Mental Health

Following exposure to potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs), some individuals may experience moral injury, which represents negative psychological, social, behavioral, and occasionally spiritual impacts.¹ The consequences of PMIE exposure and moral injury are well documented. Individuals may begin to question the goodness and trustworthiness of oneself, others, or the world.¹ Examples of other sequelae include guilt, demoralization, spiritual pain, loss of trust in the self or others, and difficulties with forgiveness.^2-6 In addition, prior studies have found that moral injury is associated with an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, spiritual distress, and interpersonal difficulties.^7-11

Moral injury was first conceptualized in relation to combat trauma. However in recent years it has been examined in other groups such as health care practitioners, educators, refugees, and law enforcement personnel.^12-17 Furthermore, there has been a recent call for the study of moral injury in other understudied groups. One such group is legal-involved individuals, defined as those who are currently involved or previously involved in the criminal justice system (ie, arrests, incarceration, parole, and probation).^1,18-22

Many veterans are also involved with the legal system. Specifically, veterans currently comprise about 8% of the incarcerated US population, with an estimated > 180,000 veterans in prisons or jails and even more on parole or probation.^23,24 Legal-involved veterans may be at heightened risk for homelessness, suicide, unemployment, and high prevalence rates of psychiatric diagnoses.^25-28

Limited research has explored exposure to PMIEs as part of the legal process and the resulting expression of moral injury. The circumstances leading to incarceration, interactions with the US legal system, the environment of prison itself, and the subsequent challenges faced by legal-involved individuals after release all provide ample opportunity for PMIEs to occur.¹⁸ For example, engaging in a criminal act may represent a PMIE, particularly in violent offenses that involve harm to another individual. Moreover, the process of being convicted and charged with an offense may serve as a powerful reminder of the PMIE and tie this event to the individual’s identity and future. Furthermore, the physical and social environment of prison itself (eg, being surrounded by other offenders, witnessing the perpetration of violence, participating in violence for survival) presents a myriad of opportunities for PMIEs to occur.¹⁸

The consequences of PMIEs in the context of legal involvement may also have bearing on a touchstone of moral injury: changes in one’s schema of the self and world.⁴ At a societal level, legal-involved individuals are, by definition, deemed “guilty” and held culpable for their offense, which may reinforce a negative change in one’s view of self and the world.²⁹ In line with identity theory, external negative appraisals about legal-involved individuals (eg, they are a danger to society, they cannot be trusted to do the right thing) may influence their self-perception.³⁰ Furthermore, the affective characteristics often found in the context of moral injury (eg, guilt, shame, anger, contempt) may be exacerbated by legal involvement.²⁹ Personal feelings of guilt and shame may be reinforced by receiving a verdict and sentence, as well as the negative perceptions of individuals around them (eg, disapproval from prior sources of social support). Additionally, feelings of betrayal and distrust towards the legal system may arise.

In sum, legal-involved veterans incur increased risk of moral injury due to the potential for exposure to PMIEs across multiple time points (eg, prior to military service, during military service, during arrest/sentencing, during imprisonment, and postincarceration). The stigma that accompanies legal involvement may limit access to treatment or a willingness to seek treatment for distress related to moral injury.²⁹ Additionally, repeated exposure to PMIEs and resulting moral injury may compound over time, potentially exacerbating psychosocial functioning and increasing the risk for psychosocial stressors (eg, homelessness, unemployment) and mental health disorders (eg, depression, substance misuse).³¹

Although numerous measures of moral injury have been developed, most require that respondents consider a specific context (eg, military experiences).³² Therefore, study of legal-related moral injury requires adaptation of existing instruments to the legal context. The original and most commonly used scale of moral injury is the Moral Injury Events Scale (MIES).³³ The MIES scales was originally developed to measure moral injury in military-related contexts but has since been adapted as a measure of exposure to context-specific PMIEs.³⁴

Unfortunately, there are no validated measures for assessing legal-related moral injury. Such a gap in understanding is problematic, as it may impact measurement of the prevalence of PMIEs in both clinical and research settings for this at-risk population. The goal of this study was to conduct a psychometric evaluation of an adapted version of the MIES for legal-involved persons (MIES-LIP).

METHODS

A total of 177 veterans from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) North Texas Health Care System were contacted for study enrollment between November 2020 and June 2021, yielding a final sample of 100 legal-involved veteran participants. Adults aged ≥ 18 years who were US military veterans and had ≥ 1 prior felony conviction resulting in incarceration were included. Participants were excluded if they had symptoms of psychosis that would preclude meaningful participation.

The study collected data on participants’ demographic and clinical characteristics using a semistructured survey instrument. Each participant completed an instructor-led questionnaire in a session that lasted about 1.5 hours. Participants who completed the visit in person received a $50 cash voucher for their time. Participants who were unable to meet with the study coordinator in person were able to complete the visit via telephone and received a $25 digital gift card. Of the total 100 participants, 79 participants completed the interview in person, and 21 completed by telephone. No significant differences were found in assessment measures between administration methods. Written informed consent was obtained during all in-person visits. For those completing via telephone, a waiver of written informed consent was obtained. This study was approved by the VA North Texas Health Care System’s Institutional Review Board.

Measures

The Moral Injury Events Scale (MIES) is a 9-item self-report measure that assesses exposure to PMIEs.³³ Respondents rate their agreement with each item on a 6-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater moral injury. The MIES has a 2-factor structure: Factor 1 has 6 items on perceived transgressions and Factor 2 has 3 items on perceived betrayals.³³

Creation of Legal-Involved Moral Injury Measure. To create the MIES-LIP, items and instructions from the MIES were modified to address moral injury in the context of legal involvement.³³ Adaptations were finalized following consultation and approval by the authors of the original measure. Specifically, the instructions were changed to: “Please respond to these items based specifically in the context of your involvement with the legal system.” The instructions clarified that legal involvement could include experiences related to committing an offense, legal proceedings and sentencing, incarceration, or transitioning out of the legal system. This differs from the original measure, which focused on military experiences, with instructions stating: “Please respond to these items based specifically in the context of your military service (ie, events and experiences during enlistment, deployment, combat, etc).”

Other measures. The study collected data on demographic characteristics including sex, race and ethnicity, marital status, military service, combat experience, and legal involvement. PTSD symptom severity, based on the criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), was assessed using the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5).^35,36 The PCL-5 is a 20-item self-report measure in which item scores are summed to create a total score. The PCL-5 has demonstrated strong psychometric properties, including good internal consistency, test-retest reliability convergent validity, and discriminant validity.^37,38

Depressive symptom severity was measured using the Personal Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9).³⁹ The PHQ-9 is a 9-item self-report measure where item scores summed to create a total score. The PHQ-9 has demonstrated strong psychometric properties, including internal consistency and test-retest reliability.³⁹

STATISTICAL METHODS

Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation for continuous variables; frequencies and percentages for categorical variables) were used to describe the study sample. Factor analysis was conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the MIES-LIP. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to determine whether the MEIS-LIP had a similar factor structure to the MIES.⁴⁰ Criteria for fit indices used for CFA include the Comparative Fit Index (CFI; values of > 0.95 suggest good fit), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; values of > 0.95 suggest a good fit), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; values of ≥ 0.06 suggest good fit), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; values of ≥ 0.08 suggest good fit). With insufficient fit, subsequent exploratory factor analysis was conducted using maximum likelihood estimation with an Oblimin rotation. The Kaiser rule and a scree plot were considered when defining the factor structure. Reliability was evaluated using the McDonald omega coefficient test. Convergent validity was assessed through the association between adapted measures and other clinical measures (ie, PCL-5, PHQ-9). In addition, associations between the PCL-5 and PHQ-9 were examined as they related to the MIES and MIES-LIP.

RESULTS

Table 1 describes demographic characteristics of the study sample. Rates of potentially morally injurious experiences and the expression of moral injury in the legal context are presented in Table 2. Witnessing PMIEs while in the legal system was nearly ubiquitous, with > 90% of the sample endorsing this experience. More than half of the sample also endorsed engaging in morally injurious behavior by commission or omission, as well as experiencing betrayal while involved with the legal system.

Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was utilized to test the factor structure of the adapted MIES-LIP in our sample compared to the published factor structures of the MIES.33 Results did not support the established factor structure. Analysis yielded unacceptable CFI (0.79), TLI (0.70), SRMR (0.14), and RMSEA (0.21). The unsatisfactory results of CFA warranted follow-up exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine the factor structure of the moral injury scales in this sample.

EFA of MIES-LIP

The factor structure of the MIES-LIP was examined using EFA. The factorability of the data was examined using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO value = 0.75) and Bartlett Test of Sphericity (X² = 525.41; P < .001), both of which suggested that the data were appropriate for factor analysis. The number of factors to retain was selected based on the Kaiser criterion.⁴¹ After extraction, an Oblimin rotation was applied, given that we expected factors to be correlated. A 2-factor solution was found, explaining 65.76% of the common variance. All 9 items were retained as they had factor loadings > 0.30. Factor 1, comprised self-directed moral injury questions (3-6). Factor 2 comprised other directed moral injury questions (1, 2, 7-9) (Table 3). The factor correlation coefficient between Factor 1 and Factor 2 was 0.34, which supports utilizing an oblique rotation.

Reliability. We examined the reliability of the adapted MIES-LIP using measures of internal consistency, with both MIES-LIP factors demonstrating good reliability. The internal consistency of both factors of the MIES-LIP were found to be good (self-directed moral injury: Ω = 0.89; other-directed moral injury: Ω = 0.83).

Convergent Validity

Association between moral injury scales. A significant, moderate correlation was observed between all subscales of the MIES and MIES-LIP. Specifically, the self-directed moral injury factor of the MIES-LIP was associated with both the perceived transgressions (r = 0.41, P < .001) and the MIES perceived betrayals factors (r = 0.25, P < .05). Similarly, the other-directed moral injury factor of the MIES-LIP was associated with both the MIES perceived transgressions (r = 0.45, P < .001) and the MIES perceived betrayals factors (r = 0.45, P < .001).

Association with PTSD symptoms. All subscales of both the MIES and MIES-LIP were associated with PTSD symptom severity. The MIES perceived transgressions factor (r = 0.43, P < .001) and the perceived betrayals factor of the MIES (r = 0.39, P < .001) were moderately associated with the PCL-5. Mirroring this, the “self-directed moral injury” factor of the MIESLIP (r = 0.44, P < .001) and the “other-directed moral injury” factor of the MIES-LIP (r = 0.42, P < .001) were also positively associated with PCL-5.

Association with depression symptoms. All subscales of the MIES and MIES-LIP were also associated with depressive symptoms. The MIES perceived transgressions factor (r = 0.27, P < .01) and the MIES perceived betrayals factor (r = 0.23, P < .05) had a small association with the PHQ-9. In addition, the self-directed moral injury factor of the MIES-LIP (r = 0.40, P < .001) and the other-directed moral injury factor of the MIES-LIP (r = 0.31, P < .01) had small to moderate associations with the PCL-5.

DISCUSSION

Potentially morally injurious events appear to be a salient factor affecting legal-involved veterans. Among our sample, the vast majority of legal-involved veterans endorsed experiencing both legal- and military-related PMIEs. Witnessing or participating in a legal-related PMIE appears to be widespread among those who have experienced incarceration. The MIES-LIP yielded a 2-factor structure: self-directed moral injury and other-directed moral injury, in the evaluated population. The MIES-LIP showed similar psychometric performance to the MIES in our sample. Specifically, the MIES-LIP had good reliability and adequate convergent validity. While CFA did not confirm the anticipated factor structure of the MIES-LIP within our sample, EFA showed similarities in factor structure between the original and adapted measures. While further research and validation are needed, preliminary results show promise of the MIES-LIP in assessing legal-related moral injury.

Originally, the MIES was found to have a 2-factor structure, defined by perceived transgressions and perceived betrayals.³³ However, additional research has identified a 3-factor structure, where the betrayal factor is maintained, and the transgressions factor is divided into transgressions by others and by self.⁸ The factor structure of the MIES-LIP was more closely related to the factor structure, with transgressions by others and betrayal mapped onto the same factor (ie, other-directed moral injury).⁸ While further research is needed, it is possible that the nature of morally injurious events experienced in legal contexts are experienced more in terms of self vs other, compared to morally injurious events experienced by veterans or active-duty service members.

Accurately identifying the types of moral injury experienced in a legal context may be important for determining the differences in drivers of legal-related moral injury compared to military-related moral injury. For example, self-directed moral injury in legal contexts may include a variety of actions the individual initiated that led to conviction and incarceration (eg, a criminal offense), as well as behaviors performed or witnessed while incarcerated (eg, engaging in violence). Inconsistent with military populations where other-directed moral injury clusters with self-directed moral injury, other-directed moral injury clustered with betrayal in legal contexts in our sample. This discrepancy may result from differences in identification with the military vs legal system. When veterans witness fellow service members engaging in PMIEs (eg, physical violence towards civilians in a military setting), this may be similar to self-directed moral injury due to the veteran’s identification with the same military system as the perpetrator.⁴² When legal-involved veterans witness other incarcerated individuals engaging in PMIEs (eg, physical violence toward other inmates), this may be experienced as similar to betrayal due to lack of personal identification with the criminal-legal system. Additional research is needed to better understand how self- and other-related moral injury are associated with betrayal in legal contexts.

Another potential driver of legal-related moral injury may be culpability. In order for moral injury to occur, an individual must perceive that something has taken place that deeply violated their sense of right and wrong.¹ In terms of criminal offenses or even engaging in violent behavior while incarcerated, the potential for moral injury may differ based on whether an individual views themselves as culpable for the act(s).²⁹ This may further distinguish between self-directed and other-directed moral injury in legal contexts. In situations where the individual views themselves as culpable, self-directed moral injury may be higher. In situations where the individual does not view themselves as culpable, other-directed moral injury may be higher based on the perception that the legal system is unfairly punishing them. Further research is needed to clarify how an individual’s view of their culpability relates to moral injury, as well as to elucidate which aspects of military service and legal involvement are most closely associated with moral injury among legal-involved veterans.

While this study treated legal-related and military-related moral injury as distinct, it is possible moral injury may have a cumulative effect over time with individuals experiencing morally injurious events across different contexts (eg, military, legal involvement). This, in turn, may compound risk for moral injury. These cumulative experiences may result in increased negative outcomes such as exacerbated psychiatric symptoms, substance misuse, and elevated suicide risk. Future studies should examine differences between groups who have experienced moral injury in differing contexts, as well as those with multiple sources of moral injury.

Limitations

The sample for this study included only veterans. The number of veterans incarcerated is large and the focus on veterans also allowed for a more robust comparison of moral injury related to the legal system and the more traditional military-related moral injury. However, the generalizability of the findings to nonveterans cannot be assured. The study used a relatively small sample (N = 100), which was overwhelmingly male. Although the PCL-5 was utilized to examine traumatic stress symptoms, this measure was not anchored to a specific criterion A trauma nor was it anchored specifically to a morally injurious experience. For all participants, their most recent military service preceded their most recent legal involvement which could affect the associations between variables. Furthermore, while all participants endorsed prior legal involvement, many participants reported no combat exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

This study resulted in several key findings. First, legal-involved veterans endorsed high rates of experiencing legal-related morally injurious experiences. Second, our adapted measure displayed adequate psychometric strength and suggests that legal-related moral injury is a salient and distinct phenomenon affecting legal-involved veterans. These items may not capture all the nuances of legal-related moral injury. Qualitative interviews with legal-involved persons may help identify relevant areas of legal-related moral injury not reflected in the current instrument. The MIES-LIP represents a practical measure that may help clinicians identify and address legal-related moral injury when working with legal-involved veterans. Given the high prevalence of PMIEs among legal-involved veterans, further examination of whether current interventions for moral injury and novel treatments being developed are effective for this population is needed.

Following exposure to potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs), some individuals may experience moral injury, which represents negative psychological, social, behavioral, and occasionally spiritual impacts.¹ The consequences of PMIE exposure and moral injury are well documented. Individuals may begin to question the goodness and trustworthiness of oneself, others, or the world.¹ Examples of other sequelae include guilt, demoralization, spiritual pain, loss of trust in the self or others, and difficulties with forgiveness.^2-6 In addition, prior studies have found that moral injury is associated with an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, spiritual distress, and interpersonal difficulties.^7-11

Moral injury was first conceptualized in relation to combat trauma. However in recent years it has been examined in other groups such as health care practitioners, educators, refugees, and law enforcement personnel.^12-17 Furthermore, there has been a recent call for the study of moral injury in other understudied groups. One such group is legal-involved individuals, defined as those who are currently involved or previously involved in the criminal justice system (ie, arrests, incarceration, parole, and probation).^1,18-22

Many veterans are also involved with the legal system. Specifically, veterans currently comprise about 8% of the incarcerated US population, with an estimated > 180,000 veterans in prisons or jails and even more on parole or probation.^23,24 Legal-involved veterans may be at heightened risk for homelessness, suicide, unemployment, and high prevalence rates of psychiatric diagnoses.^25-28

Limited research has explored exposure to PMIEs as part of the legal process and the resulting expression of moral injury. The circumstances leading to incarceration, interactions with the US legal system, the environment of prison itself, and the subsequent challenges faced by legal-involved individuals after release all provide ample opportunity for PMIEs to occur.¹⁸ For example, engaging in a criminal act may represent a PMIE, particularly in violent offenses that involve harm to another individual. Moreover, the process of being convicted and charged with an offense may serve as a powerful reminder of the PMIE and tie this event to the individual’s identity and future. Furthermore, the physical and social environment of prison itself (eg, being surrounded by other offenders, witnessing the perpetration of violence, participating in violence for survival) presents a myriad of opportunities for PMIEs to occur.¹⁸

The consequences of PMIEs in the context of legal involvement may also have bearing on a touchstone of moral injury: changes in one’s schema of the self and world.⁴ At a societal level, legal-involved individuals are, by definition, deemed “guilty” and held culpable for their offense, which may reinforce a negative change in one’s view of self and the world.²⁹ In line with identity theory, external negative appraisals about legal-involved individuals (eg, they are a danger to society, they cannot be trusted to do the right thing) may influence their self-perception.³⁰ Furthermore, the affective characteristics often found in the context of moral injury (eg, guilt, shame, anger, contempt) may be exacerbated by legal involvement.²⁹ Personal feelings of guilt and shame may be reinforced by receiving a verdict and sentence, as well as the negative perceptions of individuals around them (eg, disapproval from prior sources of social support). Additionally, feelings of betrayal and distrust towards the legal system may arise.

In sum, legal-involved veterans incur increased risk of moral injury due to the potential for exposure to PMIEs across multiple time points (eg, prior to military service, during military service, during arrest/sentencing, during imprisonment, and postincarceration). The stigma that accompanies legal involvement may limit access to treatment or a willingness to seek treatment for distress related to moral injury.²⁹ Additionally, repeated exposure to PMIEs and resulting moral injury may compound over time, potentially exacerbating psychosocial functioning and increasing the risk for psychosocial stressors (eg, homelessness, unemployment) and mental health disorders (eg, depression, substance misuse).³¹

Although numerous measures of moral injury have been developed, most require that respondents consider a specific context (eg, military experiences).³² Therefore, study of legal-related moral injury requires adaptation of existing instruments to the legal context. The original and most commonly used scale of moral injury is the Moral Injury Events Scale (MIES).³³ The MIES scales was originally developed to measure moral injury in military-related contexts but has since been adapted as a measure of exposure to context-specific PMIEs.³⁴

Unfortunately, there are no validated measures for assessing legal-related moral injury. Such a gap in understanding is problematic, as it may impact measurement of the prevalence of PMIEs in both clinical and research settings for this at-risk population. The goal of this study was to conduct a psychometric evaluation of an adapted version of the MIES for legal-involved persons (MIES-LIP).

METHODS

A total of 177 veterans from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) North Texas Health Care System were contacted for study enrollment between November 2020 and June 2021, yielding a final sample of 100 legal-involved veteran participants. Adults aged ≥ 18 years who were US military veterans and had ≥ 1 prior felony conviction resulting in incarceration were included. Participants were excluded if they had symptoms of psychosis that would preclude meaningful participation.

The study collected data on participants’ demographic and clinical characteristics using a semistructured survey instrument. Each participant completed an instructor-led questionnaire in a session that lasted about 1.5 hours. Participants who completed the visit in person received a $50 cash voucher for their time. Participants who were unable to meet with the study coordinator in person were able to complete the visit via telephone and received a $25 digital gift card. Of the total 100 participants, 79 participants completed the interview in person, and 21 completed by telephone. No significant differences were found in assessment measures between administration methods. Written informed consent was obtained during all in-person visits. For those completing via telephone, a waiver of written informed consent was obtained. This study was approved by the VA North Texas Health Care System’s Institutional Review Board.

Measures

The Moral Injury Events Scale (MIES) is a 9-item self-report measure that assesses exposure to PMIEs.³³ Respondents rate their agreement with each item on a 6-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater moral injury. The MIES has a 2-factor structure: Factor 1 has 6 items on perceived transgressions and Factor 2 has 3 items on perceived betrayals.³³

Creation of Legal-Involved Moral Injury Measure. To create the MIES-LIP, items and instructions from the MIES were modified to address moral injury in the context of legal involvement.³³ Adaptations were finalized following consultation and approval by the authors of the original measure. Specifically, the instructions were changed to: “Please respond to these items based specifically in the context of your involvement with the legal system.” The instructions clarified that legal involvement could include experiences related to committing an offense, legal proceedings and sentencing, incarceration, or transitioning out of the legal system. This differs from the original measure, which focused on military experiences, with instructions stating: “Please respond to these items based specifically in the context of your military service (ie, events and experiences during enlistment, deployment, combat, etc).”

Other measures. The study collected data on demographic characteristics including sex, race and ethnicity, marital status, military service, combat experience, and legal involvement. PTSD symptom severity, based on the criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), was assessed using the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5).^35,36 The PCL-5 is a 20-item self-report measure in which item scores are summed to create a total score. The PCL-5 has demonstrated strong psychometric properties, including good internal consistency, test-retest reliability convergent validity, and discriminant validity.^37,38

Depressive symptom severity was measured using the Personal Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9).³⁹ The PHQ-9 is a 9-item self-report measure where item scores summed to create a total score. The PHQ-9 has demonstrated strong psychometric properties, including internal consistency and test-retest reliability.³⁹

STATISTICAL METHODS

Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation for continuous variables; frequencies and percentages for categorical variables) were used to describe the study sample. Factor analysis was conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the MIES-LIP. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to determine whether the MEIS-LIP had a similar factor structure to the MIES.⁴⁰ Criteria for fit indices used for CFA include the Comparative Fit Index (CFI; values of > 0.95 suggest good fit), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; values of > 0.95 suggest a good fit), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; values of ≥ 0.06 suggest good fit), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; values of ≥ 0.08 suggest good fit). With insufficient fit, subsequent exploratory factor analysis was conducted using maximum likelihood estimation with an Oblimin rotation. The Kaiser rule and a scree plot were considered when defining the factor structure. Reliability was evaluated using the McDonald omega coefficient test. Convergent validity was assessed through the association between adapted measures and other clinical measures (ie, PCL-5, PHQ-9). In addition, associations between the PCL-5 and PHQ-9 were examined as they related to the MIES and MIES-LIP.

RESULTS

Table 1 describes demographic characteristics of the study sample. Rates of potentially morally injurious experiences and the expression of moral injury in the legal context are presented in Table 2. Witnessing PMIEs while in the legal system was nearly ubiquitous, with > 90% of the sample endorsing this experience. More than half of the sample also endorsed engaging in morally injurious behavior by commission or omission, as well as experiencing betrayal while involved with the legal system.

Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was utilized to test the factor structure of the adapted MIES-LIP in our sample compared to the published factor structures of the MIES.33 Results did not support the established factor structure. Analysis yielded unacceptable CFI (0.79), TLI (0.70), SRMR (0.14), and RMSEA (0.21). The unsatisfactory results of CFA warranted follow-up exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine the factor structure of the moral injury scales in this sample.

EFA of MIES-LIP

The factor structure of the MIES-LIP was examined using EFA. The factorability of the data was examined using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO value = 0.75) and Bartlett Test of Sphericity (X² = 525.41; P < .001), both of which suggested that the data were appropriate for factor analysis. The number of factors to retain was selected based on the Kaiser criterion.⁴¹ After extraction, an Oblimin rotation was applied, given that we expected factors to be correlated. A 2-factor solution was found, explaining 65.76% of the common variance. All 9 items were retained as they had factor loadings > 0.30. Factor 1, comprised self-directed moral injury questions (3-6). Factor 2 comprised other directed moral injury questions (1, 2, 7-9) (Table 3). The factor correlation coefficient between Factor 1 and Factor 2 was 0.34, which supports utilizing an oblique rotation.

Reliability. We examined the reliability of the adapted MIES-LIP using measures of internal consistency, with both MIES-LIP factors demonstrating good reliability. The internal consistency of both factors of the MIES-LIP were found to be good (self-directed moral injury: Ω = 0.89; other-directed moral injury: Ω = 0.83).

Convergent Validity

Association between moral injury scales. A significant, moderate correlation was observed between all subscales of the MIES and MIES-LIP. Specifically, the self-directed moral injury factor of the MIES-LIP was associated with both the perceived transgressions (r = 0.41, P < .001) and the MIES perceived betrayals factors (r = 0.25, P < .05). Similarly, the other-directed moral injury factor of the MIES-LIP was associated with both the MIES perceived transgressions (r = 0.45, P < .001) and the MIES perceived betrayals factors (r = 0.45, P < .001).

Association with PTSD symptoms. All subscales of both the MIES and MIES-LIP were associated with PTSD symptom severity. The MIES perceived transgressions factor (r = 0.43, P < .001) and the perceived betrayals factor of the MIES (r = 0.39, P < .001) were moderately associated with the PCL-5. Mirroring this, the “self-directed moral injury” factor of the MIESLIP (r = 0.44, P < .001) and the “other-directed moral injury” factor of the MIES-LIP (r = 0.42, P < .001) were also positively associated with PCL-5.

Association with depression symptoms. All subscales of the MIES and MIES-LIP were also associated with depressive symptoms. The MIES perceived transgressions factor (r = 0.27, P < .01) and the MIES perceived betrayals factor (r = 0.23, P < .05) had a small association with the PHQ-9. In addition, the self-directed moral injury factor of the MIES-LIP (r = 0.40, P < .001) and the other-directed moral injury factor of the MIES-LIP (r = 0.31, P < .01) had small to moderate associations with the PCL-5.

DISCUSSION

Potentially morally injurious events appear to be a salient factor affecting legal-involved veterans. Among our sample, the vast majority of legal-involved veterans endorsed experiencing both legal- and military-related PMIEs. Witnessing or participating in a legal-related PMIE appears to be widespread among those who have experienced incarceration. The MIES-LIP yielded a 2-factor structure: self-directed moral injury and other-directed moral injury, in the evaluated population. The MIES-LIP showed similar psychometric performance to the MIES in our sample. Specifically, the MIES-LIP had good reliability and adequate convergent validity. While CFA did not confirm the anticipated factor structure of the MIES-LIP within our sample, EFA showed similarities in factor structure between the original and adapted measures. While further research and validation are needed, preliminary results show promise of the MIES-LIP in assessing legal-related moral injury.

Originally, the MIES was found to have a 2-factor structure, defined by perceived transgressions and perceived betrayals.³³ However, additional research has identified a 3-factor structure, where the betrayal factor is maintained, and the transgressions factor is divided into transgressions by others and by self.⁸ The factor structure of the MIES-LIP was more closely related to the factor structure, with transgressions by others and betrayal mapped onto the same factor (ie, other-directed moral injury).⁸ While further research is needed, it is possible that the nature of morally injurious events experienced in legal contexts are experienced more in terms of self vs other, compared to morally injurious events experienced by veterans or active-duty service members.

Accurately identifying the types of moral injury experienced in a legal context may be important for determining the differences in drivers of legal-related moral injury compared to military-related moral injury. For example, self-directed moral injury in legal contexts may include a variety of actions the individual initiated that led to conviction and incarceration (eg, a criminal offense), as well as behaviors performed or witnessed while incarcerated (eg, engaging in violence). Inconsistent with military populations where other-directed moral injury clusters with self-directed moral injury, other-directed moral injury clustered with betrayal in legal contexts in our sample. This discrepancy may result from differences in identification with the military vs legal system. When veterans witness fellow service members engaging in PMIEs (eg, physical violence towards civilians in a military setting), this may be similar to self-directed moral injury due to the veteran’s identification with the same military system as the perpetrator.⁴² When legal-involved veterans witness other incarcerated individuals engaging in PMIEs (eg, physical violence toward other inmates), this may be experienced as similar to betrayal due to lack of personal identification with the criminal-legal system. Additional research is needed to better understand how self- and other-related moral injury are associated with betrayal in legal contexts.

Another potential driver of legal-related moral injury may be culpability. In order for moral injury to occur, an individual must perceive that something has taken place that deeply violated their sense of right and wrong.¹ In terms of criminal offenses or even engaging in violent behavior while incarcerated, the potential for moral injury may differ based on whether an individual views themselves as culpable for the act(s).²⁹ This may further distinguish between self-directed and other-directed moral injury in legal contexts. In situations where the individual views themselves as culpable, self-directed moral injury may be higher. In situations where the individual does not view themselves as culpable, other-directed moral injury may be higher based on the perception that the legal system is unfairly punishing them. Further research is needed to clarify how an individual’s view of their culpability relates to moral injury, as well as to elucidate which aspects of military service and legal involvement are most closely associated with moral injury among legal-involved veterans.

While this study treated legal-related and military-related moral injury as distinct, it is possible moral injury may have a cumulative effect over time with individuals experiencing morally injurious events across different contexts (eg, military, legal involvement). This, in turn, may compound risk for moral injury. These cumulative experiences may result in increased negative outcomes such as exacerbated psychiatric symptoms, substance misuse, and elevated suicide risk. Future studies should examine differences between groups who have experienced moral injury in differing contexts, as well as those with multiple sources of moral injury.

Limitations

The sample for this study included only veterans. The number of veterans incarcerated is large and the focus on veterans also allowed for a more robust comparison of moral injury related to the legal system and the more traditional military-related moral injury. However, the generalizability of the findings to nonveterans cannot be assured. The study used a relatively small sample (N = 100), which was overwhelmingly male. Although the PCL-5 was utilized to examine traumatic stress symptoms, this measure was not anchored to a specific criterion A trauma nor was it anchored specifically to a morally injurious experience. For all participants, their most recent military service preceded their most recent legal involvement which could affect the associations between variables. Furthermore, while all participants endorsed prior legal involvement, many participants reported no combat exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

This study resulted in several key findings. First, legal-involved veterans endorsed high rates of experiencing legal-related morally injurious experiences. Second, our adapted measure displayed adequate psychometric strength and suggests that legal-related moral injury is a salient and distinct phenomenon affecting legal-involved veterans. These items may not capture all the nuances of legal-related moral injury. Qualitative interviews with legal-involved persons may help identify relevant areas of legal-related moral injury not reflected in the current instrument. The MIES-LIP represents a practical measure that may help clinicians identify and address legal-related moral injury when working with legal-involved veterans. Given the high prevalence of PMIEs among legal-involved veterans, further examination of whether current interventions for moral injury and novel treatments being developed are effective for this population is needed.

Following exposure to potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs), some individuals may experience moral injury, which represents negative psychological, social, behavioral, and occasionally spiritual impacts.¹ The consequences of PMIE exposure and moral injury are well documented. Individuals may begin to question the goodness and trustworthiness of oneself, others, or the world.¹ Examples of other sequelae include guilt, demoralization, spiritual pain, loss of trust in the self or others, and difficulties with forgiveness.^2-6 In addition, prior studies have found that moral injury is associated with an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, spiritual distress, and interpersonal difficulties.^7-11

Moral injury was first conceptualized in relation to combat trauma. However in recent years it has been examined in other groups such as health care practitioners, educators, refugees, and law enforcement personnel.^12-17 Furthermore, there has been a recent call for the study of moral injury in other understudied groups. One such group is legal-involved individuals, defined as those who are currently involved or previously involved in the criminal justice system (ie, arrests, incarceration, parole, and probation).^1,18-22

Many veterans are also involved with the legal system. Specifically, veterans currently comprise about 8% of the incarcerated US population, with an estimated > 180,000 veterans in prisons or jails and even more on parole or probation.^23,24 Legal-involved veterans may be at heightened risk for homelessness, suicide, unemployment, and high prevalence rates of psychiatric diagnoses.^25-28

Limited research has explored exposure to PMIEs as part of the legal process and the resulting expression of moral injury. The circumstances leading to incarceration, interactions with the US legal system, the environment of prison itself, and the subsequent challenges faced by legal-involved individuals after release all provide ample opportunity for PMIEs to occur.¹⁸ For example, engaging in a criminal act may represent a PMIE, particularly in violent offenses that involve harm to another individual. Moreover, the process of being convicted and charged with an offense may serve as a powerful reminder of the PMIE and tie this event to the individual’s identity and future. Furthermore, the physical and social environment of prison itself (eg, being surrounded by other offenders, witnessing the perpetration of violence, participating in violence for survival) presents a myriad of opportunities for PMIEs to occur.¹⁸

The consequences of PMIEs in the context of legal involvement may also have bearing on a touchstone of moral injury: changes in one’s schema of the self and world.⁴ At a societal level, legal-involved individuals are, by definition, deemed “guilty” and held culpable for their offense, which may reinforce a negative change in one’s view of self and the world.²⁹ In line with identity theory, external negative appraisals about legal-involved individuals (eg, they are a danger to society, they cannot be trusted to do the right thing) may influence their self-perception.³⁰ Furthermore, the affective characteristics often found in the context of moral injury (eg, guilt, shame, anger, contempt) may be exacerbated by legal involvement.²⁹ Personal feelings of guilt and shame may be reinforced by receiving a verdict and sentence, as well as the negative perceptions of individuals around them (eg, disapproval from prior sources of social support). Additionally, feelings of betrayal and distrust towards the legal system may arise.

In sum, legal-involved veterans incur increased risk of moral injury due to the potential for exposure to PMIEs across multiple time points (eg, prior to military service, during military service, during arrest/sentencing, during imprisonment, and postincarceration). The stigma that accompanies legal involvement may limit access to treatment or a willingness to seek treatment for distress related to moral injury.²⁹ Additionally, repeated exposure to PMIEs and resulting moral injury may compound over time, potentially exacerbating psychosocial functioning and increasing the risk for psychosocial stressors (eg, homelessness, unemployment) and mental health disorders (eg, depression, substance misuse).³¹

Although numerous measures of moral injury have been developed, most require that respondents consider a specific context (eg, military experiences).³² Therefore, study of legal-related moral injury requires adaptation of existing instruments to the legal context. The original and most commonly used scale of moral injury is the Moral Injury Events Scale (MIES).³³ The MIES scales was originally developed to measure moral injury in military-related contexts but has since been adapted as a measure of exposure to context-specific PMIEs.³⁴

Unfortunately, there are no validated measures for assessing legal-related moral injury. Such a gap in understanding is problematic, as it may impact measurement of the prevalence of PMIEs in both clinical and research settings for this at-risk population. The goal of this study was to conduct a psychometric evaluation of an adapted version of the MIES for legal-involved persons (MIES-LIP).

METHODS

A total of 177 veterans from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) North Texas Health Care System were contacted for study enrollment between November 2020 and June 2021, yielding a final sample of 100 legal-involved veteran participants. Adults aged ≥ 18 years who were US military veterans and had ≥ 1 prior felony conviction resulting in incarceration were included. Participants were excluded if they had symptoms of psychosis that would preclude meaningful participation.

The study collected data on participants’ demographic and clinical characteristics using a semistructured survey instrument. Each participant completed an instructor-led questionnaire in a session that lasted about 1.5 hours. Participants who completed the visit in person received a $50 cash voucher for their time. Participants who were unable to meet with the study coordinator in person were able to complete the visit via telephone and received a $25 digital gift card. Of the total 100 participants, 79 participants completed the interview in person, and 21 completed by telephone. No significant differences were found in assessment measures between administration methods. Written informed consent was obtained during all in-person visits. For those completing via telephone, a waiver of written informed consent was obtained. This study was approved by the VA North Texas Health Care System’s Institutional Review Board.

Measures

The Moral Injury Events Scale (MIES) is a 9-item self-report measure that assesses exposure to PMIEs.³³ Respondents rate their agreement with each item on a 6-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater moral injury. The MIES has a 2-factor structure: Factor 1 has 6 items on perceived transgressions and Factor 2 has 3 items on perceived betrayals.³³

Creation of Legal-Involved Moral Injury Measure. To create the MIES-LIP, items and instructions from the MIES were modified to address moral injury in the context of legal involvement.³³ Adaptations were finalized following consultation and approval by the authors of the original measure. Specifically, the instructions were changed to: “Please respond to these items based specifically in the context of your involvement with the legal system.” The instructions clarified that legal involvement could include experiences related to committing an offense, legal proceedings and sentencing, incarceration, or transitioning out of the legal system. This differs from the original measure, which focused on military experiences, with instructions stating: “Please respond to these items based specifically in the context of your military service (ie, events and experiences during enlistment, deployment, combat, etc).”

Other measures. The study collected data on demographic characteristics including sex, race and ethnicity, marital status, military service, combat experience, and legal involvement. PTSD symptom severity, based on the criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), was assessed using the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5).^35,36 The PCL-5 is a 20-item self-report measure in which item scores are summed to create a total score. The PCL-5 has demonstrated strong psychometric properties, including good internal consistency, test-retest reliability convergent validity, and discriminant validity.^37,38

Depressive symptom severity was measured using the Personal Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9).³⁹ The PHQ-9 is a 9-item self-report measure where item scores summed to create a total score. The PHQ-9 has demonstrated strong psychometric properties, including internal consistency and test-retest reliability.³⁹

STATISTICAL METHODS

Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation for continuous variables; frequencies and percentages for categorical variables) were used to describe the study sample. Factor analysis was conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the MIES-LIP. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to determine whether the MEIS-LIP had a similar factor structure to the MIES.⁴⁰ Criteria for fit indices used for CFA include the Comparative Fit Index (CFI; values of > 0.95 suggest good fit), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; values of > 0.95 suggest a good fit), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; values of ≥ 0.06 suggest good fit), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; values of ≥ 0.08 suggest good fit). With insufficient fit, subsequent exploratory factor analysis was conducted using maximum likelihood estimation with an Oblimin rotation. The Kaiser rule and a scree plot were considered when defining the factor structure. Reliability was evaluated using the McDonald omega coefficient test. Convergent validity was assessed through the association between adapted measures and other clinical measures (ie, PCL-5, PHQ-9). In addition, associations between the PCL-5 and PHQ-9 were examined as they related to the MIES and MIES-LIP.

RESULTS

Table 1 describes demographic characteristics of the study sample. Rates of potentially morally injurious experiences and the expression of moral injury in the legal context are presented in Table 2. Witnessing PMIEs while in the legal system was nearly ubiquitous, with > 90% of the sample endorsing this experience. More than half of the sample also endorsed engaging in morally injurious behavior by commission or omission, as well as experiencing betrayal while involved with the legal system.

Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was utilized to test the factor structure of the adapted MIES-LIP in our sample compared to the published factor structures of the MIES.33 Results did not support the established factor structure. Analysis yielded unacceptable CFI (0.79), TLI (0.70), SRMR (0.14), and RMSEA (0.21). The unsatisfactory results of CFA warranted follow-up exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine the factor structure of the moral injury scales in this sample.

EFA of MIES-LIP

The factor structure of the MIES-LIP was examined using EFA. The factorability of the data was examined using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO value = 0.75) and Bartlett Test of Sphericity (X² = 525.41; P < .001), both of which suggested that the data were appropriate for factor analysis. The number of factors to retain was selected based on the Kaiser criterion.⁴¹ After extraction, an Oblimin rotation was applied, given that we expected factors to be correlated. A 2-factor solution was found, explaining 65.76% of the common variance. All 9 items were retained as they had factor loadings > 0.30. Factor 1, comprised self-directed moral injury questions (3-6). Factor 2 comprised other directed moral injury questions (1, 2, 7-9) (Table 3). The factor correlation coefficient between Factor 1 and Factor 2 was 0.34, which supports utilizing an oblique rotation.

Reliability. We examined the reliability of the adapted MIES-LIP using measures of internal consistency, with both MIES-LIP factors demonstrating good reliability. The internal consistency of both factors of the MIES-LIP were found to be good (self-directed moral injury: Ω = 0.89; other-directed moral injury: Ω = 0.83).

Convergent Validity

Association between moral injury scales. A significant, moderate correlation was observed between all subscales of the MIES and MIES-LIP. Specifically, the self-directed moral injury factor of the MIES-LIP was associated with both the perceived transgressions (r = 0.41, P < .001) and the MIES perceived betrayals factors (r = 0.25, P < .05). Similarly, the other-directed moral injury factor of the MIES-LIP was associated with both the MIES perceived transgressions (r = 0.45, P < .001) and the MIES perceived betrayals factors (r = 0.45, P < .001).

Association with PTSD symptoms. All subscales of both the MIES and MIES-LIP were associated with PTSD symptom severity. The MIES perceived transgressions factor (r = 0.43, P < .001) and the perceived betrayals factor of the MIES (r = 0.39, P < .001) were moderately associated with the PCL-5. Mirroring this, the “self-directed moral injury” factor of the MIESLIP (r = 0.44, P < .001) and the “other-directed moral injury” factor of the MIES-LIP (r = 0.42, P < .001) were also positively associated with PCL-5.

Association with depression symptoms. All subscales of the MIES and MIES-LIP were also associated with depressive symptoms. The MIES perceived transgressions factor (r = 0.27, P < .01) and the MIES perceived betrayals factor (r = 0.23, P < .05) had a small association with the PHQ-9. In addition, the self-directed moral injury factor of the MIES-LIP (r = 0.40, P < .001) and the other-directed moral injury factor of the MIES-LIP (r = 0.31, P < .01) had small to moderate associations with the PCL-5.

DISCUSSION

Potentially morally injurious events appear to be a salient factor affecting legal-involved veterans. Among our sample, the vast majority of legal-involved veterans endorsed experiencing both legal- and military-related PMIEs. Witnessing or participating in a legal-related PMIE appears to be widespread among those who have experienced incarceration. The MIES-LIP yielded a 2-factor structure: self-directed moral injury and other-directed moral injury, in the evaluated population. The MIES-LIP showed similar psychometric performance to the MIES in our sample. Specifically, the MIES-LIP had good reliability and adequate convergent validity. While CFA did not confirm the anticipated factor structure of the MIES-LIP within our sample, EFA showed similarities in factor structure between the original and adapted measures. While further research and validation are needed, preliminary results show promise of the MIES-LIP in assessing legal-related moral injury.

Originally, the MIES was found to have a 2-factor structure, defined by perceived transgressions and perceived betrayals.³³ However, additional research has identified a 3-factor structure, where the betrayal factor is maintained, and the transgressions factor is divided into transgressions by others and by self.⁸ The factor structure of the MIES-LIP was more closely related to the factor structure, with transgressions by others and betrayal mapped onto the same factor (ie, other-directed moral injury).⁸ While further research is needed, it is possible that the nature of morally injurious events experienced in legal contexts are experienced more in terms of self vs other, compared to morally injurious events experienced by veterans or active-duty service members.

Accurately identifying the types of moral injury experienced in a legal context may be important for determining the differences in drivers of legal-related moral injury compared to military-related moral injury. For example, self-directed moral injury in legal contexts may include a variety of actions the individual initiated that led to conviction and incarceration (eg, a criminal offense), as well as behaviors performed or witnessed while incarcerated (eg, engaging in violence). Inconsistent with military populations where other-directed moral injury clusters with self-directed moral injury, other-directed moral injury clustered with betrayal in legal contexts in our sample. This discrepancy may result from differences in identification with the military vs legal system. When veterans witness fellow service members engaging in PMIEs (eg, physical violence towards civilians in a military setting), this may be similar to self-directed moral injury due to the veteran’s identification with the same military system as the perpetrator.⁴² When legal-involved veterans witness other incarcerated individuals engaging in PMIEs (eg, physical violence toward other inmates), this may be experienced as similar to betrayal due to lack of personal identification with the criminal-legal system. Additional research is needed to better understand how self- and other-related moral injury are associated with betrayal in legal contexts.

Another potential driver of legal-related moral injury may be culpability. In order for moral injury to occur, an individual must perceive that something has taken place that deeply violated their sense of right and wrong.¹ In terms of criminal offenses or even engaging in violent behavior while incarcerated, the potential for moral injury may differ based on whether an individual views themselves as culpable for the act(s).²⁹ This may further distinguish between self-directed and other-directed moral injury in legal contexts. In situations where the individual views themselves as culpable, self-directed moral injury may be higher. In situations where the individual does not view themselves as culpable, other-directed moral injury may be higher based on the perception that the legal system is unfairly punishing them. Further research is needed to clarify how an individual’s view of their culpability relates to moral injury, as well as to elucidate which aspects of military service and legal involvement are most closely associated with moral injury among legal-involved veterans.

While this study treated legal-related and military-related moral injury as distinct, it is possible moral injury may have a cumulative effect over time with individuals experiencing morally injurious events across different contexts (eg, military, legal involvement). This, in turn, may compound risk for moral injury. These cumulative experiences may result in increased negative outcomes such as exacerbated psychiatric symptoms, substance misuse, and elevated suicide risk. Future studies should examine differences between groups who have experienced moral injury in differing contexts, as well as those with multiple sources of moral injury.

Limitations

The sample for this study included only veterans. The number of veterans incarcerated is large and the focus on veterans also allowed for a more robust comparison of moral injury related to the legal system and the more traditional military-related moral injury. However, the generalizability of the findings to nonveterans cannot be assured. The study used a relatively small sample (N = 100), which was overwhelmingly male. Although the PCL-5 was utilized to examine traumatic stress symptoms, this measure was not anchored to a specific criterion A trauma nor was it anchored specifically to a morally injurious experience. For all participants, their most recent military service preceded their most recent legal involvement which could affect the associations between variables. Furthermore, while all participants endorsed prior legal involvement, many participants reported no combat exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

This study resulted in several key findings. First, legal-involved veterans endorsed high rates of experiencing legal-related morally injurious experiences. Second, our adapted measure displayed adequate psychometric strength and suggests that legal-related moral injury is a salient and distinct phenomenon affecting legal-involved veterans. These items may not capture all the nuances of legal-related moral injury. Qualitative interviews with legal-involved persons may help identify relevant areas of legal-related moral injury not reflected in the current instrument. The MIES-LIP represents a practical measure that may help clinicians identify and address legal-related moral injury when working with legal-involved veterans. Given the high prevalence of PMIEs among legal-involved veterans, further examination of whether current interventions for moral injury and novel treatments being developed are effective for this population is needed.

Suicide prevention is the leading clinical priority for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).¹ An average of 18 veterans died by suicide each day in 2021.² Numerous risk factors for veteran suicide have been identified, including mental health disorders, comorbidities, access to firearms, and potentially lethal medications.^3-5 To better understand groups of patients at risk of suicide in medical settings, the authors have previously compared demographic and clinical risk factors between patients who died by suicide by using firearms or other means with matched patients who did not die by suicide (control group) to examine the impact of lack of social support, financial stress,⁶ legal problems,⁷ homelessness,⁸ and discrimination.⁹ The number of cooccurring risk factors a veteran experiences is associated with a greater likelihood of suicide attempts over time.¹⁰ In addition, some risk factors are social and environmental risk factors known as social determinants of health (SDoH), including financial stability and access to health care, food, housing, and education. ¹¹ SDoH may influence health outcomes more broadly and are associated with greater risk of suicide.^12,13

The VA offers programming to address suicide risk factors. However, not all veterans are eligible for VA care. Further, some veterans prefer to obtain non-VA services in their communities. Providing veterans with community resources that address risk factors, particularly SDoH, may be a worthwhile strategy for reducing suicide. Such resources have demonstrated success; for example, greater use of housing services was associated with a reduced risk for suicide-related mortality among unhoused veterans.¹²

The challenges that veterans experience can go beyond the scope of services the VA provides. For example, while the VA provides some services related to homelessness, justice involvement, and assistance with home loans, these services are often limited. Other services for veterans to address SDoH may require access to community resources, including food banks, employment assistance, respite and childcare services, and transportation assistance. Some veterans also may have experienced institutional betrayal, which could be a barrier to VA care and may motivate veterans to address their needs in the community.¹⁴ Veterans therefore may need a range of services beyond those within the VA. Leveraging community resources for veterans at risk for suicide is critical, as these resources may help to mitigate suicide risk.

An emerging emphasis of the VA is improving coordination with community partners to prevent veteran suicide. In 2019, the VA launched an improved Veterans Community Care Program, which implemented portions of the VA MISSION Act of 2018 to create additional connection to community care for VA-enrolled veterans. This includes assisting veterans in gaining access to specialty services not offered at a local VA medical center (VAMC), getting access to services sooner, and receiving care if they do not live near a VAMC.¹⁵ In addition, the COMPACT Act allows veterans in acute suicidal crisis to receive emergency health care through either VA or non-VA facilities at no cost.¹⁶ The VA National Strategy for Preventing Veteran Suicide 2018-2028 is a 10-year plan to reduce veteran suicide rates that includes initiatives to increase connections between VA and community agencies.¹⁷ A suicide prevention community toolkit is available online for health care professionals (HCPs) (and others, including employers) outside of the VA who may be unfamiliar with best practices for working with veterans at risk for suicide.¹⁸

The challenge, however, is that there is often a lack of “connectedness” between VA suicide prevention coordinators and community resources to address suicide risk factors and related social determinants of health. These services include, but are not limited to suicide prevention, mental health counseling (particularly no/low-cost services), unemployment resources, financial assistance and counseling, housing assistance, and identity-related supportive spaces. A major stumbling block in connecting resources with veterans (regardless of discharge status) who need them is there is no single, national organization with a comprehensive, community-based network that can serve in this intermediary role.

Community asset mapping (CAM), also known as asset mapping or environmental scanning, is a way to bridge the gap.¹⁹ CAM provides a method for identifying and aligning community resources relative to a specific need.²⁰ CAM may be used to build community relationships in service of veteran suicide prevention. This process can help individuals learn about and make use of organizations and services within their communities. CAM also helps connect HCPs so they can network, exchange ideas, and collaborate with an eye toward increasing the availability of services and enhancing care coordination. CAM also allows community members (eg, leaders, organizations, individuals) to identify possible gaps in services that address suicide risk factors and solve these problems.

This article details CAM for suicide prevention, which can be utilized by the VA and community organizations alike. Within the VA, CAM can be used by HCPs and administrators, such as VA community engagement and partnership coordinators, to identify potential partnering organizations. For those who serve veterans outside of the VA, CAM can be used to connect at-risk individuals to resources that can enhance their care. This process can help increase the overall knowledge of, and access to, community resources.

COMMUNITY ASSET MAPPING

The University of California, Los Angeles Center for Health Policy Research provides 6 steps for the CAM process.²¹ These steps include: (1) defining the boundaries of people and places that comprise the community; (2) identifying people and organizations who share similar interests and goals; (3) determining the assets to include; (4) creating an inventory of all organizations’ assets; (5) creating an inventory of individuals’ assets; and (6) organizing the assets on a map. To address the needs of the veteran population, we’ve taken these 6 steps and adapted them to create a CAM for veterans at risk for suicide (Figure). The discussion that follows details how these steps can be implemented to identify community resources that address social determinants of health that may contribute to suicide risk. The goal is to prevent veteran suicide.

Step 1: Define Community Reach. The first step is to identify the geographical boundaries of the community. This may include all veterans within a catchment area (eg, veterans within 60 miles of a VAMC). Defining the geographical parameters of the community will provide structure to the effort so that the resource list is as comprehensive as possible.

Steps 2 and 3: Identify Community Members with Shared Goals; Identify Assets. It is important to identify community members who share similar interests and goals, including people with specific knowledge and skills, organizations with particular goals, and community partners with a broad reach. To begin building a list of referrals, reach out to colleagues within the VA system who are familiar with community resources for those with suicide risk factors. The local VA Transition and Care Management (TCM) office is a resource that connects those transitioning from military to civilian sectors with needed resources, and thus may be a helpful resource while building a CAM. Additionally, each office has a transition patient advocate, who is trained to resolve care-related concerns and may be familiar with community resources.

VA HCPs that can assist include Community Engagement and Partnership Coordinators, Suicide Prevention Coordinators, Local Recovery Coordinators, and substance abuse counselors. In addition, VA patient services, patient safety, and public affairs office staff—as well as VA Homeless Programs—may be good resources. Every VA health care system has care coordinators focused on military sexual trauma, intimate partner violence, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer+ care. These care coordinators may be able to provide information on community resources that address social determinants of health (eg, discrimination, violence).

Reaching out to key community resources and asking for recommendations of other groups that provide assistance to veterans can also be productive. You can start by connecting with veterans service organizations (VSOs), Vet Centers, Veterans Experience Offices (VEO), and Community Veterans Engagement Boards (CVEBs). The VEO is an office designed around VA and community engagement efforts. This office utilizes the CVEBs to foster a 2-way communication feedback loop between veterans and local VA facilities regarding community engagement efforts and outreach.²² CVEBs are particularly valuable sources of information because veterans directly contribute to the conversation about community engagement by describing the difficulties and successes they’ve experienced. Veteran feedback about how a particular resource met their needs can inform which community services are prioritized for inclusion in the resource list. In addition, CVEBs may have a listing of local government, military, and/or community resources that provide services for veterans. Consider, too, organizations that are unrelated to an individual’s veteran status, but speak to their race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, spirituality, socioeconomic status, or disability.

Step 4: Continue to Build Inventory. Use online searches to identify additional resources in the community that are known to have local relationships. These include state suicide prevention coordinators, mental health organizations, and other resources that address social determinants of health (eg, public health and human service organizations, faith-based organizations, collegial organizations). A list of links and search tips are available in the Table.

Steps 5 and 6: Create Document; Organize and Disseminate Information. A spreadsheet can be used to document organization information (Appendix). It is critical to record: (1) the name of the organization or individual; (2) the local address and a point of contact with contact information; (3) services offered to veterans; (4) services specific to suicide prevention, or that address risk factors for suicide; and (5) whether the referral organization is partnered with the VA Community Care Network, which is comprised of contracted HCPs who contract with the VA to provide care to veterans.²³

Once a document is created, it can be disseminated through VA offices and among community partners who work with veterans at risk for suicide. It should also be stored in a centralized location such as a shared folder so that it can be continuously updated.

Regularly updating the list is vital so the resource list can continue to be helpful in addressing veterans’ needs and reducing suicide risk factors. Continued collaboration with those in the community can help ensure the resource list is up to date with all available services and pertinent contact information. It can also go far in strengthening collaborative bonds.

IMPLEMENTATION

To illustrate the use of CAM for veteran suicide prevention, we offer a case example of CAM conducted by the VA Patient Safety Center of Inquiry — Suicide Prevention Collaborative (VA PSCI-SPC) team, consisting of 4 team members. A veteran was included as a team member and assisted with the CAM process.

The VA PSCI-SPC sought to identify community services for veterans in Colorado who were not enrolled in VA health care and had risk factors for suicide. Next, the team reached out to colleagues and asked about community organizations that work with individuals at risk for suicide. VA PSCI-SPC outreach resulted in a list of assets that included resources to address mental health, legal concerns, employment, homelessness/housing, finances, religion, peer support, food insecurity, exercise, intimate partner violence, sexual and gender identity needs, and peer support. VSOs and CVEBs were also added to the list.

Next, the team continued to build on the inventory and identified state suicide prevention coordinators; health care systems; regional suicide prevention commissions; Colorado Department of Health and Human Services; program coordinators for Governor’s and Mayor’s Challenges to Prevent Suicide Among Service Members, Veterans, and their Families; veterans councils; universities (eg, counseling clinics, legal clinics); and foundations devoted to general and veteran-specific suicide prevention within the region.

All the identified resources were inventoried. Details were gathered about each of the organizations, including addresses, points of contact and phone numbers, descriptions of services offered for veterans, descriptions of suicide prevention services offered, whether or not organizations were not-for-profit, the mission of the organizations, and whether or not the organizations were under contract for VA Community Care. Finally, the resource spreadsheet was created and disseminated among stakeholders to be used to enhance veteran suicide care. Stakeholders included social workers, psychologists, and nurse practitioners working with veterans. The list was circulated to VA and community partners as needed.

The VA PSCI-SPC resource document was only 1 benefit of CAM. The asset mapping also resulted in the creation of a learning collaborative comprised of VA and community partners, designed to share knowledge of best practices in suicide prevention and create an established referral network for veterans at risk for suicide.²⁴ Ultimately, the goal of the CAM and the creation of the learning collaborative was to better connect veterans to care in order to decrease suicide risk. A secondary benefit of this community connectedness is that the list of resources produced by CAM became a living document that was, and continues to be, updated as the network became aware of new resources and resources that were no longer available. The VA PSCI-SPC learning collaborative met quarterly to discuss implementation of suicide prevention best practices within their organization.

Data from the VA PSCI-SPC learning collaborative via CAM revealed that organizations felt more efficacious in implementing suicide prevention best practices, noticed increased connections and collaborations with community organizations with the goal of providing services to veterans, and resulted in staff training that improved services provided to veterans.²⁴ This is supported by other findings of a literature review of suicide prevention interventions, which indicated that programs with an established community support network were more effective at reducing suicide rates.²⁵ CAM therefore may be a process through which greater community connection and increased knowledge of resources may help prevent suicide among veterans.

It seems reasonable that the CAM processes used by the VA PSCI-SPC can be implemented within the regional Veterans Integrated Service Networks to identify assets in a specific geographical area to address challenges with social determinants of health and potentially decrease veteran suicide risk.

CONCLUSIONS

CAM can be used to identify and build relationships with community resources that address the stressors that place veterans at risk for suicide. Six proposed steps to CAM for veterans at risk for suicide include: defining community reach (the map); identifying community members and organizations with shared goals; identifying assets within the community; continuing to build inventory; creating a document; and organizing and disseminating the information (while continuing to update the resources).²¹

CAM can be used to connect veterans with resources to address needs related to adverse social determinants of health that may heighten their risk for suicide. For example, veterans facing legal challenges can connect with a legal clinic; those having difficulties paying bills can obtain financial assistance; those who need help completing their VA claims can connect with the Veterans Benefits Administration or VSOs to assist them with their claims; and those experiencing discrimination can connect with organizations where they may experience acceptance, safety, and support. Broad community support surrounding suicide risk factors can be critical for effective suicide prevention.²⁵

CAM may also be helpful for HCPs and others involved in veteran health care. For example, community mapping can be utilized by newly hired community engagement and partnership coordinators as a tool for outlining resources available for veterans in their community and as a framework to continually update their resource network. CAM develops community awareness, integrates resources, and enhances service utilization, which may assist in veteran suicide prevention by increasing care coordination.¹⁷ Finally, mapping community resources can create awareness of the many resources available to help veterans, even before suicide becomes a consideration.

Suicide prevention is the leading clinical priority for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).¹ An average of 18 veterans died by suicide each day in 2021.² Numerous risk factors for veteran suicide have been identified, including mental health disorders, comorbidities, access to firearms, and potentially lethal medications.^3-5 To better understand groups of patients at risk of suicide in medical settings, the authors have previously compared demographic and clinical risk factors between patients who died by suicide by using firearms or other means with matched patients who did not die by suicide (control group) to examine the impact of lack of social support, financial stress,⁶ legal problems,⁷ homelessness,⁸ and discrimination.⁹ The number of cooccurring risk factors a veteran experiences is associated with a greater likelihood of suicide attempts over time.¹⁰ In addition, some risk factors are social and environmental risk factors known as social determinants of health (SDoH), including financial stability and access to health care, food, housing, and education. ¹¹ SDoH may influence health outcomes more broadly and are associated with greater risk of suicide.^12,13

The VA offers programming to address suicide risk factors. However, not all veterans are eligible for VA care. Further, some veterans prefer to obtain non-VA services in their communities. Providing veterans with community resources that address risk factors, particularly SDoH, may be a worthwhile strategy for reducing suicide. Such resources have demonstrated success; for example, greater use of housing services was associated with a reduced risk for suicide-related mortality among unhoused veterans.¹²

The challenges that veterans experience can go beyond the scope of services the VA provides. For example, while the VA provides some services related to homelessness, justice involvement, and assistance with home loans, these services are often limited. Other services for veterans to address SDoH may require access to community resources, including food banks, employment assistance, respite and childcare services, and transportation assistance. Some veterans also may have experienced institutional betrayal, which could be a barrier to VA care and may motivate veterans to address their needs in the community.¹⁴ Veterans therefore may need a range of services beyond those within the VA. Leveraging community resources for veterans at risk for suicide is critical, as these resources may help to mitigate suicide risk.

An emerging emphasis of the VA is improving coordination with community partners to prevent veteran suicide. In 2019, the VA launched an improved Veterans Community Care Program, which implemented portions of the VA MISSION Act of 2018 to create additional connection to community care for VA-enrolled veterans. This includes assisting veterans in gaining access to specialty services not offered at a local VA medical center (VAMC), getting access to services sooner, and receiving care if they do not live near a VAMC.¹⁵ In addition, the COMPACT Act allows veterans in acute suicidal crisis to receive emergency health care through either VA or non-VA facilities at no cost.¹⁶ The VA National Strategy for Preventing Veteran Suicide 2018-2028 is a 10-year plan to reduce veteran suicide rates that includes initiatives to increase connections between VA and community agencies.¹⁷ A suicide prevention community toolkit is available online for health care professionals (HCPs) (and others, including employers) outside of the VA who may be unfamiliar with best practices for working with veterans at risk for suicide.¹⁸

The challenge, however, is that there is often a lack of “connectedness” between VA suicide prevention coordinators and community resources to address suicide risk factors and related social determinants of health. These services include, but are not limited to suicide prevention, mental health counseling (particularly no/low-cost services), unemployment resources, financial assistance and counseling, housing assistance, and identity-related supportive spaces. A major stumbling block in connecting resources with veterans (regardless of discharge status) who need them is there is no single, national organization with a comprehensive, community-based network that can serve in this intermediary role.

Community asset mapping (CAM), also known as asset mapping or environmental scanning, is a way to bridge the gap.¹⁹ CAM provides a method for identifying and aligning community resources relative to a specific need.²⁰ CAM may be used to build community relationships in service of veteran suicide prevention. This process can help individuals learn about and make use of organizations and services within their communities. CAM also helps connect HCPs so they can network, exchange ideas, and collaborate with an eye toward increasing the availability of services and enhancing care coordination. CAM also allows community members (eg, leaders, organizations, individuals) to identify possible gaps in services that address suicide risk factors and solve these problems.

This article details CAM for suicide prevention, which can be utilized by the VA and community organizations alike. Within the VA, CAM can be used by HCPs and administrators, such as VA community engagement and partnership coordinators, to identify potential partnering organizations. For those who serve veterans outside of the VA, CAM can be used to connect at-risk individuals to resources that can enhance their care. This process can help increase the overall knowledge of, and access to, community resources.

COMMUNITY ASSET MAPPING

The University of California, Los Angeles Center for Health Policy Research provides 6 steps for the CAM process.²¹ These steps include: (1) defining the boundaries of people and places that comprise the community; (2) identifying people and organizations who share similar interests and goals; (3) determining the assets to include; (4) creating an inventory of all organizations’ assets; (5) creating an inventory of individuals’ assets; and (6) organizing the assets on a map. To address the needs of the veteran population, we’ve taken these 6 steps and adapted them to create a CAM for veterans at risk for suicide (Figure). The discussion that follows details how these steps can be implemented to identify community resources that address social determinants of health that may contribute to suicide risk. The goal is to prevent veteran suicide.

Step 1: Define Community Reach. The first step is to identify the geographical boundaries of the community. This may include all veterans within a catchment area (eg, veterans within 60 miles of a VAMC). Defining the geographical parameters of the community will provide structure to the effort so that the resource list is as comprehensive as possible.

Steps 2 and 3: Identify Community Members with Shared Goals; Identify Assets. It is important to identify community members who share similar interests and goals, including people with specific knowledge and skills, organizations with particular goals, and community partners with a broad reach. To begin building a list of referrals, reach out to colleagues within the VA system who are familiar with community resources for those with suicide risk factors. The local VA Transition and Care Management (TCM) office is a resource that connects those transitioning from military to civilian sectors with needed resources, and thus may be a helpful resource while building a CAM. Additionally, each office has a transition patient advocate, who is trained to resolve care-related concerns and may be familiar with community resources.

VA HCPs that can assist include Community Engagement and Partnership Coordinators, Suicide Prevention Coordinators, Local Recovery Coordinators, and substance abuse counselors. In addition, VA patient services, patient safety, and public affairs office staff—as well as VA Homeless Programs—may be good resources. Every VA health care system has care coordinators focused on military sexual trauma, intimate partner violence, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer+ care. These care coordinators may be able to provide information on community resources that address social determinants of health (eg, discrimination, violence).

Reaching out to key community resources and asking for recommendations of other groups that provide assistance to veterans can also be productive. You can start by connecting with veterans service organizations (VSOs), Vet Centers, Veterans Experience Offices (VEO), and Community Veterans Engagement Boards (CVEBs). The VEO is an office designed around VA and community engagement efforts. This office utilizes the CVEBs to foster a 2-way communication feedback loop between veterans and local VA facilities regarding community engagement efforts and outreach.²² CVEBs are particularly valuable sources of information because veterans directly contribute to the conversation about community engagement by describing the difficulties and successes they’ve experienced. Veteran feedback about how a particular resource met their needs can inform which community services are prioritized for inclusion in the resource list. In addition, CVEBs may have a listing of local government, military, and/or community resources that provide services for veterans. Consider, too, organizations that are unrelated to an individual’s veteran status, but speak to their race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, spirituality, socioeconomic status, or disability.

Step 4: Continue to Build Inventory. Use online searches to identify additional resources in the community that are known to have local relationships. These include state suicide prevention coordinators, mental health organizations, and other resources that address social determinants of health (eg, public health and human service organizations, faith-based organizations, collegial organizations). A list of links and search tips are available in the Table.

Steps 5 and 6: Create Document; Organize and Disseminate Information. A spreadsheet can be used to document organization information (Appendix). It is critical to record: (1) the name of the organization or individual; (2) the local address and a point of contact with contact information; (3) services offered to veterans; (4) services specific to suicide prevention, or that address risk factors for suicide; and (5) whether the referral organization is partnered with the VA Community Care Network, which is comprised of contracted HCPs who contract with the VA to provide care to veterans.²³

Once a document is created, it can be disseminated through VA offices and among community partners who work with veterans at risk for suicide. It should also be stored in a centralized location such as a shared folder so that it can be continuously updated.

Regularly updating the list is vital so the resource list can continue to be helpful in addressing veterans’ needs and reducing suicide risk factors. Continued collaboration with those in the community can help ensure the resource list is up to date with all available services and pertinent contact information. It can also go far in strengthening collaborative bonds.

IMPLEMENTATION

To illustrate the use of CAM for veteran suicide prevention, we offer a case example of CAM conducted by the VA Patient Safety Center of Inquiry — Suicide Prevention Collaborative (VA PSCI-SPC) team, consisting of 4 team members. A veteran was included as a team member and assisted with the CAM process.

The VA PSCI-SPC sought to identify community services for veterans in Colorado who were not enrolled in VA health care and had risk factors for suicide. Next, the team reached out to colleagues and asked about community organizations that work with individuals at risk for suicide. VA PSCI-SPC outreach resulted in a list of assets that included resources to address mental health, legal concerns, employment, homelessness/housing, finances, religion, peer support, food insecurity, exercise, intimate partner violence, sexual and gender identity needs, and peer support. VSOs and CVEBs were also added to the list.

Next, the team continued to build on the inventory and identified state suicide prevention coordinators; health care systems; regional suicide prevention commissions; Colorado Department of Health and Human Services; program coordinators for Governor’s and Mayor’s Challenges to Prevent Suicide Among Service Members, Veterans, and their Families; veterans councils; universities (eg, counseling clinics, legal clinics); and foundations devoted to general and veteran-specific suicide prevention within the region.

All the identified resources were inventoried. Details were gathered about each of the organizations, including addresses, points of contact and phone numbers, descriptions of services offered for veterans, descriptions of suicide prevention services offered, whether or not organizations were not-for-profit, the mission of the organizations, and whether or not the organizations were under contract for VA Community Care. Finally, the resource spreadsheet was created and disseminated among stakeholders to be used to enhance veteran suicide care. Stakeholders included social workers, psychologists, and nurse practitioners working with veterans. The list was circulated to VA and community partners as needed.

The VA PSCI-SPC resource document was only 1 benefit of CAM. The asset mapping also resulted in the creation of a learning collaborative comprised of VA and community partners, designed to share knowledge of best practices in suicide prevention and create an established referral network for veterans at risk for suicide.²⁴ Ultimately, the goal of the CAM and the creation of the learning collaborative was to better connect veterans to care in order to decrease suicide risk. A secondary benefit of this community connectedness is that the list of resources produced by CAM became a living document that was, and continues to be, updated as the network became aware of new resources and resources that were no longer available. The VA PSCI-SPC learning collaborative met quarterly to discuss implementation of suicide prevention best practices within their organization.

Data from the VA PSCI-SPC learning collaborative via CAM revealed that organizations felt more efficacious in implementing suicide prevention best practices, noticed increased connections and collaborations with community organizations with the goal of providing services to veterans, and resulted in staff training that improved services provided to veterans.²⁴ This is supported by other findings of a literature review of suicide prevention interventions, which indicated that programs with an established community support network were more effective at reducing suicide rates.²⁵ CAM therefore may be a process through which greater community connection and increased knowledge of resources may help prevent suicide among veterans.

It seems reasonable that the CAM processes used by the VA PSCI-SPC can be implemented within the regional Veterans Integrated Service Networks to identify assets in a specific geographical area to address challenges with social determinants of health and potentially decrease veteran suicide risk.

CONCLUSIONS

CAM can be used to identify and build relationships with community resources that address the stressors that place veterans at risk for suicide. Six proposed steps to CAM for veterans at risk for suicide include: defining community reach (the map); identifying community members and organizations with shared goals; identifying assets within the community; continuing to build inventory; creating a document; and organizing and disseminating the information (while continuing to update the resources).²¹

CAM can be used to connect veterans with resources to address needs related to adverse social determinants of health that may heighten their risk for suicide. For example, veterans facing legal challenges can connect with a legal clinic; those having difficulties paying bills can obtain financial assistance; those who need help completing their VA claims can connect with the Veterans Benefits Administration or VSOs to assist them with their claims; and those experiencing discrimination can connect with organizations where they may experience acceptance, safety, and support. Broad community support surrounding suicide risk factors can be critical for effective suicide prevention.²⁵

CAM may also be helpful for HCPs and others involved in veteran health care. For example, community mapping can be utilized by newly hired community engagement and partnership coordinators as a tool for outlining resources available for veterans in their community and as a framework to continually update their resource network. CAM develops community awareness, integrates resources, and enhances service utilization, which may assist in veteran suicide prevention by increasing care coordination.¹⁷ Finally, mapping community resources can create awareness of the many resources available to help veterans, even before suicide becomes a consideration.

Suicide prevention is the leading clinical priority for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).¹ An average of 18 veterans died by suicide each day in 2021.² Numerous risk factors for veteran suicide have been identified, including mental health disorders, comorbidities, access to firearms, and potentially lethal medications.^3-5 To better understand groups of patients at risk of suicide in medical settings, the authors have previously compared demographic and clinical risk factors between patients who died by suicide by using firearms or other means with matched patients who did not die by suicide (control group) to examine the impact of lack of social support, financial stress,⁶ legal problems,⁷ homelessness,⁸ and discrimination.⁹ The number of cooccurring risk factors a veteran experiences is associated with a greater likelihood of suicide attempts over time.¹⁰ In addition, some risk factors are social and environmental risk factors known as social determinants of health (SDoH), including financial stability and access to health care, food, housing, and education. ¹¹ SDoH may influence health outcomes more broadly and are associated with greater risk of suicide.^12,13

The VA offers programming to address suicide risk factors. However, not all veterans are eligible for VA care. Further, some veterans prefer to obtain non-VA services in their communities. Providing veterans with community resources that address risk factors, particularly SDoH, may be a worthwhile strategy for reducing suicide. Such resources have demonstrated success; for example, greater use of housing services was associated with a reduced risk for suicide-related mortality among unhoused veterans.¹²

The challenges that veterans experience can go beyond the scope of services the VA provides. For example, while the VA provides some services related to homelessness, justice involvement, and assistance with home loans, these services are often limited. Other services for veterans to address SDoH may require access to community resources, including food banks, employment assistance, respite and childcare services, and transportation assistance. Some veterans also may have experienced institutional betrayal, which could be a barrier to VA care and may motivate veterans to address their needs in the community.¹⁴ Veterans therefore may need a range of services beyond those within the VA. Leveraging community resources for veterans at risk for suicide is critical, as these resources may help to mitigate suicide risk.

An emerging emphasis of the VA is improving coordination with community partners to prevent veteran suicide. In 2019, the VA launched an improved Veterans Community Care Program, which implemented portions of the VA MISSION Act of 2018 to create additional connection to community care for VA-enrolled veterans. This includes assisting veterans in gaining access to specialty services not offered at a local VA medical center (VAMC), getting access to services sooner, and receiving care if they do not live near a VAMC.¹⁵ In addition, the COMPACT Act allows veterans in acute suicidal crisis to receive emergency health care through either VA or non-VA facilities at no cost.¹⁶ The VA National Strategy for Preventing Veteran Suicide 2018-2028 is a 10-year plan to reduce veteran suicide rates that includes initiatives to increase connections between VA and community agencies.¹⁷ A suicide prevention community toolkit is available online for health care professionals (HCPs) (and others, including employers) outside of the VA who may be unfamiliar with best practices for working with veterans at risk for suicide.¹⁸

The challenge, however, is that there is often a lack of “connectedness” between VA suicide prevention coordinators and community resources to address suicide risk factors and related social determinants of health. These services include, but are not limited to suicide prevention, mental health counseling (particularly no/low-cost services), unemployment resources, financial assistance and counseling, housing assistance, and identity-related supportive spaces. A major stumbling block in connecting resources with veterans (regardless of discharge status) who need them is there is no single, national organization with a comprehensive, community-based network that can serve in this intermediary role.

Community asset mapping (CAM), also known as asset mapping or environmental scanning, is a way to bridge the gap.¹⁹ CAM provides a method for identifying and aligning community resources relative to a specific need.²⁰ CAM may be used to build community relationships in service of veteran suicide prevention. This process can help individuals learn about and make use of organizations and services within their communities. CAM also helps connect HCPs so they can network, exchange ideas, and collaborate with an eye toward increasing the availability of services and enhancing care coordination. CAM also allows community members (eg, leaders, organizations, individuals) to identify possible gaps in services that address suicide risk factors and solve these problems.

This article details CAM for suicide prevention, which can be utilized by the VA and community organizations alike. Within the VA, CAM can be used by HCPs and administrators, such as VA community engagement and partnership coordinators, to identify potential partnering organizations. For those who serve veterans outside of the VA, CAM can be used to connect at-risk individuals to resources that can enhance their care. This process can help increase the overall knowledge of, and access to, community resources.

COMMUNITY ASSET MAPPING

The University of California, Los Angeles Center for Health Policy Research provides 6 steps for the CAM process.²¹ These steps include: (1) defining the boundaries of people and places that comprise the community; (2) identifying people and organizations who share similar interests and goals; (3) determining the assets to include; (4) creating an inventory of all organizations’ assets; (5) creating an inventory of individuals’ assets; and (6) organizing the assets on a map. To address the needs of the veteran population, we’ve taken these 6 steps and adapted them to create a CAM for veterans at risk for suicide (Figure). The discussion that follows details how these steps can be implemented to identify community resources that address social determinants of health that may contribute to suicide risk. The goal is to prevent veteran suicide.

Step 1: Define Community Reach. The first step is to identify the geographical boundaries of the community. This may include all veterans within a catchment area (eg, veterans within 60 miles of a VAMC). Defining the geographical parameters of the community will provide structure to the effort so that the resource list is as comprehensive as possible.

Steps 2 and 3: Identify Community Members with Shared Goals; Identify Assets. It is important to identify community members who share similar interests and goals, including people with specific knowledge and skills, organizations with particular goals, and community partners with a broad reach. To begin building a list of referrals, reach out to colleagues within the VA system who are familiar with community resources for those with suicide risk factors. The local VA Transition and Care Management (TCM) office is a resource that connects those transitioning from military to civilian sectors with needed resources, and thus may be a helpful resource while building a CAM. Additionally, each office has a transition patient advocate, who is trained to resolve care-related concerns and may be familiar with community resources.

VA HCPs that can assist include Community Engagement and Partnership Coordinators, Suicide Prevention Coordinators, Local Recovery Coordinators, and substance abuse counselors. In addition, VA patient services, patient safety, and public affairs office staff—as well as VA Homeless Programs—may be good resources. Every VA health care system has care coordinators focused on military sexual trauma, intimate partner violence, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer+ care. These care coordinators may be able to provide information on community resources that address social determinants of health (eg, discrimination, violence).

Reaching out to key community resources and asking for recommendations of other groups that provide assistance to veterans can also be productive. You can start by connecting with veterans service organizations (VSOs), Vet Centers, Veterans Experience Offices (VEO), and Community Veterans Engagement Boards (CVEBs). The VEO is an office designed around VA and community engagement efforts. This office utilizes the CVEBs to foster a 2-way communication feedback loop between veterans and local VA facilities regarding community engagement efforts and outreach.²² CVEBs are particularly valuable sources of information because veterans directly contribute to the conversation about community engagement by describing the difficulties and successes they’ve experienced. Veteran feedback about how a particular resource met their needs can inform which community services are prioritized for inclusion in the resource list. In addition, CVEBs may have a listing of local government, military, and/or community resources that provide services for veterans. Consider, too, organizations that are unrelated to an individual’s veteran status, but speak to their race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, spirituality, socioeconomic status, or disability.

Step 4: Continue to Build Inventory. Use online searches to identify additional resources in the community that are known to have local relationships. These include state suicide prevention coordinators, mental health organizations, and other resources that address social determinants of health (eg, public health and human service organizations, faith-based organizations, collegial organizations). A list of links and search tips are available in the Table.

Steps 5 and 6: Create Document; Organize and Disseminate Information. A spreadsheet can be used to document organization information (Appendix). It is critical to record: (1) the name of the organization or individual; (2) the local address and a point of contact with contact information; (3) services offered to veterans; (4) services specific to suicide prevention, or that address risk factors for suicide; and (5) whether the referral organization is partnered with the VA Community Care Network, which is comprised of contracted HCPs who contract with the VA to provide care to veterans.²³

Once a document is created, it can be disseminated through VA offices and among community partners who work with veterans at risk for suicide. It should also be stored in a centralized location such as a shared folder so that it can be continuously updated.

Regularly updating the list is vital so the resource list can continue to be helpful in addressing veterans’ needs and reducing suicide risk factors. Continued collaboration with those in the community can help ensure the resource list is up to date with all available services and pertinent contact information. It can also go far in strengthening collaborative bonds.

IMPLEMENTATION

To illustrate the use of CAM for veteran suicide prevention, we offer a case example of CAM conducted by the VA Patient Safety Center of Inquiry — Suicide Prevention Collaborative (VA PSCI-SPC) team, consisting of 4 team members. A veteran was included as a team member and assisted with the CAM process.

The VA PSCI-SPC sought to identify community services for veterans in Colorado who were not enrolled in VA health care and had risk factors for suicide. Next, the team reached out to colleagues and asked about community organizations that work with individuals at risk for suicide. VA PSCI-SPC outreach resulted in a list of assets that included resources to address mental health, legal concerns, employment, homelessness/housing, finances, religion, peer support, food insecurity, exercise, intimate partner violence, sexual and gender identity needs, and peer support. VSOs and CVEBs were also added to the list.

Next, the team continued to build on the inventory and identified state suicide prevention coordinators; health care systems; regional suicide prevention commissions; Colorado Department of Health and Human Services; program coordinators for Governor’s and Mayor’s Challenges to Prevent Suicide Among Service Members, Veterans, and their Families; veterans councils; universities (eg, counseling clinics, legal clinics); and foundations devoted to general and veteran-specific suicide prevention within the region.

All the identified resources were inventoried. Details were gathered about each of the organizations, including addresses, points of contact and phone numbers, descriptions of services offered for veterans, descriptions of suicide prevention services offered, whether or not organizations were not-for-profit, the mission of the organizations, and whether or not the organizations were under contract for VA Community Care. Finally, the resource spreadsheet was created and disseminated among stakeholders to be used to enhance veteran suicide care. Stakeholders included social workers, psychologists, and nurse practitioners working with veterans. The list was circulated to VA and community partners as needed.

The VA PSCI-SPC resource document was only 1 benefit of CAM. The asset mapping also resulted in the creation of a learning collaborative comprised of VA and community partners, designed to share knowledge of best practices in suicide prevention and create an established referral network for veterans at risk for suicide.²⁴ Ultimately, the goal of the CAM and the creation of the learning collaborative was to better connect veterans to care in order to decrease suicide risk. A secondary benefit of this community connectedness is that the list of resources produced by CAM became a living document that was, and continues to be, updated as the network became aware of new resources and resources that were no longer available. The VA PSCI-SPC learning collaborative met quarterly to discuss implementation of suicide prevention best practices within their organization.

Data from the VA PSCI-SPC learning collaborative via CAM revealed that organizations felt more efficacious in implementing suicide prevention best practices, noticed increased connections and collaborations with community organizations with the goal of providing services to veterans, and resulted in staff training that improved services provided to veterans.²⁴ This is supported by other findings of a literature review of suicide prevention interventions, which indicated that programs with an established community support network were more effective at reducing suicide rates.²⁵ CAM therefore may be a process through which greater community connection and increased knowledge of resources may help prevent suicide among veterans.

It seems reasonable that the CAM processes used by the VA PSCI-SPC can be implemented within the regional Veterans Integrated Service Networks to identify assets in a specific geographical area to address challenges with social determinants of health and potentially decrease veteran suicide risk.

CONCLUSIONS

CAM can be used to identify and build relationships with community resources that address the stressors that place veterans at risk for suicide. Six proposed steps to CAM for veterans at risk for suicide include: defining community reach (the map); identifying community members and organizations with shared goals; identifying assets within the community; continuing to build inventory; creating a document; and organizing and disseminating the information (while continuing to update the resources).²¹

CAM can be used to connect veterans with resources to address needs related to adverse social determinants of health that may heighten their risk for suicide. For example, veterans facing legal challenges can connect with a legal clinic; those having difficulties paying bills can obtain financial assistance; those who need help completing their VA claims can connect with the Veterans Benefits Administration or VSOs to assist them with their claims; and those experiencing discrimination can connect with organizations where they may experience acceptance, safety, and support. Broad community support surrounding suicide risk factors can be critical for effective suicide prevention.²⁵

CAM may also be helpful for HCPs and others involved in veteran health care. For example, community mapping can be utilized by newly hired community engagement and partnership coordinators as a tool for outlining resources available for veterans in their community and as a framework to continually update their resource network. CAM develops community awareness, integrates resources, and enhances service utilization, which may assist in veteran suicide prevention by increasing care coordination.¹⁷ Finally, mapping community resources can create awareness of the many resources available to help veterans, even before suicide becomes a consideration.

Evidence-based psychotherapy (EBP) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), such as prolonged exposure (PE), is supported by multiple clinical practice guidelines and is expected to be available to veterans served by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).^1-5 However, traditional models of EBP delivery with 1 or 2 sessions weekly have high dropout rates.^6,7 Few veterans who could benefit from such EBPs receive them, and those who do have low completion rates.^8,9 Over a 15-year period, VHA records review of > 265,500 veterans with PTSD showed only 9.1% completed EBP treatment that included but was not limited to PE.¹⁰

One empirically supported solution that has yet to be widely implemented is delivering EBPs for PTSD in a massed or accelerated format of ≥ 3 sessions weekly.¹¹ While these massed models of EBP delivery for PTSD are promising, their implementation is limited in federal health care settings, such as the VHA.¹² PE therapy is a first-line treatment for PTSD that has been evaluated in numerous clinical trials since the early 1990s and in a wide range of trauma populations.^13,14 Massed PE is effective and PE has been found to be effective both in-person and via telehealth.^11,15,16

Another approach to accelerated PE is the inclusion of a massed PE course within a broader treatment context that includes augmentation of the massed PE with additional services, this is referred to as an intensive outpatient model (IOP).¹⁷ PE-IOP has also been shown to be feasible, acceptable, and effective with increased completion rates in comparison to the traditional (1 or 2 sessions weekly) model of PE.^12,16,18,19 Ragsdale et al describe a 2-week IOP with multiple treatment tracks, including a PTSD track. The PTSD treatment track includes massed PE and additional standard services including case management, wellness services, family services, and a single session effective behaviors group. Additional augmentation services are available when clinically indicated (eg, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation treatment, psychoeducation, motivational interviewing, and/or relapse prevention).¹⁷

Rauch et al studied the first 80 patients completing an IOP program that consisted of PE (5 sessions weekly) and complementary interventions (eg, mindfulness and yoga) and reported a 96% retention rate, significant reductions of self-reported PTSD symptoms, significant reduction in self-reported co-occurring depression symptoms, and significant increase in self-reported satisfaction with social functioning. ¹⁸ In another study, Sherril et al explored patient reactions to participation in massed PE (5 sessions weekly) and found that patients reported significantly more positive than negative reactions. Sherrill et al noted that according to patients, the benefits of massed PE included a structured format that limits avoidance and distraction. The resulting fast pace of progress enhanced motivation; however, drawbacks included short-term discomfort and time demands.¹⁹ Yamokoski et al explored the feasibility of massed PE in a larger study of PTSD treatment in an intensive outpatient track (IOT) in a VHA PTSD clinic with minimal staffing. The 48 patients who completed IOT PTSD treatment in 2 or 4 weeks (including 35 patients who received massed PE) had high retention rates (85%), reported high satisfaction, and had significantly reduced PTSD and depression symptoms.¹²

The massed IOT PE model implemented by Yamokoski et al included the primary EBP intervention of massed PE with adjunctive groups. The addition of these groups increased both retention and patient-reported satisfaction. The PE-IOP model implemented by Rauch et al and Sherrill et al also included wellness and educational groups, as well as access to complementary interventions such as mindfulness and yoga.^18,19 The addition of wellness education along with a primary EBP aligned with the VHA focus on whole health well-being and wellness. The whole health approach includes understanding the factors that motivate a patient toward health and well-being, provision of health education, and providing access to complementary interventions such as mindfulness.²⁰ Dryden et al describe the whole health transformation within VHA as a proactive approach to addressing employee and patient wellness and health. Their research found that the whole health model promoted well-being in patients and staff and was sustained even during the COVID-19 pandemic.²¹ Dryden et al also noted that use of virtual technologies facilitated and promoted continued whole health implementation. The literature illustrates that: (1) massed PE can be provided with complementary education and wellness offerings, and that such offerings may increase both retention and satisfaction by enriching the massed PE treatment (eg, delivering PE-IOP); (2) whole health including wellness education and complementary interventions (eg, mindfulness, motivational enhancement) promotes well-being in both patients and mental health professionals; and (3) whole health education and complementary interventions can be delivered virtually.

Health Care Need

Prior to the implementation of a massed EBP for PTSD program at US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pacific Islands Health Care System (VAPIHCS), our setting included a traditional outpatient program for treatment of PTSD and a 12- bed residential program for treatment of PTSD for male-identified (self-identified and identified as male in the electronic medical record) veterans via a cohort model with an 8- or 9-week length of stay. Both programs were located on Oahu. Thus, veterans who received care at VAPIHCS had access to PE in both outpatient and residential settings and via in-person and telehealth modalities. However, their access to PE was limited to the traditional models of PE delivery (eg, 1 or 2 session per week) and very few veterans outside of the island of Oahu had accessed PE treatment for PTSD. Moreover, when looking at PE reach within VAPIHCS, in the fiscal year prior to the implementation of the massed EBP program, only 32 of the > 5000 eligible veterans with a PTSD diagnosis had received PE. VAPIHCS serves veterans in a catchment area across the Pacific Basin which includes 3 time zones: Hawaii Standard Time (HST), Chamorro Standard Time (ChST), and Samoa Standard Time (SST). ChST is 20 hours ahead of HST, making service delivery that is inclusive for patients in Guam and Saipan especially challenging when providing care from Hawaii or other US states or territories. Given all of this, implementation of a new program offering accelerated PE virtually to any veterans with PTSD within the VAPIHCS would increase access to and reduce barriers to receiving PE.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Intensive Virtual EBP Team (iVET) for PTSD consists of an accelerated course of PE therapy and whole health education provided via VA Video Connect (VVC). iVET is a 3-week program and includes 3 parts: (1) massed individual PE therapy for PTSD; (2) group whole health and wellness classes; and (3) individual health coaching to address personal wellness goals. Programming is offered over 10-hour days to increase access across multiple time zones, especially to allow for participation in Guam and Saipan.

When a patient is referred to the iVET, their first contact is a video (or telephone) appointment with a registered nurse (RN) for a screening session. The screening session is designed to educate the patient about the program, including interventions, time commitment, and resources required for participation. In addition, following the educational discussion, the RN completes screening for safety with the patient including suicidal ideation and risk, as well as intimate partner violence risk. If urgent safety concerns are present, a licensed social worker or psychologist will join the screening to complete further assessment of risk and to address any safety concerns. Following screening, patients are scheduled for a VVC intake with a licensed therapist (social worker or psychologist) to complete the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS-5) for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition), a clinical interview for PTSD assessment. Patients are also sent a secure link to complete a measurement-based care (MBC) battery of self-report measures including measures assessing demographics, PTSD symptoms, anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, substance use, quality of life (QOL), and satisfaction with mental health care. The results of the CAPS-5 and self-report measures are discussed with the patient during the intake session when planning next steps and engaging in shared decision-making. This initial VVC intake not only allows for diagnostic goodness of fit but also provides the opportunity to troubleshoot any technical difficulties the patients might have with the virtual platforms.

There are minimal exclusion criteria for participation in iVET, which include active unmanaged psychosis or manic symptoms, recent suicidal crises (attempt within 8 weeks), active nonsuicidal self-injurious behaviors (within 8 weeks), and moderate-to-severe cognitive impairment. Following intake, patients are scheduled to begin their course of care with iVET. Upon completion of intake, patients are sent program materials for their individual and group classes, asked to obtain or request a recording device, and told they will receive email links for all VVC appointments. Patients are admitted to the iVET in a rolling admission fashion, thereby increasing access when compared to closed group and/or cohort models of care.

Patients receiving care in iVET attend 2 or 3 telehealth appointments daily with practice exercises daily between telehealth sessions. The primary EBP intervention in the iVET for PTSD program is a massed or accelerated course of PE, which includes 4 primary components: psychoeducation, in-vivo exposure, imaginal exposure, and breathing retraining. Specifically, PE is delivered in 4 90-minute individual sessions weekly allowing completion of the full PE protocol, to fidelity, in 3 weeks. In addition to receiving this primary intervention, patients also participate in four 50-minute group sessions per week of a whole health and wellness education class and have access to one 30- to 60-minute session weekly of individual health coaching should they wish to set wellness goals and receive coaching in support of attaining wellness goals. During iVET, patients are invited to complete MBC batteries of selfreport measures including measures assessing PTSD symptoms, anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, substance use, QOL, and satisfaction with mental health care at sessions 1, 5, 9, and the final session of PE. Following discharge from the iVET, patients are offered 1-month, 3-month, and 6-month individual postdischarge check-up sessions with a therapist where they are invited to complete MBC measures and review relapse prevention and maintenance of treatment gains. Likewise, they are offered 1-month, 3-month, and 6-month postdischarge check-up sessions with an RN focused on maintaining wellness gains.

The iVET for PTSD staff includes 3 therapists (psychologists or social workers) and an RN. Additionally, the iVET for PTSD is supported by a program manager and a program support assistant. The primary cost of the program is salary for staff. Additional iVET for PTSD resources included computer equipment for staff and minimal supplies. Due to the virtual environment of care, iVET staff telework and do not require physical space within VAPIHCS.

OUTCOMES

All veterans receiving care in iVET for PTSD are invited to complete a MBC at multiple timepoints including pretreatment, during PE treatment, and posttreatment. The MBC measures included self-reported demographics, a 2-item measure of satisfaction with mental health services, the Brief Addiction Monitor-Intensive Outpatient Program questionnaire,²² the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale,^23, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9),²⁴ the QOL Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire- Short Form,²⁵ and the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), both weekly and monthly versions. ^26,27

The retention rate has averaged 81% since the iVET for PTSD opened in 2022. To date, 132 veterans have completed the iVET for PTSD program, including a full course of massed PE (Table 1). Veterans experienced reduced PTSD (P < .005), depression (P < .005), anxiety (P < .005), and substance use risk (P < .005). Veterans experienced improved QOL (P < .005) and reported high satisfaction with mental health care in iVET for PTSD (Table 2). Veterans also experienced reduced thoughts of death or suicidal ideation (SI) based on PHQ-9 item 9 responses. When looking categorically at presence or absence of SI on PHQ-9 item 9, a significant relationship was found between the absence of suicidal ideation and completion of a course of massed PE: X² (1, N = 132) = 13.75, P < .001. In addition, veterans who completed the program showed a significant decrease in severity of SI as measured continuously (range, 0-3) on PHQ-9 item 9 (P < .005).

Another important aspect to consider when implementing massed models of EBP is the impact on employee well-being and job satisfaction. The impact of EBP on staff was assessed following the initial EBP project. To explore this further, all staff members in the iVET for PTSD were invited to engage in a small program evaluation. iVET staff were guided through a visualization meditation intended to recall a typical workday 1 month prior to starting their new position with iVET. After the visualization meditation, staff completed the Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL) scale, a 30-item, self-reported questionnaire for health care workers that evaluates compassion satisfaction, perceived support, burnout, secondary traumatic stress, and moral distress.²⁸ One week later, staff were asked to complete the ProQOL again to capture their state after the first 6 months into their tenure as iVET staff. iVET employees experienced significantly increased perceived support (P < .05), reduced burnout (P < .05), reduced secondary traumatic stress (P < .05), and reduced moral distress (P < .05). Team members also remarked on the rewarding nature of the work and care model.

Future Directions

Future research should aim to sustain these outcomes as the iVET program continues to serve more veterans. Another important line of inquiry is longer-term follow-up, as exploring if outcomes are maintained over time is an important question that has not been answered in this article. In addition, we hope to see the accelerated model of care applied to treatment of other presenting concerns in mental health treatment (eg, anxiety, depression, insomnia). Expansion of accelerated mental health treatment into other federal and non-federal health care settings is another worthy direction. Finally, while short term (6 months) assessment of staff satisfaction in iVET was promising, ongoing assessment staff satisfaction over a longer timeframe (1-5 years) is also important.

CONCLUSIONS

PE for PTSD has been demonstrated to be effective and improve functioning and is supported by multiple clinical practice guidelines.1-5 However, as federal practitioners, we must consider the reality that many of the individuals who could benefit are not engaging in PE and there is a high dropout rate for those that do. It is vital that we envision a future state where access to PE for PTSD is equitable and inclusive, retention rates are dramatically improved, and clinicians providing PE do not experience high rates of burnout.

We must continue exploring how we can better care for our patients and colleagues. We posit that the development of programs, or tracks within existing programs, that provide massed or accelerated PE for PTSD with virtual delivery options is an imperative step toward improved care. Federal health care settings treating trauma-exposed patients with PTSD, such as those within the US Department of Defense, Indian Health Services, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and VA, are well positioned to implement programs like iVET. We believe this model of care has great merit and foresee a future where all patients seeking PTSD treatment have the option to complete an accelerated or massed course of PE should they so desire. The experiences outlined in this article illustrate the feasibility, acceptability, and sustainability of such programs without requiring substantial staffing and financial resources.

Evidence-based psychotherapy (EBP) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), such as prolonged exposure (PE), is supported by multiple clinical practice guidelines and is expected to be available to veterans served by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).^1-5 However, traditional models of EBP delivery with 1 or 2 sessions weekly have high dropout rates.^6,7 Few veterans who could benefit from such EBPs receive them, and those who do have low completion rates.^8,9 Over a 15-year period, VHA records review of > 265,500 veterans with PTSD showed only 9.1% completed EBP treatment that included but was not limited to PE.¹⁰

One empirically supported solution that has yet to be widely implemented is delivering EBPs for PTSD in a massed or accelerated format of ≥ 3 sessions weekly.¹¹ While these massed models of EBP delivery for PTSD are promising, their implementation is limited in federal health care settings, such as the VHA.¹² PE therapy is a first-line treatment for PTSD that has been evaluated in numerous clinical trials since the early 1990s and in a wide range of trauma populations.^13,14 Massed PE is effective and PE has been found to be effective both in-person and via telehealth.^11,15,16

Another approach to accelerated PE is the inclusion of a massed PE course within a broader treatment context that includes augmentation of the massed PE with additional services, this is referred to as an intensive outpatient model (IOP).¹⁷ PE-IOP has also been shown to be feasible, acceptable, and effective with increased completion rates in comparison to the traditional (1 or 2 sessions weekly) model of PE.^12,16,18,19 Ragsdale et al describe a 2-week IOP with multiple treatment tracks, including a PTSD track. The PTSD treatment track includes massed PE and additional standard services including case management, wellness services, family services, and a single session effective behaviors group. Additional augmentation services are available when clinically indicated (eg, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation treatment, psychoeducation, motivational interviewing, and/or relapse prevention).¹⁷

Rauch et al studied the first 80 patients completing an IOP program that consisted of PE (5 sessions weekly) and complementary interventions (eg, mindfulness and yoga) and reported a 96% retention rate, significant reductions of self-reported PTSD symptoms, significant reduction in self-reported co-occurring depression symptoms, and significant increase in self-reported satisfaction with social functioning. ¹⁸ In another study, Sherril et al explored patient reactions to participation in massed PE (5 sessions weekly) and found that patients reported significantly more positive than negative reactions. Sherrill et al noted that according to patients, the benefits of massed PE included a structured format that limits avoidance and distraction. The resulting fast pace of progress enhanced motivation; however, drawbacks included short-term discomfort and time demands.¹⁹ Yamokoski et al explored the feasibility of massed PE in a larger study of PTSD treatment in an intensive outpatient track (IOT) in a VHA PTSD clinic with minimal staffing. The 48 patients who completed IOT PTSD treatment in 2 or 4 weeks (including 35 patients who received massed PE) had high retention rates (85%), reported high satisfaction, and had significantly reduced PTSD and depression symptoms.¹²

The massed IOT PE model implemented by Yamokoski et al included the primary EBP intervention of massed PE with adjunctive groups. The addition of these groups increased both retention and patient-reported satisfaction. The PE-IOP model implemented by Rauch et al and Sherrill et al also included wellness and educational groups, as well as access to complementary interventions such as mindfulness and yoga.^18,19 The addition of wellness education along with a primary EBP aligned with the VHA focus on whole health well-being and wellness. The whole health approach includes understanding the factors that motivate a patient toward health and well-being, provision of health education, and providing access to complementary interventions such as mindfulness.²⁰ Dryden et al describe the whole health transformation within VHA as a proactive approach to addressing employee and patient wellness and health. Their research found that the whole health model promoted well-being in patients and staff and was sustained even during the COVID-19 pandemic.²¹ Dryden et al also noted that use of virtual technologies facilitated and promoted continued whole health implementation. The literature illustrates that: (1) massed PE can be provided with complementary education and wellness offerings, and that such offerings may increase both retention and satisfaction by enriching the massed PE treatment (eg, delivering PE-IOP); (2) whole health including wellness education and complementary interventions (eg, mindfulness, motivational enhancement) promotes well-being in both patients and mental health professionals; and (3) whole health education and complementary interventions can be delivered virtually.

Health Care Need

Prior to the implementation of a massed EBP for PTSD program at US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pacific Islands Health Care System (VAPIHCS), our setting included a traditional outpatient program for treatment of PTSD and a 12- bed residential program for treatment of PTSD for male-identified (self-identified and identified as male in the electronic medical record) veterans via a cohort model with an 8- or 9-week length of stay. Both programs were located on Oahu. Thus, veterans who received care at VAPIHCS had access to PE in both outpatient and residential settings and via in-person and telehealth modalities. However, their access to PE was limited to the traditional models of PE delivery (eg, 1 or 2 session per week) and very few veterans outside of the island of Oahu had accessed PE treatment for PTSD. Moreover, when looking at PE reach within VAPIHCS, in the fiscal year prior to the implementation of the massed EBP program, only 32 of the > 5000 eligible veterans with a PTSD diagnosis had received PE. VAPIHCS serves veterans in a catchment area across the Pacific Basin which includes 3 time zones: Hawaii Standard Time (HST), Chamorro Standard Time (ChST), and Samoa Standard Time (SST). ChST is 20 hours ahead of HST, making service delivery that is inclusive for patients in Guam and Saipan especially challenging when providing care from Hawaii or other US states or territories. Given all of this, implementation of a new program offering accelerated PE virtually to any veterans with PTSD within the VAPIHCS would increase access to and reduce barriers to receiving PE.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Intensive Virtual EBP Team (iVET) for PTSD consists of an accelerated course of PE therapy and whole health education provided via VA Video Connect (VVC). iVET is a 3-week program and includes 3 parts: (1) massed individual PE therapy for PTSD; (2) group whole health and wellness classes; and (3) individual health coaching to address personal wellness goals. Programming is offered over 10-hour days to increase access across multiple time zones, especially to allow for participation in Guam and Saipan.

When a patient is referred to the iVET, their first contact is a video (or telephone) appointment with a registered nurse (RN) for a screening session. The screening session is designed to educate the patient about the program, including interventions, time commitment, and resources required for participation. In addition, following the educational discussion, the RN completes screening for safety with the patient including suicidal ideation and risk, as well as intimate partner violence risk. If urgent safety concerns are present, a licensed social worker or psychologist will join the screening to complete further assessment of risk and to address any safety concerns. Following screening, patients are scheduled for a VVC intake with a licensed therapist (social worker or psychologist) to complete the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS-5) for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition), a clinical interview for PTSD assessment. Patients are also sent a secure link to complete a measurement-based care (MBC) battery of self-report measures including measures assessing demographics, PTSD symptoms, anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, substance use, quality of life (QOL), and satisfaction with mental health care. The results of the CAPS-5 and self-report measures are discussed with the patient during the intake session when planning next steps and engaging in shared decision-making. This initial VVC intake not only allows for diagnostic goodness of fit but also provides the opportunity to troubleshoot any technical difficulties the patients might have with the virtual platforms.

There are minimal exclusion criteria for participation in iVET, which include active unmanaged psychosis or manic symptoms, recent suicidal crises (attempt within 8 weeks), active nonsuicidal self-injurious behaviors (within 8 weeks), and moderate-to-severe cognitive impairment. Following intake, patients are scheduled to begin their course of care with iVET. Upon completion of intake, patients are sent program materials for their individual and group classes, asked to obtain or request a recording device, and told they will receive email links for all VVC appointments. Patients are admitted to the iVET in a rolling admission fashion, thereby increasing access when compared to closed group and/or cohort models of care.

Patients receiving care in iVET attend 2 or 3 telehealth appointments daily with practice exercises daily between telehealth sessions. The primary EBP intervention in the iVET for PTSD program is a massed or accelerated course of PE, which includes 4 primary components: psychoeducation, in-vivo exposure, imaginal exposure, and breathing retraining. Specifically, PE is delivered in 4 90-minute individual sessions weekly allowing completion of the full PE protocol, to fidelity, in 3 weeks. In addition to receiving this primary intervention, patients also participate in four 50-minute group sessions per week of a whole health and wellness education class and have access to one 30- to 60-minute session weekly of individual health coaching should they wish to set wellness goals and receive coaching in support of attaining wellness goals. During iVET, patients are invited to complete MBC batteries of selfreport measures including measures assessing PTSD symptoms, anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, substance use, QOL, and satisfaction with mental health care at sessions 1, 5, 9, and the final session of PE. Following discharge from the iVET, patients are offered 1-month, 3-month, and 6-month individual postdischarge check-up sessions with a therapist where they are invited to complete MBC measures and review relapse prevention and maintenance of treatment gains. Likewise, they are offered 1-month, 3-month, and 6-month postdischarge check-up sessions with an RN focused on maintaining wellness gains.

The iVET for PTSD staff includes 3 therapists (psychologists or social workers) and an RN. Additionally, the iVET for PTSD is supported by a program manager and a program support assistant. The primary cost of the program is salary for staff. Additional iVET for PTSD resources included computer equipment for staff and minimal supplies. Due to the virtual environment of care, iVET staff telework and do not require physical space within VAPIHCS.

OUTCOMES

All veterans receiving care in iVET for PTSD are invited to complete a MBC at multiple timepoints including pretreatment, during PE treatment, and posttreatment. The MBC measures included self-reported demographics, a 2-item measure of satisfaction with mental health services, the Brief Addiction Monitor-Intensive Outpatient Program questionnaire,²² the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale,^23, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9),²⁴ the QOL Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire- Short Form,²⁵ and the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), both weekly and monthly versions. ^26,27

The retention rate has averaged 81% since the iVET for PTSD opened in 2022. To date, 132 veterans have completed the iVET for PTSD program, including a full course of massed PE (Table 1). Veterans experienced reduced PTSD (P < .005), depression (P < .005), anxiety (P < .005), and substance use risk (P < .005). Veterans experienced improved QOL (P < .005) and reported high satisfaction with mental health care in iVET for PTSD (Table 2). Veterans also experienced reduced thoughts of death or suicidal ideation (SI) based on PHQ-9 item 9 responses. When looking categorically at presence or absence of SI on PHQ-9 item 9, a significant relationship was found between the absence of suicidal ideation and completion of a course of massed PE: X² (1, N = 132) = 13.75, P < .001. In addition, veterans who completed the program showed a significant decrease in severity of SI as measured continuously (range, 0-3) on PHQ-9 item 9 (P < .005).

Another important aspect to consider when implementing massed models of EBP is the impact on employee well-being and job satisfaction. The impact of EBP on staff was assessed following the initial EBP project. To explore this further, all staff members in the iVET for PTSD were invited to engage in a small program evaluation. iVET staff were guided through a visualization meditation intended to recall a typical workday 1 month prior to starting their new position with iVET. After the visualization meditation, staff completed the Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL) scale, a 30-item, self-reported questionnaire for health care workers that evaluates compassion satisfaction, perceived support, burnout, secondary traumatic stress, and moral distress.²⁸ One week later, staff were asked to complete the ProQOL again to capture their state after the first 6 months into their tenure as iVET staff. iVET employees experienced significantly increased perceived support (P < .05), reduced burnout (P < .05), reduced secondary traumatic stress (P < .05), and reduced moral distress (P < .05). Team members also remarked on the rewarding nature of the work and care model.

Future Directions

Future research should aim to sustain these outcomes as the iVET program continues to serve more veterans. Another important line of inquiry is longer-term follow-up, as exploring if outcomes are maintained over time is an important question that has not been answered in this article. In addition, we hope to see the accelerated model of care applied to treatment of other presenting concerns in mental health treatment (eg, anxiety, depression, insomnia). Expansion of accelerated mental health treatment into other federal and non-federal health care settings is another worthy direction. Finally, while short term (6 months) assessment of staff satisfaction in iVET was promising, ongoing assessment staff satisfaction over a longer timeframe (1-5 years) is also important.

CONCLUSIONS

PE for PTSD has been demonstrated to be effective and improve functioning and is supported by multiple clinical practice guidelines.1-5 However, as federal practitioners, we must consider the reality that many of the individuals who could benefit are not engaging in PE and there is a high dropout rate for those that do. It is vital that we envision a future state where access to PE for PTSD is equitable and inclusive, retention rates are dramatically improved, and clinicians providing PE do not experience high rates of burnout.

We must continue exploring how we can better care for our patients and colleagues. We posit that the development of programs, or tracks within existing programs, that provide massed or accelerated PE for PTSD with virtual delivery options is an imperative step toward improved care. Federal health care settings treating trauma-exposed patients with PTSD, such as those within the US Department of Defense, Indian Health Services, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and VA, are well positioned to implement programs like iVET. We believe this model of care has great merit and foresee a future where all patients seeking PTSD treatment have the option to complete an accelerated or massed course of PE should they so desire. The experiences outlined in this article illustrate the feasibility, acceptability, and sustainability of such programs without requiring substantial staffing and financial resources.

Evidence-based psychotherapy (EBP) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), such as prolonged exposure (PE), is supported by multiple clinical practice guidelines and is expected to be available to veterans served by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).^1-5 However, traditional models of EBP delivery with 1 or 2 sessions weekly have high dropout rates.^6,7 Few veterans who could benefit from such EBPs receive them, and those who do have low completion rates.^8,9 Over a 15-year period, VHA records review of > 265,500 veterans with PTSD showed only 9.1% completed EBP treatment that included but was not limited to PE.¹⁰

One empirically supported solution that has yet to be widely implemented is delivering EBPs for PTSD in a massed or accelerated format of ≥ 3 sessions weekly.¹¹ While these massed models of EBP delivery for PTSD are promising, their implementation is limited in federal health care settings, such as the VHA.¹² PE therapy is a first-line treatment for PTSD that has been evaluated in numerous clinical trials since the early 1990s and in a wide range of trauma populations.^13,14 Massed PE is effective and PE has been found to be effective both in-person and via telehealth.^11,15,16

Another approach to accelerated PE is the inclusion of a massed PE course within a broader treatment context that includes augmentation of the massed PE with additional services, this is referred to as an intensive outpatient model (IOP).¹⁷ PE-IOP has also been shown to be feasible, acceptable, and effective with increased completion rates in comparison to the traditional (1 or 2 sessions weekly) model of PE.^12,16,18,19 Ragsdale et al describe a 2-week IOP with multiple treatment tracks, including a PTSD track. The PTSD treatment track includes massed PE and additional standard services including case management, wellness services, family services, and a single session effective behaviors group. Additional augmentation services are available when clinically indicated (eg, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation treatment, psychoeducation, motivational interviewing, and/or relapse prevention).¹⁷

Rauch et al studied the first 80 patients completing an IOP program that consisted of PE (5 sessions weekly) and complementary interventions (eg, mindfulness and yoga) and reported a 96% retention rate, significant reductions of self-reported PTSD symptoms, significant reduction in self-reported co-occurring depression symptoms, and significant increase in self-reported satisfaction with social functioning. ¹⁸ In another study, Sherril et al explored patient reactions to participation in massed PE (5 sessions weekly) and found that patients reported significantly more positive than negative reactions. Sherrill et al noted that according to patients, the benefits of massed PE included a structured format that limits avoidance and distraction. The resulting fast pace of progress enhanced motivation; however, drawbacks included short-term discomfort and time demands.¹⁹ Yamokoski et al explored the feasibility of massed PE in a larger study of PTSD treatment in an intensive outpatient track (IOT) in a VHA PTSD clinic with minimal staffing. The 48 patients who completed IOT PTSD treatment in 2 or 4 weeks (including 35 patients who received massed PE) had high retention rates (85%), reported high satisfaction, and had significantly reduced PTSD and depression symptoms.¹²

The massed IOT PE model implemented by Yamokoski et al included the primary EBP intervention of massed PE with adjunctive groups. The addition of these groups increased both retention and patient-reported satisfaction. The PE-IOP model implemented by Rauch et al and Sherrill et al also included wellness and educational groups, as well as access to complementary interventions such as mindfulness and yoga.^18,19 The addition of wellness education along with a primary EBP aligned with the VHA focus on whole health well-being and wellness. The whole health approach includes understanding the factors that motivate a patient toward health and well-being, provision of health education, and providing access to complementary interventions such as mindfulness.²⁰ Dryden et al describe the whole health transformation within VHA as a proactive approach to addressing employee and patient wellness and health. Their research found that the whole health model promoted well-being in patients and staff and was sustained even during the COVID-19 pandemic.²¹ Dryden et al also noted that use of virtual technologies facilitated and promoted continued whole health implementation. The literature illustrates that: (1) massed PE can be provided with complementary education and wellness offerings, and that such offerings may increase both retention and satisfaction by enriching the massed PE treatment (eg, delivering PE-IOP); (2) whole health including wellness education and complementary interventions (eg, mindfulness, motivational enhancement) promotes well-being in both patients and mental health professionals; and (3) whole health education and complementary interventions can be delivered virtually.

Health Care Need

Prior to the implementation of a massed EBP for PTSD program at US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pacific Islands Health Care System (VAPIHCS), our setting included a traditional outpatient program for treatment of PTSD and a 12- bed residential program for treatment of PTSD for male-identified (self-identified and identified as male in the electronic medical record) veterans via a cohort model with an 8- or 9-week length of stay. Both programs were located on Oahu. Thus, veterans who received care at VAPIHCS had access to PE in both outpatient and residential settings and via in-person and telehealth modalities. However, their access to PE was limited to the traditional models of PE delivery (eg, 1 or 2 session per week) and very few veterans outside of the island of Oahu had accessed PE treatment for PTSD. Moreover, when looking at PE reach within VAPIHCS, in the fiscal year prior to the implementation of the massed EBP program, only 32 of the > 5000 eligible veterans with a PTSD diagnosis had received PE. VAPIHCS serves veterans in a catchment area across the Pacific Basin which includes 3 time zones: Hawaii Standard Time (HST), Chamorro Standard Time (ChST), and Samoa Standard Time (SST). ChST is 20 hours ahead of HST, making service delivery that is inclusive for patients in Guam and Saipan especially challenging when providing care from Hawaii or other US states or territories. Given all of this, implementation of a new program offering accelerated PE virtually to any veterans with PTSD within the VAPIHCS would increase access to and reduce barriers to receiving PE.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Intensive Virtual EBP Team (iVET) for PTSD consists of an accelerated course of PE therapy and whole health education provided via VA Video Connect (VVC). iVET is a 3-week program and includes 3 parts: (1) massed individual PE therapy for PTSD; (2) group whole health and wellness classes; and (3) individual health coaching to address personal wellness goals. Programming is offered over 10-hour days to increase access across multiple time zones, especially to allow for participation in Guam and Saipan.

When a patient is referred to the iVET, their first contact is a video (or telephone) appointment with a registered nurse (RN) for a screening session. The screening session is designed to educate the patient about the program, including interventions, time commitment, and resources required for participation. In addition, following the educational discussion, the RN completes screening for safety with the patient including suicidal ideation and risk, as well as intimate partner violence risk. If urgent safety concerns are present, a licensed social worker or psychologist will join the screening to complete further assessment of risk and to address any safety concerns. Following screening, patients are scheduled for a VVC intake with a licensed therapist (social worker or psychologist) to complete the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS-5) for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition), a clinical interview for PTSD assessment. Patients are also sent a secure link to complete a measurement-based care (MBC) battery of self-report measures including measures assessing demographics, PTSD symptoms, anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, substance use, quality of life (QOL), and satisfaction with mental health care. The results of the CAPS-5 and self-report measures are discussed with the patient during the intake session when planning next steps and engaging in shared decision-making. This initial VVC intake not only allows for diagnostic goodness of fit but also provides the opportunity to troubleshoot any technical difficulties the patients might have with the virtual platforms.

There are minimal exclusion criteria for participation in iVET, which include active unmanaged psychosis or manic symptoms, recent suicidal crises (attempt within 8 weeks), active nonsuicidal self-injurious behaviors (within 8 weeks), and moderate-to-severe cognitive impairment. Following intake, patients are scheduled to begin their course of care with iVET. Upon completion of intake, patients are sent program materials for their individual and group classes, asked to obtain or request a recording device, and told they will receive email links for all VVC appointments. Patients are admitted to the iVET in a rolling admission fashion, thereby increasing access when compared to closed group and/or cohort models of care.

Patients receiving care in iVET attend 2 or 3 telehealth appointments daily with practice exercises daily between telehealth sessions. The primary EBP intervention in the iVET for PTSD program is a massed or accelerated course of PE, which includes 4 primary components: psychoeducation, in-vivo exposure, imaginal exposure, and breathing retraining. Specifically, PE is delivered in 4 90-minute individual sessions weekly allowing completion of the full PE protocol, to fidelity, in 3 weeks. In addition to receiving this primary intervention, patients also participate in four 50-minute group sessions per week of a whole health and wellness education class and have access to one 30- to 60-minute session weekly of individual health coaching should they wish to set wellness goals and receive coaching in support of attaining wellness goals. During iVET, patients are invited to complete MBC batteries of selfreport measures including measures assessing PTSD symptoms, anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, substance use, QOL, and satisfaction with mental health care at sessions 1, 5, 9, and the final session of PE. Following discharge from the iVET, patients are offered 1-month, 3-month, and 6-month individual postdischarge check-up sessions with a therapist where they are invited to complete MBC measures and review relapse prevention and maintenance of treatment gains. Likewise, they are offered 1-month, 3-month, and 6-month postdischarge check-up sessions with an RN focused on maintaining wellness gains.

The iVET for PTSD staff includes 3 therapists (psychologists or social workers) and an RN. Additionally, the iVET for PTSD is supported by a program manager and a program support assistant. The primary cost of the program is salary for staff. Additional iVET for PTSD resources included computer equipment for staff and minimal supplies. Due to the virtual environment of care, iVET staff telework and do not require physical space within VAPIHCS.

OUTCOMES

All veterans receiving care in iVET for PTSD are invited to complete a MBC at multiple timepoints including pretreatment, during PE treatment, and posttreatment. The MBC measures included self-reported demographics, a 2-item measure of satisfaction with mental health services, the Brief Addiction Monitor-Intensive Outpatient Program questionnaire,²² the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale,^23, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9),²⁴ the QOL Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire- Short Form,²⁵ and the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), both weekly and monthly versions. ^26,27

The retention rate has averaged 81% since the iVET for PTSD opened in 2022. To date, 132 veterans have completed the iVET for PTSD program, including a full course of massed PE (Table 1). Veterans experienced reduced PTSD (P < .005), depression (P < .005), anxiety (P < .005), and substance use risk (P < .005). Veterans experienced improved QOL (P < .005) and reported high satisfaction with mental health care in iVET for PTSD (Table 2). Veterans also experienced reduced thoughts of death or suicidal ideation (SI) based on PHQ-9 item 9 responses. When looking categorically at presence or absence of SI on PHQ-9 item 9, a significant relationship was found between the absence of suicidal ideation and completion of a course of massed PE: X² (1, N = 132) = 13.75, P < .001. In addition, veterans who completed the program showed a significant decrease in severity of SI as measured continuously (range, 0-3) on PHQ-9 item 9 (P < .005).

Another important aspect to consider when implementing massed models of EBP is the impact on employee well-being and job satisfaction. The impact of EBP on staff was assessed following the initial EBP project. To explore this further, all staff members in the iVET for PTSD were invited to engage in a small program evaluation. iVET staff were guided through a visualization meditation intended to recall a typical workday 1 month prior to starting their new position with iVET. After the visualization meditation, staff completed the Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL) scale, a 30-item, self-reported questionnaire for health care workers that evaluates compassion satisfaction, perceived support, burnout, secondary traumatic stress, and moral distress.²⁸ One week later, staff were asked to complete the ProQOL again to capture their state after the first 6 months into their tenure as iVET staff. iVET employees experienced significantly increased perceived support (P < .05), reduced burnout (P < .05), reduced secondary traumatic stress (P < .05), and reduced moral distress (P < .05). Team members also remarked on the rewarding nature of the work and care model.

Future Directions

Future research should aim to sustain these outcomes as the iVET program continues to serve more veterans. Another important line of inquiry is longer-term follow-up, as exploring if outcomes are maintained over time is an important question that has not been answered in this article. In addition, we hope to see the accelerated model of care applied to treatment of other presenting concerns in mental health treatment (eg, anxiety, depression, insomnia). Expansion of accelerated mental health treatment into other federal and non-federal health care settings is another worthy direction. Finally, while short term (6 months) assessment of staff satisfaction in iVET was promising, ongoing assessment staff satisfaction over a longer timeframe (1-5 years) is also important.

CONCLUSIONS

PE for PTSD has been demonstrated to be effective and improve functioning and is supported by multiple clinical practice guidelines.1-5 However, as federal practitioners, we must consider the reality that many of the individuals who could benefit are not engaging in PE and there is a high dropout rate for those that do. It is vital that we envision a future state where access to PE for PTSD is equitable and inclusive, retention rates are dramatically improved, and clinicians providing PE do not experience high rates of burnout.

We must continue exploring how we can better care for our patients and colleagues. We posit that the development of programs, or tracks within existing programs, that provide massed or accelerated PE for PTSD with virtual delivery options is an imperative step toward improved care. Federal health care settings treating trauma-exposed patients with PTSD, such as those within the US Department of Defense, Indian Health Services, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and VA, are well positioned to implement programs like iVET. We believe this model of care has great merit and foresee a future where all patients seeking PTSD treatment have the option to complete an accelerated or massed course of PE should they so desire. The experiences outlined in this article illustrate the feasibility, acceptability, and sustainability of such programs without requiring substantial staffing and financial resources.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mission is defined by President Abraham Lincoln’s promise “to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.” Critically, the biopsychosocial needs of veterans differ from the needs of civilians due to the nature of military service.¹ Veterans commonly experience traumatic brain injury (TBI) due to combat- or training-related injuries.² Psychologically, veterans are disproportionately likely to be diagnosed with mental health conditions, such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), often linked to military exposures.³ Spiritually, veterans frequently express moral injury after living through circumstances when they perpetrate, fail to prevent, or witness events that contradict moral beliefs/ expectations.⁴ Veterans also have significant social challenges, including high rates of homelessness. ⁵ A critical strength of the VA mission is its awareness of these complex sequelae and its ability to provide well-informed treatment and social services to meet veterans’ unique needs.

Foundational to a well-informed health care system is a robust research and operational quality improvement infrastructure. The VA Office of Research and Development (ORD) has worked tirelessly to understand and address the unique, idiographic needs of veterans. In 2024 the ORD had a budget of $2.4 billion, excluding quality improvement initiatives enhancing VA operations.⁶

The integrated VA health care system is a major strength for providing state-of-the-science to inform veterans’ treatment and social service needs. The VA features medical centers and clinics capable of synergistically leveraging extant infrastructure to facilitate collaborations and centralized procedures across sites. The VA also has dedicated research centers, such as the National Center for PTSD, Centers of Excellence, Centers of Innovation, and Mental Illness, Research, Education and Clinical Centers that focus on PTSD, suicide prevention, TBI, and other high-priority areas. These centers recruit, train, and invest in experts dedicated to improving veterans’ lives. The VA Corporate Data Warehouse provides a national, system-wide repository for patient-level data, allowing for advanced analysis of large datasets.⁷

This special issue is a showcase of the strengths of VA mental health and social service research, aligning with the current strategic priorities of VA research. Topics focus on the unique needs of veterans, including sequelae (eg, PTSD, homelessness, moral injury), with particular attention to veterans. Manuscripts highlight the strengths of collaborations, including those between specialized research centers and national VA operational partners. Analyses highlight the VA research approach, leveraging data and perspectives from inside and outside the VA, and studying new and established approaches to care. This issue highlights the distinct advantages that VA research provides: experts with the tools, experience, and dedication to addressing the unique needs of veterans. Given the passion for veteran care among VA researchers, including those featured in this issue, we strongly believe the VA will continue to be a leader in this research.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mission is defined by President Abraham Lincoln’s promise “to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.” Critically, the biopsychosocial needs of veterans differ from the needs of civilians due to the nature of military service.¹ Veterans commonly experience traumatic brain injury (TBI) due to combat- or training-related injuries.² Psychologically, veterans are disproportionately likely to be diagnosed with mental health conditions, such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), often linked to military exposures.³ Spiritually, veterans frequently express moral injury after living through circumstances when they perpetrate, fail to prevent, or witness events that contradict moral beliefs/ expectations.⁴ Veterans also have significant social challenges, including high rates of homelessness. ⁵ A critical strength of the VA mission is its awareness of these complex sequelae and its ability to provide well-informed treatment and social services to meet veterans’ unique needs.

Foundational to a well-informed health care system is a robust research and operational quality improvement infrastructure. The VA Office of Research and Development (ORD) has worked tirelessly to understand and address the unique, idiographic needs of veterans. In 2024 the ORD had a budget of $2.4 billion, excluding quality improvement initiatives enhancing VA operations.⁶

The integrated VA health care system is a major strength for providing state-of-the-science to inform veterans’ treatment and social service needs. The VA features medical centers and clinics capable of synergistically leveraging extant infrastructure to facilitate collaborations and centralized procedures across sites. The VA also has dedicated research centers, such as the National Center for PTSD, Centers of Excellence, Centers of Innovation, and Mental Illness, Research, Education and Clinical Centers that focus on PTSD, suicide prevention, TBI, and other high-priority areas. These centers recruit, train, and invest in experts dedicated to improving veterans’ lives. The VA Corporate Data Warehouse provides a national, system-wide repository for patient-level data, allowing for advanced analysis of large datasets.⁷

This special issue is a showcase of the strengths of VA mental health and social service research, aligning with the current strategic priorities of VA research. Topics focus on the unique needs of veterans, including sequelae (eg, PTSD, homelessness, moral injury), with particular attention to veterans. Manuscripts highlight the strengths of collaborations, including those between specialized research centers and national VA operational partners. Analyses highlight the VA research approach, leveraging data and perspectives from inside and outside the VA, and studying new and established approaches to care. This issue highlights the distinct advantages that VA research provides: experts with the tools, experience, and dedication to addressing the unique needs of veterans. Given the passion for veteran care among VA researchers, including those featured in this issue, we strongly believe the VA will continue to be a leader in this research.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mission is defined by President Abraham Lincoln’s promise “to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.” Critically, the biopsychosocial needs of veterans differ from the needs of civilians due to the nature of military service.¹ Veterans commonly experience traumatic brain injury (TBI) due to combat- or training-related injuries.² Psychologically, veterans are disproportionately likely to be diagnosed with mental health conditions, such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), often linked to military exposures.³ Spiritually, veterans frequently express moral injury after living through circumstances when they perpetrate, fail to prevent, or witness events that contradict moral beliefs/ expectations.⁴ Veterans also have significant social challenges, including high rates of homelessness. ⁵ A critical strength of the VA mission is its awareness of these complex sequelae and its ability to provide well-informed treatment and social services to meet veterans’ unique needs.

Foundational to a well-informed health care system is a robust research and operational quality improvement infrastructure. The VA Office of Research and Development (ORD) has worked tirelessly to understand and address the unique, idiographic needs of veterans. In 2024 the ORD had a budget of $2.4 billion, excluding quality improvement initiatives enhancing VA operations.⁶

The integrated VA health care system is a major strength for providing state-of-the-science to inform veterans’ treatment and social service needs. The VA features medical centers and clinics capable of synergistically leveraging extant infrastructure to facilitate collaborations and centralized procedures across sites. The VA also has dedicated research centers, such as the National Center for PTSD, Centers of Excellence, Centers of Innovation, and Mental Illness, Research, Education and Clinical Centers that focus on PTSD, suicide prevention, TBI, and other high-priority areas. These centers recruit, train, and invest in experts dedicated to improving veterans’ lives. The VA Corporate Data Warehouse provides a national, system-wide repository for patient-level data, allowing for advanced analysis of large datasets.⁷

This special issue is a showcase of the strengths of VA mental health and social service research, aligning with the current strategic priorities of VA research. Topics focus on the unique needs of veterans, including sequelae (eg, PTSD, homelessness, moral injury), with particular attention to veterans. Manuscripts highlight the strengths of collaborations, including those between specialized research centers and national VA operational partners. Analyses highlight the VA research approach, leveraging data and perspectives from inside and outside the VA, and studying new and established approaches to care. This issue highlights the distinct advantages that VA research provides: experts with the tools, experience, and dedication to addressing the unique needs of veterans. Given the passion for veteran care among VA researchers, including those featured in this issue, we strongly believe the VA will continue to be a leader in this research.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) — Joey Cortez, who served 24 years in the US Air Force, had been waiting since August to see a mental health specialist from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, when he experienced a fresh jolt of anxiety.

Cortez was fired last month from his human resources job at the agency - one of about 2400 employees who lost their jobs at Veterans’ Affairs (VA) in the first wave of President Donald Trump’s efforts to shrink the federal workforce.

“Once the firings happened and I was terminated, I started having panic attacks to the point where I black out,” Cortez, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, told Reuters. The layoff is also making it harder to maintain his sobriety, as a recovering alcoholic.

“Not a day has gone by since I was fired that I haven’t thought about picking up a bottle,” said Cortez.

After losing his job, Cortez asked the VA to expedite his wait for a therapist and was told there was no record of his request, he said. After a month of calls to the agency, he got an appointment for this August, one year after he started the process. Then the VA offered him an appointment next week because another patient had canceled.

The VA provides health care to 9.31 million US veterans at hundreds of medical centers, clinics, and nursing homes across the country.

It also faces complex problems.

“The VA has bloat. There are redundancies. There are places where we have questioned the administration of care and asked, does it need to be the way it is?” Pat Murray, the legislative director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which represents Americans who have fought overseas, said in an interview.

The Trump administration plans additional cuts to the VA of more than 80,000 personnel, according to an internal memo obtained by Reuters. The agency has also announced it is phasing out telework.

Reuters spoke to nine current and former VA employees in California, Oregon, Texas, and the Washington D.C. area who said the changes were further disrupting some mental health services and fueling anxieties among those who provide and rely on them.

The VA employees — who include six mental health professionals and three people in leadership positions — described cancellations of some in-person and telehealth appointments; confusion over staffing of a crisis hot-line; and professionals conducting telehealth visits in makeshift meeting rooms inside VA buildings.

They spoke on the condition of anonymity, because they were not authorized to speak with the media.

 

STAFFING SHORTAGES

A former employee at the VA’s Office of Inspector General, who is also a veteran, said any future large-scale staffing cuts would likely worsen shortages and impact the quality of care.

“There’s no way to take a scalpel and do it appropriately that quickly,” he said.

VA spokesperson Peter Kasperowicz told Reuters mental health professionals, such as psychologists and social workers, were not included in February’s staffing cuts, and the agency is working to recruit mental health providers and improve wait times.

He did not specify how many support staff for these providers had been affected.

Last week, two federal judges ordered the VA and other federal agencies to reinstate thousands of fired probationary workers. Cortez’s pay was reinstated but he was told not to return to work.

The Veterans Health Administration, the branch of the VA that provides healthcare, has experienced severe staffing shortages since 2015, especially among mental health professionals, according to an OIG report last year.

Veterans often benefit from specialized services to treat anxiety, trauma, depression and substance abuse. The proportion of veterans receiving mental health services rose to 31% in 2022 from 20% in 2007, according to the VA. Suicide among veterans is twice the rate of Americans overall.

The VFW’s Murray said his organization supports a thorough review of the VA’s mental health services, but it needs to be done carefully, “not with a chainsaw.”

 

‘THE MOOD IS SO LOW’

In recent years, the agency had encouraged remote work to help expand access to telehealth services and reduce wait times, especially in rural areas where recruiting providers is difficult.

The VA’s Kasperowicz said that, while providers will need to return to VA facilities, veterans will be able to access telehealth appointments.

He did not directly address questions about why mental health providers needed to return to the office.

“The VA will make accommodations as needed to ensure employees have enough space to work and will always ensure that Veterans’ access to benefits and services remains uninterrupted as employees return to in-person work,” Kasperowicz said.

In the last few weeks, demand for services among veterans who are VA employees has also risen, one of the mental health professionals, a social worker, told Reuters. A quarter of VA employees are veterans.

The social worker said he is meeting with two to three VA employees a week who are seeking access to mental health care, citing stress and the fear that they will lose their jobs.

“People are calling out sick. People are ill with stress and worry. The mood is so low.”

A mental health supervisor in California described scrambling to cover the caseload of a remote worker who had to cancel appointments with more than a dozen veterans, because she could not access a VA facility.

VA employees in the Washington area and in Oregon said mental health professionals were unsure if they were allowed to answer calls from the VA’s crisis hot-line if they were not physically in an office, because they had been instructed not to conduct work outside of a facility.

“People are nervous to be on-call,” said a supervisor of mental health providers in the Washington area. “The system is under a lot of duress.”

The VA told Reuters that crisis line workers are exempt from the return-to-office policy, and that staff continue to respond quickly to nearly 3000 calls daily.

Therapists returning to the office are struggling to find private meeting rooms at some VA facilities, according to four of the mental health professionals interviewed by Reuters.

They described medical and mental health professionals converting closets and conference rooms into offices to comply with the mandate to conduct telehealth visits from VA facilities. They expressed concerns that the crowded rooms could violate patient privacy rights.

“We are scrambling to find space,” said a provider in California. “Veterans are going without until we can find spaces for these providers.”

Reuters was unable to independently verify the accounts of overcrowding. Kasperowicz said the agency’s “policy is to bring as many employees back to the office as space permits.”

(Reporting by Robin Respaut in San Francisco; additional reporting by Julia Harte in New York and Gabriella Borter in D.C.; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Suzanne Goldenberg)

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) — Joey Cortez, who served 24 years in the US Air Force, had been waiting since August to see a mental health specialist from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, when he experienced a fresh jolt of anxiety.

Cortez was fired last month from his human resources job at the agency - one of about 2400 employees who lost their jobs at Veterans’ Affairs (VA) in the first wave of President Donald Trump’s efforts to shrink the federal workforce.

“Once the firings happened and I was terminated, I started having panic attacks to the point where I black out,” Cortez, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, told Reuters. The layoff is also making it harder to maintain his sobriety, as a recovering alcoholic.

“Not a day has gone by since I was fired that I haven’t thought about picking up a bottle,” said Cortez.

After losing his job, Cortez asked the VA to expedite his wait for a therapist and was told there was no record of his request, he said. After a month of calls to the agency, he got an appointment for this August, one year after he started the process. Then the VA offered him an appointment next week because another patient had canceled.

The VA provides health care to 9.31 million US veterans at hundreds of medical centers, clinics, and nursing homes across the country.

It also faces complex problems.

“The VA has bloat. There are redundancies. There are places where we have questioned the administration of care and asked, does it need to be the way it is?” Pat Murray, the legislative director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which represents Americans who have fought overseas, said in an interview.

The Trump administration plans additional cuts to the VA of more than 80,000 personnel, according to an internal memo obtained by Reuters. The agency has also announced it is phasing out telework.

Reuters spoke to nine current and former VA employees in California, Oregon, Texas, and the Washington D.C. area who said the changes were further disrupting some mental health services and fueling anxieties among those who provide and rely on them.

The VA employees — who include six mental health professionals and three people in leadership positions — described cancellations of some in-person and telehealth appointments; confusion over staffing of a crisis hot-line; and professionals conducting telehealth visits in makeshift meeting rooms inside VA buildings.

They spoke on the condition of anonymity, because they were not authorized to speak with the media.

 

STAFFING SHORTAGES

A former employee at the VA’s Office of Inspector General, who is also a veteran, said any future large-scale staffing cuts would likely worsen shortages and impact the quality of care.

“There’s no way to take a scalpel and do it appropriately that quickly,” he said.

VA spokesperson Peter Kasperowicz told Reuters mental health professionals, such as psychologists and social workers, were not included in February’s staffing cuts, and the agency is working to recruit mental health providers and improve wait times.

He did not specify how many support staff for these providers had been affected.

Last week, two federal judges ordered the VA and other federal agencies to reinstate thousands of fired probationary workers. Cortez’s pay was reinstated but he was told not to return to work.

The Veterans Health Administration, the branch of the VA that provides healthcare, has experienced severe staffing shortages since 2015, especially among mental health professionals, according to an OIG report last year.

Veterans often benefit from specialized services to treat anxiety, trauma, depression and substance abuse. The proportion of veterans receiving mental health services rose to 31% in 2022 from 20% in 2007, according to the VA. Suicide among veterans is twice the rate of Americans overall.

The VFW’s Murray said his organization supports a thorough review of the VA’s mental health services, but it needs to be done carefully, “not with a chainsaw.”

 

‘THE MOOD IS SO LOW’

In recent years, the agency had encouraged remote work to help expand access to telehealth services and reduce wait times, especially in rural areas where recruiting providers is difficult.

The VA’s Kasperowicz said that, while providers will need to return to VA facilities, veterans will be able to access telehealth appointments.

He did not directly address questions about why mental health providers needed to return to the office.

“The VA will make accommodations as needed to ensure employees have enough space to work and will always ensure that Veterans’ access to benefits and services remains uninterrupted as employees return to in-person work,” Kasperowicz said.

In the last few weeks, demand for services among veterans who are VA employees has also risen, one of the mental health professionals, a social worker, told Reuters. A quarter of VA employees are veterans.

The social worker said he is meeting with two to three VA employees a week who are seeking access to mental health care, citing stress and the fear that they will lose their jobs.

“People are calling out sick. People are ill with stress and worry. The mood is so low.”

A mental health supervisor in California described scrambling to cover the caseload of a remote worker who had to cancel appointments with more than a dozen veterans, because she could not access a VA facility.

VA employees in the Washington area and in Oregon said mental health professionals were unsure if they were allowed to answer calls from the VA’s crisis hot-line if they were not physically in an office, because they had been instructed not to conduct work outside of a facility.

“People are nervous to be on-call,” said a supervisor of mental health providers in the Washington area. “The system is under a lot of duress.”

The VA told Reuters that crisis line workers are exempt from the return-to-office policy, and that staff continue to respond quickly to nearly 3000 calls daily.

Therapists returning to the office are struggling to find private meeting rooms at some VA facilities, according to four of the mental health professionals interviewed by Reuters.

They described medical and mental health professionals converting closets and conference rooms into offices to comply with the mandate to conduct telehealth visits from VA facilities. They expressed concerns that the crowded rooms could violate patient privacy rights.

“We are scrambling to find space,” said a provider in California. “Veterans are going without until we can find spaces for these providers.”

Reuters was unable to independently verify the accounts of overcrowding. Kasperowicz said the agency’s “policy is to bring as many employees back to the office as space permits.”

(Reporting by Robin Respaut in San Francisco; additional reporting by Julia Harte in New York and Gabriella Borter in D.C.; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Suzanne Goldenberg)

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) — Joey Cortez, who served 24 years in the US Air Force, had been waiting since August to see a mental health specialist from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, when he experienced a fresh jolt of anxiety.

Cortez was fired last month from his human resources job at the agency - one of about 2400 employees who lost their jobs at Veterans’ Affairs (VA) in the first wave of President Donald Trump’s efforts to shrink the federal workforce.

“Once the firings happened and I was terminated, I started having panic attacks to the point where I black out,” Cortez, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, told Reuters. The layoff is also making it harder to maintain his sobriety, as a recovering alcoholic.

“Not a day has gone by since I was fired that I haven’t thought about picking up a bottle,” said Cortez.

After losing his job, Cortez asked the VA to expedite his wait for a therapist and was told there was no record of his request, he said. After a month of calls to the agency, he got an appointment for this August, one year after he started the process. Then the VA offered him an appointment next week because another patient had canceled.

The VA provides health care to 9.31 million US veterans at hundreds of medical centers, clinics, and nursing homes across the country.

It also faces complex problems.

“The VA has bloat. There are redundancies. There are places where we have questioned the administration of care and asked, does it need to be the way it is?” Pat Murray, the legislative director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which represents Americans who have fought overseas, said in an interview.

The Trump administration plans additional cuts to the VA of more than 80,000 personnel, according to an internal memo obtained by Reuters. The agency has also announced it is phasing out telework.

Reuters spoke to nine current and former VA employees in California, Oregon, Texas, and the Washington D.C. area who said the changes were further disrupting some mental health services and fueling anxieties among those who provide and rely on them.

The VA employees — who include six mental health professionals and three people in leadership positions — described cancellations of some in-person and telehealth appointments; confusion over staffing of a crisis hot-line; and professionals conducting telehealth visits in makeshift meeting rooms inside VA buildings.

They spoke on the condition of anonymity, because they were not authorized to speak with the media.

 

STAFFING SHORTAGES

A former employee at the VA’s Office of Inspector General, who is also a veteran, said any future large-scale staffing cuts would likely worsen shortages and impact the quality of care.

“There’s no way to take a scalpel and do it appropriately that quickly,” he said.

VA spokesperson Peter Kasperowicz told Reuters mental health professionals, such as psychologists and social workers, were not included in February’s staffing cuts, and the agency is working to recruit mental health providers and improve wait times.

He did not specify how many support staff for these providers had been affected.

Last week, two federal judges ordered the VA and other federal agencies to reinstate thousands of fired probationary workers. Cortez’s pay was reinstated but he was told not to return to work.

The Veterans Health Administration, the branch of the VA that provides healthcare, has experienced severe staffing shortages since 2015, especially among mental health professionals, according to an OIG report last year.

Veterans often benefit from specialized services to treat anxiety, trauma, depression and substance abuse. The proportion of veterans receiving mental health services rose to 31% in 2022 from 20% in 2007, according to the VA. Suicide among veterans is twice the rate of Americans overall.

The VFW’s Murray said his organization supports a thorough review of the VA’s mental health services, but it needs to be done carefully, “not with a chainsaw.”

 

‘THE MOOD IS SO LOW’

In recent years, the agency had encouraged remote work to help expand access to telehealth services and reduce wait times, especially in rural areas where recruiting providers is difficult.

The VA’s Kasperowicz said that, while providers will need to return to VA facilities, veterans will be able to access telehealth appointments.

He did not directly address questions about why mental health providers needed to return to the office.

“The VA will make accommodations as needed to ensure employees have enough space to work and will always ensure that Veterans’ access to benefits and services remains uninterrupted as employees return to in-person work,” Kasperowicz said.

In the last few weeks, demand for services among veterans who are VA employees has also risen, one of the mental health professionals, a social worker, told Reuters. A quarter of VA employees are veterans.

The social worker said he is meeting with two to three VA employees a week who are seeking access to mental health care, citing stress and the fear that they will lose their jobs.

“People are calling out sick. People are ill with stress and worry. The mood is so low.”

A mental health supervisor in California described scrambling to cover the caseload of a remote worker who had to cancel appointments with more than a dozen veterans, because she could not access a VA facility.

VA employees in the Washington area and in Oregon said mental health professionals were unsure if they were allowed to answer calls from the VA’s crisis hot-line if they were not physically in an office, because they had been instructed not to conduct work outside of a facility.

“People are nervous to be on-call,” said a supervisor of mental health providers in the Washington area. “The system is under a lot of duress.”

The VA told Reuters that crisis line workers are exempt from the return-to-office policy, and that staff continue to respond quickly to nearly 3000 calls daily.

Therapists returning to the office are struggling to find private meeting rooms at some VA facilities, according to four of the mental health professionals interviewed by Reuters.

They described medical and mental health professionals converting closets and conference rooms into offices to comply with the mandate to conduct telehealth visits from VA facilities. They expressed concerns that the crowded rooms could violate patient privacy rights.

“We are scrambling to find space,” said a provider in California. “Veterans are going without until we can find spaces for these providers.”

Reuters was unable to independently verify the accounts of overcrowding. Kasperowicz said the agency’s “policy is to bring as many employees back to the office as space permits.”

(Reporting by Robin Respaut in San Francisco; additional reporting by Julia Harte in New York and Gabriella Borter in D.C.; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Suzanne Goldenberg)

The Trump administration’s plans to study the “threat” posed by psychiatric medications in children have medical societies and mental health professionals concerned that the administration may be considering restrictions on the use of psychotropic drugs in pediatric patients.

An executive order signed last week created the “Make American Healthy Again Commission” to investigate the nation’s “escalating health crisis,” particularly in child health. Recently confirmed Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will chair the effort.

As part of its investigation, the executive order directed the commission to assess “the prevalence of and threat posed by the prescription of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, stimulants, and weight-loss drugs.”

A report on the commission’s findings is due in a little less than 100 days. Eighty days later, the commission must submit recommendations for federal action.

Although who the commission members are and the scope of its work is unclear, the language in the executive order — namely the implication that the Trump administration views psychotropic medication as a “threat” to children — was enough to prompt psychiatrists from across the country to contact the American Psychiatric Association (APA) about possible limitations on the use of psychotropic medications in pediatric patients.

“It’s concerning and surprising that some of our nation’s most vulnerable children who need these treatments to participate fully in life would be under scrutiny in this way,” Marketa Wills, MD, MBA, chief executive officer and medical director for the APA, told this news organization.

“If these medications are under threat and children decompensate that would not be good from a public health perspective, for the healthcare system or for the families we serve,” Wills said.

 

Past Comments Fuel Distress

Past comments by the commission chair have only fueled distress over the commission’s goals. Kennedy has long expressed skepticism about antidepressants, especially (SSRIs), questioning their safety and suggesting they are as addictive as heroin. 

“I know people, including members of my family, who’ve had a much worse time getting off of SSRIs than they have getting off of heroin,” Kennedy said during his Senate confirmation hearing in late January.

But there is no evidence to suggest SSRIs or other antidepressants are addictive, Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, chair and associate professor of psychiatry at Indiana University School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“They don’t work in the systems of the brain that drive addiction. A large amount of research suggests that they are safe to take for a long time,” she said. “I suspect the confusion comes from the difference between it not being wise to come off of the medication, because of a concern for relapse of a psychiatric illness, and some transient discomfort from abruptly stopping SSRIs without tapering them off versus being addicted to it, like heroin.”

During the hearing, Kennedy was also asked to respond to comments he made during a 2023 livestream on X in which he claimed that the use of antidepressants have contributed to the increase in school shootings in the United States.

“I am also going to look very closely at the role of psychiatric drugs in these events and there are no good studies right now that should have been done years ago on this issue because there is a tremendous circumstantial evidence that SSRIs and benzos and other drugs are doing this,” he said in the livestream. 

Research has shown that there is no link between school shootings and antidepressant use.

In a 2024 interview on the Latino Capitalist podcast, Kennedy said that he wanted create “wellness farms” for adults addicted to illicit drugs and children who take antidepressants or stimulants for ADHD could be “reparented.”

“The views on those wellness farms are concerning for us here at the American Psychiatric Association. It remains to be seen if he brings that back up in his new role at HHS. There is currently no evidence of their efficacy,” Wills said.

 

Fear Is a ‘Real Concern’

These controversial comments, combined with the commission’s charge to investigate the potential “threat” psychotropic medications pose to children, worry clinicians and families fear that access to medication could be restricted.

“Psychiatrists and patients are very concerned about the risk these statements may pose,” Hulvershorn said.

“Certainly, there is evidence that psychotropic medications are overprescribed, particularly in children who are in state care — like wards of the state — and who are part of Medicaid programs, but there is tremendous overall benefit associated with psychotropic medications in youth and adults. They are lifesaving and game changing in many instances,” she added.

Psychiatrists who’ve contacted the APA since last week’s announcement echo Hulvershorn’s comments. 

“The fear is the real concern,” Wills said. “No parent takes the decision lightly to put their child on medication. With all interventions, particularly with children, there are risks and benefits that must be carefully weighed. The best person to weigh those risks and benefits is the child and adolescent psychiatrist, in conjunction with the child’s parents.”

The focus on medication also overlooks the fact that psychosocial interventions — not medication — are first-line treatment for children with mental health issues and that guidelines recommend medication be used alongside nonpharmacological therapy.

“Extensive research, including large national multi-site studies, have examined the most effective ways to reduce psychological symptoms among youth, including anxiety, depression, and ADHD. Results consistently reveal that both psychotropic medications and psychological interventions can offer significant improvements, often in combination,” Mitch Prinstein, PhD, chief of psychology strategy and integration at the American Psychological Association, told this news organization. 

“Given the substantial challenges for many in gaining access to psychotherapy and a national shortage of licensed psychologists, reducing access to medications would undoubtedly have a debilitating effect of the already concerning youth mental health crisis,” Prinstein said. 

 

A Seat at The Table

While the launch of the commission has left some feeling uneasy, experts agree that a national focus on children’s mental health is needed.

The APA would “welcome an opportunity to be part of this national conversation following the evidence base, following settled science that shows when and how these medications are effective and helpful for children and families,” said Wills. “We also think it’s very important that child and adolescent psychiatrists be at the table for this national conversation on behalf of the families they serve.” 

In a joint letter with the APA, officials with the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry also expressed interest in playing a role in the commission’s work. 

“We are in the middle of a mental health crisis, with a record number of Americans struggling with mental health and substance use disorders. We strongly urge you to prioritize strengthening the ability to respond to an increasing demand for psychiatric services, especially for children,” the letter stated.

Indeed, looking beyond just the use of psychotropic medications is vital to the success of any strategy to address the youth mental health crisis, Hulvershorn noted. 

“There are already many programs underway to examine the overprescribing. In my view, the lack of supports by payors for behavioral interventions, such as evidence-based family interventions, psychotherapies, etc., is the major driver for overuse of medications,” she said.

“Every pediatrician and child psychiatrist I know would rather try a behavioral intervention with a family first, but those are services that our systems do not financially support well and are, thus, underdeveloped, and very difficult to access,” Hulvershorn added.

More funding for evidence-based interventions — both behavioral and pharmacological — is desperately needed, she said. Support for workforce development should also be a part of any proposed solution. 

“Adequate and responsible funding in all of those areas is needed, but we have some low hanging fruit in terms of figuring out how to just deliver the interventions that science has shown us do work,” Hulvershorn said. “Many of those interventions don’t involve medication and I think every expert in the field would be glad to see more effort put into system reform to better deliver interventions that work to youth and their families.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Trump administration’s plans to study the “threat” posed by psychiatric medications in children have medical societies and mental health professionals concerned that the administration may be considering restrictions on the use of psychotropic drugs in pediatric patients.

An executive order signed last week created the “Make American Healthy Again Commission” to investigate the nation’s “escalating health crisis,” particularly in child health. Recently confirmed Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will chair the effort.

As part of its investigation, the executive order directed the commission to assess “the prevalence of and threat posed by the prescription of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, stimulants, and weight-loss drugs.”

A report on the commission’s findings is due in a little less than 100 days. Eighty days later, the commission must submit recommendations for federal action.

Although who the commission members are and the scope of its work is unclear, the language in the executive order — namely the implication that the Trump administration views psychotropic medication as a “threat” to children — was enough to prompt psychiatrists from across the country to contact the American Psychiatric Association (APA) about possible limitations on the use of psychotropic medications in pediatric patients.

“It’s concerning and surprising that some of our nation’s most vulnerable children who need these treatments to participate fully in life would be under scrutiny in this way,” Marketa Wills, MD, MBA, chief executive officer and medical director for the APA, told this news organization.

“If these medications are under threat and children decompensate that would not be good from a public health perspective, for the healthcare system or for the families we serve,” Wills said.

 

Past Comments Fuel Distress

Past comments by the commission chair have only fueled distress over the commission’s goals. Kennedy has long expressed skepticism about antidepressants, especially (SSRIs), questioning their safety and suggesting they are as addictive as heroin. 

“I know people, including members of my family, who’ve had a much worse time getting off of SSRIs than they have getting off of heroin,” Kennedy said during his Senate confirmation hearing in late January.

But there is no evidence to suggest SSRIs or other antidepressants are addictive, Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, chair and associate professor of psychiatry at Indiana University School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“They don’t work in the systems of the brain that drive addiction. A large amount of research suggests that they are safe to take for a long time,” she said. “I suspect the confusion comes from the difference between it not being wise to come off of the medication, because of a concern for relapse of a psychiatric illness, and some transient discomfort from abruptly stopping SSRIs without tapering them off versus being addicted to it, like heroin.”

During the hearing, Kennedy was also asked to respond to comments he made during a 2023 livestream on X in which he claimed that the use of antidepressants have contributed to the increase in school shootings in the United States.

“I am also going to look very closely at the role of psychiatric drugs in these events and there are no good studies right now that should have been done years ago on this issue because there is a tremendous circumstantial evidence that SSRIs and benzos and other drugs are doing this,” he said in the livestream. 

Research has shown that there is no link between school shootings and antidepressant use.

In a 2024 interview on the Latino Capitalist podcast, Kennedy said that he wanted create “wellness farms” for adults addicted to illicit drugs and children who take antidepressants or stimulants for ADHD could be “reparented.”

“The views on those wellness farms are concerning for us here at the American Psychiatric Association. It remains to be seen if he brings that back up in his new role at HHS. There is currently no evidence of their efficacy,” Wills said.

 

Fear Is a ‘Real Concern’

These controversial comments, combined with the commission’s charge to investigate the potential “threat” psychotropic medications pose to children, worry clinicians and families fear that access to medication could be restricted.

“Psychiatrists and patients are very concerned about the risk these statements may pose,” Hulvershorn said.

“Certainly, there is evidence that psychotropic medications are overprescribed, particularly in children who are in state care — like wards of the state — and who are part of Medicaid programs, but there is tremendous overall benefit associated with psychotropic medications in youth and adults. They are lifesaving and game changing in many instances,” she added.

Psychiatrists who’ve contacted the APA since last week’s announcement echo Hulvershorn’s comments. 

“The fear is the real concern,” Wills said. “No parent takes the decision lightly to put their child on medication. With all interventions, particularly with children, there are risks and benefits that must be carefully weighed. The best person to weigh those risks and benefits is the child and adolescent psychiatrist, in conjunction with the child’s parents.”

The focus on medication also overlooks the fact that psychosocial interventions — not medication — are first-line treatment for children with mental health issues and that guidelines recommend medication be used alongside nonpharmacological therapy.

“Extensive research, including large national multi-site studies, have examined the most effective ways to reduce psychological symptoms among youth, including anxiety, depression, and ADHD. Results consistently reveal that both psychotropic medications and psychological interventions can offer significant improvements, often in combination,” Mitch Prinstein, PhD, chief of psychology strategy and integration at the American Psychological Association, told this news organization. 

“Given the substantial challenges for many in gaining access to psychotherapy and a national shortage of licensed psychologists, reducing access to medications would undoubtedly have a debilitating effect of the already concerning youth mental health crisis,” Prinstein said. 

 

A Seat at The Table

While the launch of the commission has left some feeling uneasy, experts agree that a national focus on children’s mental health is needed.

The APA would “welcome an opportunity to be part of this national conversation following the evidence base, following settled science that shows when and how these medications are effective and helpful for children and families,” said Wills. “We also think it’s very important that child and adolescent psychiatrists be at the table for this national conversation on behalf of the families they serve.” 

In a joint letter with the APA, officials with the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry also expressed interest in playing a role in the commission’s work. 

“We are in the middle of a mental health crisis, with a record number of Americans struggling with mental health and substance use disorders. We strongly urge you to prioritize strengthening the ability to respond to an increasing demand for psychiatric services, especially for children,” the letter stated.

Indeed, looking beyond just the use of psychotropic medications is vital to the success of any strategy to address the youth mental health crisis, Hulvershorn noted. 

“There are already many programs underway to examine the overprescribing. In my view, the lack of supports by payors for behavioral interventions, such as evidence-based family interventions, psychotherapies, etc., is the major driver for overuse of medications,” she said.

“Every pediatrician and child psychiatrist I know would rather try a behavioral intervention with a family first, but those are services that our systems do not financially support well and are, thus, underdeveloped, and very difficult to access,” Hulvershorn added.

More funding for evidence-based interventions — both behavioral and pharmacological — is desperately needed, she said. Support for workforce development should also be a part of any proposed solution. 

“Adequate and responsible funding in all of those areas is needed, but we have some low hanging fruit in terms of figuring out how to just deliver the interventions that science has shown us do work,” Hulvershorn said. “Many of those interventions don’t involve medication and I think every expert in the field would be glad to see more effort put into system reform to better deliver interventions that work to youth and their families.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Trump administration’s plans to study the “threat” posed by psychiatric medications in children have medical societies and mental health professionals concerned that the administration may be considering restrictions on the use of psychotropic drugs in pediatric patients.

An executive order signed last week created the “Make American Healthy Again Commission” to investigate the nation’s “escalating health crisis,” particularly in child health. Recently confirmed Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will chair the effort.

As part of its investigation, the executive order directed the commission to assess “the prevalence of and threat posed by the prescription of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, stimulants, and weight-loss drugs.”

A report on the commission’s findings is due in a little less than 100 days. Eighty days later, the commission must submit recommendations for federal action.

Although who the commission members are and the scope of its work is unclear, the language in the executive order — namely the implication that the Trump administration views psychotropic medication as a “threat” to children — was enough to prompt psychiatrists from across the country to contact the American Psychiatric Association (APA) about possible limitations on the use of psychotropic medications in pediatric patients.

“It’s concerning and surprising that some of our nation’s most vulnerable children who need these treatments to participate fully in life would be under scrutiny in this way,” Marketa Wills, MD, MBA, chief executive officer and medical director for the APA, told this news organization.

“If these medications are under threat and children decompensate that would not be good from a public health perspective, for the healthcare system or for the families we serve,” Wills said.

 

Past Comments Fuel Distress

Past comments by the commission chair have only fueled distress over the commission’s goals. Kennedy has long expressed skepticism about antidepressants, especially (SSRIs), questioning their safety and suggesting they are as addictive as heroin. 

“I know people, including members of my family, who’ve had a much worse time getting off of SSRIs than they have getting off of heroin,” Kennedy said during his Senate confirmation hearing in late January.

But there is no evidence to suggest SSRIs or other antidepressants are addictive, Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, chair and associate professor of psychiatry at Indiana University School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“They don’t work in the systems of the brain that drive addiction. A large amount of research suggests that they are safe to take for a long time,” she said. “I suspect the confusion comes from the difference between it not being wise to come off of the medication, because of a concern for relapse of a psychiatric illness, and some transient discomfort from abruptly stopping SSRIs without tapering them off versus being addicted to it, like heroin.”

During the hearing, Kennedy was also asked to respond to comments he made during a 2023 livestream on X in which he claimed that the use of antidepressants have contributed to the increase in school shootings in the United States.

“I am also going to look very closely at the role of psychiatric drugs in these events and there are no good studies right now that should have been done years ago on this issue because there is a tremendous circumstantial evidence that SSRIs and benzos and other drugs are doing this,” he said in the livestream. 

Research has shown that there is no link between school shootings and antidepressant use.

In a 2024 interview on the Latino Capitalist podcast, Kennedy said that he wanted create “wellness farms” for adults addicted to illicit drugs and children who take antidepressants or stimulants for ADHD could be “reparented.”

“The views on those wellness farms are concerning for us here at the American Psychiatric Association. It remains to be seen if he brings that back up in his new role at HHS. There is currently no evidence of their efficacy,” Wills said.

 

Fear Is a ‘Real Concern’

These controversial comments, combined with the commission’s charge to investigate the potential “threat” psychotropic medications pose to children, worry clinicians and families fear that access to medication could be restricted.

“Psychiatrists and patients are very concerned about the risk these statements may pose,” Hulvershorn said.

“Certainly, there is evidence that psychotropic medications are overprescribed, particularly in children who are in state care — like wards of the state — and who are part of Medicaid programs, but there is tremendous overall benefit associated with psychotropic medications in youth and adults. They are lifesaving and game changing in many instances,” she added.

Psychiatrists who’ve contacted the APA since last week’s announcement echo Hulvershorn’s comments. 

“The fear is the real concern,” Wills said. “No parent takes the decision lightly to put their child on medication. With all interventions, particularly with children, there are risks and benefits that must be carefully weighed. The best person to weigh those risks and benefits is the child and adolescent psychiatrist, in conjunction with the child’s parents.”

The focus on medication also overlooks the fact that psychosocial interventions — not medication — are first-line treatment for children with mental health issues and that guidelines recommend medication be used alongside nonpharmacological therapy.

“Extensive research, including large national multi-site studies, have examined the most effective ways to reduce psychological symptoms among youth, including anxiety, depression, and ADHD. Results consistently reveal that both psychotropic medications and psychological interventions can offer significant improvements, often in combination,” Mitch Prinstein, PhD, chief of psychology strategy and integration at the American Psychological Association, told this news organization. 

“Given the substantial challenges for many in gaining access to psychotherapy and a national shortage of licensed psychologists, reducing access to medications would undoubtedly have a debilitating effect of the already concerning youth mental health crisis,” Prinstein said. 

 

A Seat at The Table

While the launch of the commission has left some feeling uneasy, experts agree that a national focus on children’s mental health is needed.

The APA would “welcome an opportunity to be part of this national conversation following the evidence base, following settled science that shows when and how these medications are effective and helpful for children and families,” said Wills. “We also think it’s very important that child and adolescent psychiatrists be at the table for this national conversation on behalf of the families they serve.” 

In a joint letter with the APA, officials with the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry also expressed interest in playing a role in the commission’s work. 

“We are in the middle of a mental health crisis, with a record number of Americans struggling with mental health and substance use disorders. We strongly urge you to prioritize strengthening the ability to respond to an increasing demand for psychiatric services, especially for children,” the letter stated.

Indeed, looking beyond just the use of psychotropic medications is vital to the success of any strategy to address the youth mental health crisis, Hulvershorn noted. 

“There are already many programs underway to examine the overprescribing. In my view, the lack of supports by payors for behavioral interventions, such as evidence-based family interventions, psychotherapies, etc., is the major driver for overuse of medications,” she said.

“Every pediatrician and child psychiatrist I know would rather try a behavioral intervention with a family first, but those are services that our systems do not financially support well and are, thus, underdeveloped, and very difficult to access,” Hulvershorn added.

More funding for evidence-based interventions — both behavioral and pharmacological — is desperately needed, she said. Support for workforce development should also be a part of any proposed solution. 

“Adequate and responsible funding in all of those areas is needed, but we have some low hanging fruit in terms of figuring out how to just deliver the interventions that science has shown us do work,” Hulvershorn said. “Many of those interventions don’t involve medication and I think every expert in the field would be glad to see more effort put into system reform to better deliver interventions that work to youth and their families.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Headache, including migraine, tension-type, trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC), and posttraumatic stress headache are significantly associated with both attempted and completed suicide, results of a large study suggested.

The risk for attempted and completed suicide was more than threefold higher for individuals with posttraumatic headache and about twofold higher for those with TAC than their counterparts without headache.

Even those with tension-type headache, one of the milder headache types, carried nearly a twofold increased risk for attempted suicide vs the comparison group with no headache.

First author Holly Elser, MD, MPH, PhD, a resident physician in the Department of Neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News that the findings were “quite striking” and underscore the importance of screening for suicide risk even in patients with mild headache.

The findings were published online on February 3 in JAMA Neurology.

Common, Disabling 

With an estimated global lifetime prevalence of 67%, headache disorders are a leading cause of productivity loss, work absences, and short-term disability.

The mechanisms linking headache disorders to suicide remain unclear for several reasons, the investigators noted.

First, the relationship between headache and psychiatric comorbidities may be complex and bidirectional, with psychiatric symptoms potentially exacerbating headache severity and frequency, the investigators noted.

Secondly, research has shown a consistent link between chronic pain and suicidality, even after adjusting for comorbid psychiatric conditions. Finally, disruptions in serotonergic pathways and increased production of inflammatory cytokines may contribute to both headache disorders and psychiatric symptoms, suggesting a shared biological basis.

The mechanisms linking headache disorders to suicide remain unclear for several reasons, the investigators noted.

First, the relationship between headache and psychiatric comorbidities may be complex and bidirectional, with psychiatric symptoms potentially exacerbating headache severity and frequency, the investigators noted.

Secondly, research has shown a consistent link between chronic pain and suicidality, even after adjusting for comorbid psychiatric conditions. Finally, disruptions in serotonergic pathways and increased production of inflammatory cytokines may contribute to both headache disorders and psychiatric symptoms, suggesting a shared biological basis.

“Patients diagnosed with headache with comorbid psychiatric symptoms may benefit in particular from comanagement with behavioral health specialists,” she added.

Not ‘Just Headaches’

In an interview with Medscape Medical News, Fred Cohen, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and neurology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, shared his perspective on the findings. Cohen, who was not involved in the study agreed with Elser’s point and incorporated screening into his practice.

“As part of my routine at every new patient appointment, I conduct screenings for depression and suicide risk. If a patient responds affirmatively to any of these questions, I make sure they get connected to the mental health resources they need,” Cohen said.

At least one of his patients per week screens positive for depression, he noted.

“Primary headaches, including migraine and trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, are a significant source of disability and suffering,” said Cohen, adding that migraine, in particular, is the leading cause of disability worldwide among women aged 18-50 years. “These conditions are often misunderstood and dismissed as ‘just headaches,’ when in reality, they are much more complex and debilitating.”

Given that depression and anxiety are common co-occurring conditions with primary headache disorders, he said, “depression screenings should be standard practice when evaluating patients with headaches.”

The study’s limitations include dependence on diagnosis codes, which are prone to misclassification, and lack of information about headache chronicity and severity, which could have affected the findings.

There was no information provided about study funding. Elser and Cohen reported no relevant financial relationships.

Headache, including migraine, tension-type, trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC), and posttraumatic stress headache are significantly associated with both attempted and completed suicide, results of a large study suggested.

The risk for attempted and completed suicide was more than threefold higher for individuals with posttraumatic headache and about twofold higher for those with TAC than their counterparts without headache.

Even those with tension-type headache, one of the milder headache types, carried nearly a twofold increased risk for attempted suicide vs the comparison group with no headache.

First author Holly Elser, MD, MPH, PhD, a resident physician in the Department of Neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News that the findings were “quite striking” and underscore the importance of screening for suicide risk even in patients with mild headache.

The findings were published online on February 3 in JAMA Neurology.

Common, Disabling 

With an estimated global lifetime prevalence of 67%, headache disorders are a leading cause of productivity loss, work absences, and short-term disability.

The mechanisms linking headache disorders to suicide remain unclear for several reasons, the investigators noted.

First, the relationship between headache and psychiatric comorbidities may be complex and bidirectional, with psychiatric symptoms potentially exacerbating headache severity and frequency, the investigators noted.

Secondly, research has shown a consistent link between chronic pain and suicidality, even after adjusting for comorbid psychiatric conditions. Finally, disruptions in serotonergic pathways and increased production of inflammatory cytokines may contribute to both headache disorders and psychiatric symptoms, suggesting a shared biological basis.

The mechanisms linking headache disorders to suicide remain unclear for several reasons, the investigators noted.

First, the relationship between headache and psychiatric comorbidities may be complex and bidirectional, with psychiatric symptoms potentially exacerbating headache severity and frequency, the investigators noted.

Secondly, research has shown a consistent link between chronic pain and suicidality, even after adjusting for comorbid psychiatric conditions. Finally, disruptions in serotonergic pathways and increased production of inflammatory cytokines may contribute to both headache disorders and psychiatric symptoms, suggesting a shared biological basis.

“Patients diagnosed with headache with comorbid psychiatric symptoms may benefit in particular from comanagement with behavioral health specialists,” she added.

Not ‘Just Headaches’

In an interview with Medscape Medical News, Fred Cohen, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and neurology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, shared his perspective on the findings. Cohen, who was not involved in the study agreed with Elser’s point and incorporated screening into his practice.

“As part of my routine at every new patient appointment, I conduct screenings for depression and suicide risk. If a patient responds affirmatively to any of these questions, I make sure they get connected to the mental health resources they need,” Cohen said.

At least one of his patients per week screens positive for depression, he noted.

“Primary headaches, including migraine and trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, are a significant source of disability and suffering,” said Cohen, adding that migraine, in particular, is the leading cause of disability worldwide among women aged 18-50 years. “These conditions are often misunderstood and dismissed as ‘just headaches,’ when in reality, they are much more complex and debilitating.”

Given that depression and anxiety are common co-occurring conditions with primary headache disorders, he said, “depression screenings should be standard practice when evaluating patients with headaches.”

The study’s limitations include dependence on diagnosis codes, which are prone to misclassification, and lack of information about headache chronicity and severity, which could have affected the findings.

There was no information provided about study funding. Elser and Cohen reported no relevant financial relationships.

Headache, including migraine, tension-type, trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC), and posttraumatic stress headache are significantly associated with both attempted and completed suicide, results of a large study suggested.

The risk for attempted and completed suicide was more than threefold higher for individuals with posttraumatic headache and about twofold higher for those with TAC than their counterparts without headache.

Even those with tension-type headache, one of the milder headache types, carried nearly a twofold increased risk for attempted suicide vs the comparison group with no headache.

First author Holly Elser, MD, MPH, PhD, a resident physician in the Department of Neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News that the findings were “quite striking” and underscore the importance of screening for suicide risk even in patients with mild headache.

The findings were published online on February 3 in JAMA Neurology.

Common, Disabling 

With an estimated global lifetime prevalence of 67%, headache disorders are a leading cause of productivity loss, work absences, and short-term disability.

The mechanisms linking headache disorders to suicide remain unclear for several reasons, the investigators noted.

First, the relationship between headache and psychiatric comorbidities may be complex and bidirectional, with psychiatric symptoms potentially exacerbating headache severity and frequency, the investigators noted.

Secondly, research has shown a consistent link between chronic pain and suicidality, even after adjusting for comorbid psychiatric conditions. Finally, disruptions in serotonergic pathways and increased production of inflammatory cytokines may contribute to both headache disorders and psychiatric symptoms, suggesting a shared biological basis.

The mechanisms linking headache disorders to suicide remain unclear for several reasons, the investigators noted.

First, the relationship between headache and psychiatric comorbidities may be complex and bidirectional, with psychiatric symptoms potentially exacerbating headache severity and frequency, the investigators noted.

Secondly, research has shown a consistent link between chronic pain and suicidality, even after adjusting for comorbid psychiatric conditions. Finally, disruptions in serotonergic pathways and increased production of inflammatory cytokines may contribute to both headache disorders and psychiatric symptoms, suggesting a shared biological basis.

“Patients diagnosed with headache with comorbid psychiatric symptoms may benefit in particular from comanagement with behavioral health specialists,” she added.

Not ‘Just Headaches’

In an interview with Medscape Medical News, Fred Cohen, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and neurology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, shared his perspective on the findings. Cohen, who was not involved in the study agreed with Elser’s point and incorporated screening into his practice.

“As part of my routine at every new patient appointment, I conduct screenings for depression and suicide risk. If a patient responds affirmatively to any of these questions, I make sure they get connected to the mental health resources they need,” Cohen said.

At least one of his patients per week screens positive for depression, he noted.

“Primary headaches, including migraine and trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, are a significant source of disability and suffering,” said Cohen, adding that migraine, in particular, is the leading cause of disability worldwide among women aged 18-50 years. “These conditions are often misunderstood and dismissed as ‘just headaches,’ when in reality, they are much more complex and debilitating.”

Given that depression and anxiety are common co-occurring conditions with primary headache disorders, he said, “depression screenings should be standard practice when evaluating patients with headaches.”

The study’s limitations include dependence on diagnosis codes, which are prone to misclassification, and lack of information about headache chronicity and severity, which could have affected the findings.

There was no information provided about study funding. Elser and Cohen reported no relevant financial relationships.