis approach, Consensual Qualitative Research. Clinicians who work in an outpatient PTSD clinic at a New England VA, and who routinely administer EPBs for PTSD, participated in the study. Results were categorized into seven domains by the coding team, including 1) EBP Strengths, 2) EBP Weaknesses, 3) Challenges Specific to the Veteran Population, 4) Perceived EBP Effectiveness, 5) Active Ingredients for Treating PTSD, 6) Treatment Structure and Process, and 7) Suggested Changes/Improvements to EBPs. These domains are discussed in detail, with several core ideas falling under each domain. Operational definitions and representative quotes are provided. Overall, clinicians provided a balanced perspective and identified both strengths and weaknesses of the EBPs for PTSD. They identified several challenges in applying these treatments to veteran populations, and shared their beliefs about treatment effectiveness, how they use these treatments in their clinical practice, and how they would change the treatments if given an opportunity to do so. In this way, the study offers a small but important step in attempting to address the science-practice gap related to EBP for PTSD implementation efforts in the VA.