Mental Health

Veterans are at higher risk for suicide compared with civilian populations.¹ Firearms are the most frequent cause of death in veteran deaths by suicide, likely because about 51% of veterans own ≥ 1 firearms and firearms are the most lethal and readily available mechanism.^1-3 Unsecure firearm storage practices (eg, storing firearms unlocked, in an unsecure location, or loaded with ammunition) are associated with increased suicide risk.⁴ Conversely, secure firearm storage (ie, storing firearms locked and unloaded) is associated with lower suicide risk.⁵

A 2019 study of veterans who own firearms found that only 22.2% store all their firearms unloaded and locked, while 32.7% store 7ge; 1 firearm unlocked and loaded, and 45.2% store firearms both unlocked and loaded or locked and unloaded. Only 6.3% of veterans strongly agreed that having a firearm at home increased suicide risk among household members; however, 77.2% indicated they would ensure a household member could not access firearms if they were concerned about their suicidal ideation.⁶

Another study found that 9.2% of veterans receive lethal means safety counseling from their US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-affiliated or non-VA health care professional.⁷ These data highlight a need to educate veterans about the increased risk for suicide associated with storing an unsecured firearm in the household and to connect this understanding to their values of service and protection of others, while simultaneously preparing them and their family members for a potential mental health crisis.

Consistent with the government’s public health approach to suicide prevention, prevention efforts should also enlist the participation of individuals outside health care.⁸ For example, prior research has found that family members are considered highly credible, and engaging them could expand the reach of lethal means safety conversations. A qualitative analysis of 29 veterans found that 17 (57%) said they preferred having a concerned significant other (CSO) (eg, spouse, adult friend, or relative) involved in their suicide prevention care, while 21 (72%) said they would prefer having a CSO assisting in the secure storage of firearms.^9,10 Some veterans may be more amenable to a conversation about firearm access and suicide risk concerns initiated by a CSO rather than by a clinician, indicating the potential benefits of educating and involving CSOs in suicide prevention.¹¹ Involving CSOs in secure firearm storage planning may also strengthen the veteran’s sense of social support, a key protective factor against suicidal ideation.¹²

CSO involvement in secure firearm storage can provide the following benefits: (1) helping the veteran create a secure storage plan, including developing approaches to secure storage; (2) understanding warning signs of suicide; (3) helping the veteran limit access to firearms during a suicidal crisis; (4) helping the veteran remember the secure storage plan; (5) helping the veteran connect with mental health services; and (6) enhancing social support. In most instances, CSOs are physically close to the veteran (eg, live in the same household) and have a greater practical ability to support and affect change with respect to changes in firearm storage practices.

This article describes the development of an intervention that incorporates CSO involvement in firearms safety efforts for veterans with guidance from VA mental health care practitioners (HCPs). The goal is to provide HCPs and other key stakeholders with a detailed description of the intervention and to suggest potential strategies for how to involve CSOs in suicide prevention.

This article follows the Guideline for Reporting Evidence-based Practice Educational interventions and Teaching checklist, which was developed to facilitate standardized reporting and replication for education interventions.¹³ Applicable portions of the checklist are outlined, with others (ie, incentives, planned/unplanned changes, attendance, and other outcomes) to be addressed in future research.

FFAST INTERVENTION

Training (FFAST) intervention promotes voluntary secure firearm storage, engages CSOs in veteran mental health care, and provides psychoeducation and skills to support crisis management. The intervention was developed for all veterans who do not securely store firearms.

Theory

The intervention incorporates motivational interviewing techniques, as ambivalence about changing firearm storage behaviors is common, particularly when veterans own firearms for safety or protection.^6,14 Motivational interviewing is a collaborative approach that addresses a client’s ambivalence to change by eliciting and exploring the client’s own arguments related to change.¹⁴ An important aspect of developing this intervention was to ensure it would be culturally relevant to veteran firearm owners and their CSOs.¹⁵ Further, involvement of the CSO is intentional and meant to boost social support, a known buffering factor against suicide risk.¹²

Objectives

This intervention’s primary objective was for veteran participants to identify secure firearm storage practices and develop a plan for implementing them, including when a veteran or other household member experiences a mental health crisis. For CSOs, the primary objective is to learn how to help the veteran connect with mental health resources if needed and support secure firearm storage as necessary. The overall goal is to learn how to identify warning signs for suicide and how to respond to a mental health crisis through a collaborative process, including securing firearms in a crisis situation.

Materials, Educational Strategies, and Instructors

Training for delivering the intervention was provided via direct consultation with the developer of the intervention and manual. The manual contains pertinent background information to provide context for the intervention’s significance and rationale, including the role of firearms in suicides and current lethal means safety initiatives. It also describes the purpose and objective of each intervention component in detail in addition to providing a script for interventionists to follow to complete each objective.

Training materials for veterans and CSOs include a single Firearms Secure Storage Planning worksheet completed during the intervention, with which the interventionist guides participants through the creation of a secure firearm storage plan (Table). Educational strategies include psychoeducation and Socratic questioning (eg, questioning focused on guiding participants toward the intervention goals) delivered verbally by the interventionist.

The intervention is delivered in person or virtually during a single 90-minute session with a veteran and CSO. Veterans and CSOs work with the interventionist to complete collaborative activities during the session and have self-directive learning activities or homework.

The intervention has 4 primary components: (1) CSO involvement; (2) psychoeducation; (3) secure firearm storage; and (4) how to respond to a mental health crisis. Each CSO should have an established relationship with the veteran, be willing and able to be present during the intervention, and remain an encouraging support person for the veteran. The interventionist emphasizes that it is part of the VA mission for staff to care about the veteran, and that initiating such contact with a CSO is meant to prioritize veteran safety and the safety of their family. Psychoeducation on mental health symptoms, suicide warning signs, veteran suicide rates and lethal means, and the benefits of secure firearm storage, is incorporated in the intervention.

The secure firearm storage component consists of 7 subcomponents: (1) general lethal means secure storage; (2) warning signs; (3) dyad communication; (4) lethal means safety when symptoms emerge; (5) coping strategies; (6) social support; and (7) emergency contacts. A lethal means safety worksheet rooted in the Stanley and Brown suicide safety plan model and implemented in VA health care settings is used to facilitate discussions of secure storage (Appendix).¹⁶

CSOs typically have little or no suicidal crisis response training, yet they likely have more interaction with the veteran on a daily basis than HCPs, putting them in a vital position to identify a crisis early and connect the veteran with the proper care. The crisis component prepares the CSO and veteran to navigate a crisis scenario so they can practice their newly developed safety plan and increase their comfort in discussing mental health and suicidal crisis.

FICTIONAL CASE STUDY

Cole, aged 59 years, is a Persian Gulf War veteran and retired police officer. His medical history includes hypothyroidism, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic posttraumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, and insomnia.

Cole's wife of > 30 years, Sheila, joined him for the FFAST intervention. They report having 4 firearms in the home, 3 of which are loaded but stored in a lockbox and 1 that Cole reports is kept on his person for protection. Cole reports passive suicidal ideation, but no plans or intent. When discussing warning signs that a mental health crisis is building, Cole describes feeling anxious, having a change in his speech patterns, and isolating himself. Sheila agrees, but also mentions that Cole is easily angered and becomes nonverbal. Cole and Sheila express difficulty communicating and appear to have a breakthrough moment when Cole says he does not like when Sheila repeats herself, as he feels like she is “poking” at him. Sheila shares concerns for his safety and that she only repeats herself because he refuses to talk.

Cole agrees to verbalize that he is safe but needs time to process his thoughts. Sheila agrees to give him space with a plan to revisit the conversation within an agreed upon timeline. When discussing an updated secure storage plan for their firearms when a mental health crisis is building, Cole commits to allowing Sheila to store the firearm currently on his person in their gun safe, with the ammunition stored separately, and to giving her the gun safe key. They agree to implement this practice until the mental health crisis has passed.

To mitigate a potential crisis, the interventionist discusses possible internal coping strategies for Cole, including writing, reading, walking the dog, listening to music, and baking. People and social settings that could provide distraction involve going to the gym, talking to his friend Carl or his daughter Kelly, and attending the men’s ministry at church. The intervention concludes by discussing professionals or agencies that Cole and Sheila could contact during a crisis. After the intervention, Cole and Sheila are asked to rate their likelihood of using the plan they established during the conversation on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being highly unlikely and 10 being extremely likely. Cole responds with 9 and Sheila responds with 10.

DISCUSSION

Lethal means safety remains a critical component of veteran suicide prevention. However, lethal means safety discussions are often implemented after suicide risk has been identified, which may be too late. Thus, having these conversations early and before a crisis may be imperative. Veterans have expressed a desire to have CSOs involved in their suicide prevention treatment, and CSOs can play a key role in recognizing risk factors during everyday life. The FFAST intervention addresses many of these gaps.

Having discussions in advance of a crisis allows veterans to consider an effective secure firearm storage plan outside of the context of a crisis. Including a CSO galvanizes another person to understand a veteran’s needs and assist with secure firearm storage, identify warning signs, and support them during a crisis. These discussions occur in a context where there is less pressure than during a crisis. Features that were more appealing to veterans and their CSOs were also incorporated, such as having the dyad build a plan that is conceptually similar to other public safety initiatives (eg, a fire safety plan, tornado plan, or hurricane plan). Previous research demonstrates that veterans appreciated the nonjudgmental approach and some preferred that clinicians approach the discussion of secure firearm storage within the context of general home and family safety.¹⁷ Additionally, this intervention can build on veterans’ prior military training in preparedness.

Other potential benefits associated with the FFAST intervention include creating an opportunity to strengthen communication between the veteran and CSO. While FFAST is intended to be used with all types of CSOs, this work is consistent with preliminary data from a couples-based suicide prevention study that indicated veterans and their partners reported increases in relationship functioning and marginal decreases in suicidal ideation.¹⁸ It is possible that communication strategies gained from the current intervention could improve veterans’ relationships with their CSOs, which are associated with a greater sense of social support and reduced suicide risk.¹²

The intervention is a brief, single session that may be appealing to veterans and CSOs with full schedules. Evidence suggests that even brief, single-session interventions have a significant impact on beliefs about secure firearm storage, knowledge of lethal means safety, and confidence in having secure firearm storage conversations.¹⁹ However, clinicians should be cautious when extrapolating from the findings of the current case example, which was a one-time intervention with no follow-up.

Future Directions

Pilot testing of the proposed intervention is underway, and future research will include feedback from veterans and CSOs, as well as feasibility and acceptability data collected during the pilot process. The pilot study uses a successive cohort design with an initial 2 sets of 5 veteran and CSO dyads, and subsequent funding has expanded the pilot study to include an additional 30 dyads. Qualitative interviews will be conducted separately with each veteran and CSO, and additional constructs such as feasibility, acceptability, barriers and facilitators to implementation, and changes in secure storage will be examined. This future research may provide a deeper understanding of the broader acceptability, feasibility, and satisfaction associated with a suicide prevention intervention focused on securing firearms and involving veterans and their CSOs. These data could be used to inform future implementation trials and inform the development of an implementation strategy. In the interim, the nature of the manual is summarized in the context of the urgency of suicide prevention in this at-risk population.

Conclusions

FFAST is a novel approach to veteran firearm suicide prevention. By involving CSOs and emphasizing mental health crisis preparedness between them and veterans, the dyad can work in association with HCPs to establish and exercise secure firearm storage practices as part of an at-home safety plan. Implementation of FFAST may be beneficial for all veterans, not only those who have been identified as being at high suicide risk.

Veterans are at higher risk for suicide compared with civilian populations.¹ Firearms are the most frequent cause of death in veteran deaths by suicide, likely because about 51% of veterans own ≥ 1 firearms and firearms are the most lethal and readily available mechanism.^1-3 Unsecure firearm storage practices (eg, storing firearms unlocked, in an unsecure location, or loaded with ammunition) are associated with increased suicide risk.⁴ Conversely, secure firearm storage (ie, storing firearms locked and unloaded) is associated with lower suicide risk.⁵

A 2019 study of veterans who own firearms found that only 22.2% store all their firearms unloaded and locked, while 32.7% store 7ge; 1 firearm unlocked and loaded, and 45.2% store firearms both unlocked and loaded or locked and unloaded. Only 6.3% of veterans strongly agreed that having a firearm at home increased suicide risk among household members; however, 77.2% indicated they would ensure a household member could not access firearms if they were concerned about their suicidal ideation.⁶

Another study found that 9.2% of veterans receive lethal means safety counseling from their US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-affiliated or non-VA health care professional.⁷ These data highlight a need to educate veterans about the increased risk for suicide associated with storing an unsecured firearm in the household and to connect this understanding to their values of service and protection of others, while simultaneously preparing them and their family members for a potential mental health crisis.

Consistent with the government’s public health approach to suicide prevention, prevention efforts should also enlist the participation of individuals outside health care.⁸ For example, prior research has found that family members are considered highly credible, and engaging them could expand the reach of lethal means safety conversations. A qualitative analysis of 29 veterans found that 17 (57%) said they preferred having a concerned significant other (CSO) (eg, spouse, adult friend, or relative) involved in their suicide prevention care, while 21 (72%) said they would prefer having a CSO assisting in the secure storage of firearms.^9,10 Some veterans may be more amenable to a conversation about firearm access and suicide risk concerns initiated by a CSO rather than by a clinician, indicating the potential benefits of educating and involving CSOs in suicide prevention.¹¹ Involving CSOs in secure firearm storage planning may also strengthen the veteran’s sense of social support, a key protective factor against suicidal ideation.¹²

CSO involvement in secure firearm storage can provide the following benefits: (1) helping the veteran create a secure storage plan, including developing approaches to secure storage; (2) understanding warning signs of suicide; (3) helping the veteran limit access to firearms during a suicidal crisis; (4) helping the veteran remember the secure storage plan; (5) helping the veteran connect with mental health services; and (6) enhancing social support. In most instances, CSOs are physically close to the veteran (eg, live in the same household) and have a greater practical ability to support and affect change with respect to changes in firearm storage practices.

This article describes the development of an intervention that incorporates CSO involvement in firearms safety efforts for veterans with guidance from VA mental health care practitioners (HCPs). The goal is to provide HCPs and other key stakeholders with a detailed description of the intervention and to suggest potential strategies for how to involve CSOs in suicide prevention.

This article follows the Guideline for Reporting Evidence-based Practice Educational interventions and Teaching checklist, which was developed to facilitate standardized reporting and replication for education interventions.¹³ Applicable portions of the checklist are outlined, with others (ie, incentives, planned/unplanned changes, attendance, and other outcomes) to be addressed in future research.

FFAST INTERVENTION

Training (FFAST) intervention promotes voluntary secure firearm storage, engages CSOs in veteran mental health care, and provides psychoeducation and skills to support crisis management. The intervention was developed for all veterans who do not securely store firearms.

Theory

The intervention incorporates motivational interviewing techniques, as ambivalence about changing firearm storage behaviors is common, particularly when veterans own firearms for safety or protection.^6,14 Motivational interviewing is a collaborative approach that addresses a client’s ambivalence to change by eliciting and exploring the client’s own arguments related to change.¹⁴ An important aspect of developing this intervention was to ensure it would be culturally relevant to veteran firearm owners and their CSOs.¹⁵ Further, involvement of the CSO is intentional and meant to boost social support, a known buffering factor against suicide risk.¹²

Objectives

This intervention’s primary objective was for veteran participants to identify secure firearm storage practices and develop a plan for implementing them, including when a veteran or other household member experiences a mental health crisis. For CSOs, the primary objective is to learn how to help the veteran connect with mental health resources if needed and support secure firearm storage as necessary. The overall goal is to learn how to identify warning signs for suicide and how to respond to a mental health crisis through a collaborative process, including securing firearms in a crisis situation.

Materials, Educational Strategies, and Instructors

Training for delivering the intervention was provided via direct consultation with the developer of the intervention and manual. The manual contains pertinent background information to provide context for the intervention’s significance and rationale, including the role of firearms in suicides and current lethal means safety initiatives. It also describes the purpose and objective of each intervention component in detail in addition to providing a script for interventionists to follow to complete each objective.

Training materials for veterans and CSOs include a single Firearms Secure Storage Planning worksheet completed during the intervention, with which the interventionist guides participants through the creation of a secure firearm storage plan (Table). Educational strategies include psychoeducation and Socratic questioning (eg, questioning focused on guiding participants toward the intervention goals) delivered verbally by the interventionist.

The intervention is delivered in person or virtually during a single 90-minute session with a veteran and CSO. Veterans and CSOs work with the interventionist to complete collaborative activities during the session and have self-directive learning activities or homework.

The intervention has 4 primary components: (1) CSO involvement; (2) psychoeducation; (3) secure firearm storage; and (4) how to respond to a mental health crisis. Each CSO should have an established relationship with the veteran, be willing and able to be present during the intervention, and remain an encouraging support person for the veteran. The interventionist emphasizes that it is part of the VA mission for staff to care about the veteran, and that initiating such contact with a CSO is meant to prioritize veteran safety and the safety of their family. Psychoeducation on mental health symptoms, suicide warning signs, veteran suicide rates and lethal means, and the benefits of secure firearm storage, is incorporated in the intervention.

The secure firearm storage component consists of 7 subcomponents: (1) general lethal means secure storage; (2) warning signs; (3) dyad communication; (4) lethal means safety when symptoms emerge; (5) coping strategies; (6) social support; and (7) emergency contacts. A lethal means safety worksheet rooted in the Stanley and Brown suicide safety plan model and implemented in VA health care settings is used to facilitate discussions of secure storage (Appendix).¹⁶

CSOs typically have little or no suicidal crisis response training, yet they likely have more interaction with the veteran on a daily basis than HCPs, putting them in a vital position to identify a crisis early and connect the veteran with the proper care. The crisis component prepares the CSO and veteran to navigate a crisis scenario so they can practice their newly developed safety plan and increase their comfort in discussing mental health and suicidal crisis.

FICTIONAL CASE STUDY

Cole, aged 59 years, is a Persian Gulf War veteran and retired police officer. His medical history includes hypothyroidism, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic posttraumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, and insomnia.

Cole's wife of > 30 years, Sheila, joined him for the FFAST intervention. They report having 4 firearms in the home, 3 of which are loaded but stored in a lockbox and 1 that Cole reports is kept on his person for protection. Cole reports passive suicidal ideation, but no plans or intent. When discussing warning signs that a mental health crisis is building, Cole describes feeling anxious, having a change in his speech patterns, and isolating himself. Sheila agrees, but also mentions that Cole is easily angered and becomes nonverbal. Cole and Sheila express difficulty communicating and appear to have a breakthrough moment when Cole says he does not like when Sheila repeats herself, as he feels like she is “poking” at him. Sheila shares concerns for his safety and that she only repeats herself because he refuses to talk.

Cole agrees to verbalize that he is safe but needs time to process his thoughts. Sheila agrees to give him space with a plan to revisit the conversation within an agreed upon timeline. When discussing an updated secure storage plan for their firearms when a mental health crisis is building, Cole commits to allowing Sheila to store the firearm currently on his person in their gun safe, with the ammunition stored separately, and to giving her the gun safe key. They agree to implement this practice until the mental health crisis has passed.

To mitigate a potential crisis, the interventionist discusses possible internal coping strategies for Cole, including writing, reading, walking the dog, listening to music, and baking. People and social settings that could provide distraction involve going to the gym, talking to his friend Carl or his daughter Kelly, and attending the men’s ministry at church. The intervention concludes by discussing professionals or agencies that Cole and Sheila could contact during a crisis. After the intervention, Cole and Sheila are asked to rate their likelihood of using the plan they established during the conversation on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being highly unlikely and 10 being extremely likely. Cole responds with 9 and Sheila responds with 10.

DISCUSSION

Lethal means safety remains a critical component of veteran suicide prevention. However, lethal means safety discussions are often implemented after suicide risk has been identified, which may be too late. Thus, having these conversations early and before a crisis may be imperative. Veterans have expressed a desire to have CSOs involved in their suicide prevention treatment, and CSOs can play a key role in recognizing risk factors during everyday life. The FFAST intervention addresses many of these gaps.

Having discussions in advance of a crisis allows veterans to consider an effective secure firearm storage plan outside of the context of a crisis. Including a CSO galvanizes another person to understand a veteran’s needs and assist with secure firearm storage, identify warning signs, and support them during a crisis. These discussions occur in a context where there is less pressure than during a crisis. Features that were more appealing to veterans and their CSOs were also incorporated, such as having the dyad build a plan that is conceptually similar to other public safety initiatives (eg, a fire safety plan, tornado plan, or hurricane plan). Previous research demonstrates that veterans appreciated the nonjudgmental approach and some preferred that clinicians approach the discussion of secure firearm storage within the context of general home and family safety.¹⁷ Additionally, this intervention can build on veterans’ prior military training in preparedness.

Other potential benefits associated with the FFAST intervention include creating an opportunity to strengthen communication between the veteran and CSO. While FFAST is intended to be used with all types of CSOs, this work is consistent with preliminary data from a couples-based suicide prevention study that indicated veterans and their partners reported increases in relationship functioning and marginal decreases in suicidal ideation.¹⁸ It is possible that communication strategies gained from the current intervention could improve veterans’ relationships with their CSOs, which are associated with a greater sense of social support and reduced suicide risk.¹²

The intervention is a brief, single session that may be appealing to veterans and CSOs with full schedules. Evidence suggests that even brief, single-session interventions have a significant impact on beliefs about secure firearm storage, knowledge of lethal means safety, and confidence in having secure firearm storage conversations.¹⁹ However, clinicians should be cautious when extrapolating from the findings of the current case example, which was a one-time intervention with no follow-up.

Future Directions

Pilot testing of the proposed intervention is underway, and future research will include feedback from veterans and CSOs, as well as feasibility and acceptability data collected during the pilot process. The pilot study uses a successive cohort design with an initial 2 sets of 5 veteran and CSO dyads, and subsequent funding has expanded the pilot study to include an additional 30 dyads. Qualitative interviews will be conducted separately with each veteran and CSO, and additional constructs such as feasibility, acceptability, barriers and facilitators to implementation, and changes in secure storage will be examined. This future research may provide a deeper understanding of the broader acceptability, feasibility, and satisfaction associated with a suicide prevention intervention focused on securing firearms and involving veterans and their CSOs. These data could be used to inform future implementation trials and inform the development of an implementation strategy. In the interim, the nature of the manual is summarized in the context of the urgency of suicide prevention in this at-risk population.

Conclusions

FFAST is a novel approach to veteran firearm suicide prevention. By involving CSOs and emphasizing mental health crisis preparedness between them and veterans, the dyad can work in association with HCPs to establish and exercise secure firearm storage practices as part of an at-home safety plan. Implementation of FFAST may be beneficial for all veterans, not only those who have been identified as being at high suicide risk.

Veterans are at higher risk for suicide compared with civilian populations.¹ Firearms are the most frequent cause of death in veteran deaths by suicide, likely because about 51% of veterans own ≥ 1 firearms and firearms are the most lethal and readily available mechanism.^1-3 Unsecure firearm storage practices (eg, storing firearms unlocked, in an unsecure location, or loaded with ammunition) are associated with increased suicide risk.⁴ Conversely, secure firearm storage (ie, storing firearms locked and unloaded) is associated with lower suicide risk.⁵

A 2019 study of veterans who own firearms found that only 22.2% store all their firearms unloaded and locked, while 32.7% store 7ge; 1 firearm unlocked and loaded, and 45.2% store firearms both unlocked and loaded or locked and unloaded. Only 6.3% of veterans strongly agreed that having a firearm at home increased suicide risk among household members; however, 77.2% indicated they would ensure a household member could not access firearms if they were concerned about their suicidal ideation.⁶

Another study found that 9.2% of veterans receive lethal means safety counseling from their US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-affiliated or non-VA health care professional.⁷ These data highlight a need to educate veterans about the increased risk for suicide associated with storing an unsecured firearm in the household and to connect this understanding to their values of service and protection of others, while simultaneously preparing them and their family members for a potential mental health crisis.

Consistent with the government’s public health approach to suicide prevention, prevention efforts should also enlist the participation of individuals outside health care.⁸ For example, prior research has found that family members are considered highly credible, and engaging them could expand the reach of lethal means safety conversations. A qualitative analysis of 29 veterans found that 17 (57%) said they preferred having a concerned significant other (CSO) (eg, spouse, adult friend, or relative) involved in their suicide prevention care, while 21 (72%) said they would prefer having a CSO assisting in the secure storage of firearms.^9,10 Some veterans may be more amenable to a conversation about firearm access and suicide risk concerns initiated by a CSO rather than by a clinician, indicating the potential benefits of educating and involving CSOs in suicide prevention.¹¹ Involving CSOs in secure firearm storage planning may also strengthen the veteran’s sense of social support, a key protective factor against suicidal ideation.¹²

CSO involvement in secure firearm storage can provide the following benefits: (1) helping the veteran create a secure storage plan, including developing approaches to secure storage; (2) understanding warning signs of suicide; (3) helping the veteran limit access to firearms during a suicidal crisis; (4) helping the veteran remember the secure storage plan; (5) helping the veteran connect with mental health services; and (6) enhancing social support. In most instances, CSOs are physically close to the veteran (eg, live in the same household) and have a greater practical ability to support and affect change with respect to changes in firearm storage practices.

This article describes the development of an intervention that incorporates CSO involvement in firearms safety efforts for veterans with guidance from VA mental health care practitioners (HCPs). The goal is to provide HCPs and other key stakeholders with a detailed description of the intervention and to suggest potential strategies for how to involve CSOs in suicide prevention.

This article follows the Guideline for Reporting Evidence-based Practice Educational interventions and Teaching checklist, which was developed to facilitate standardized reporting and replication for education interventions.¹³ Applicable portions of the checklist are outlined, with others (ie, incentives, planned/unplanned changes, attendance, and other outcomes) to be addressed in future research.

FFAST INTERVENTION

Training (FFAST) intervention promotes voluntary secure firearm storage, engages CSOs in veteran mental health care, and provides psychoeducation and skills to support crisis management. The intervention was developed for all veterans who do not securely store firearms.

Theory

The intervention incorporates motivational interviewing techniques, as ambivalence about changing firearm storage behaviors is common, particularly when veterans own firearms for safety or protection.^6,14 Motivational interviewing is a collaborative approach that addresses a client’s ambivalence to change by eliciting and exploring the client’s own arguments related to change.¹⁴ An important aspect of developing this intervention was to ensure it would be culturally relevant to veteran firearm owners and their CSOs.¹⁵ Further, involvement of the CSO is intentional and meant to boost social support, a known buffering factor against suicide risk.¹²

Objectives

This intervention’s primary objective was for veteran participants to identify secure firearm storage practices and develop a plan for implementing them, including when a veteran or other household member experiences a mental health crisis. For CSOs, the primary objective is to learn how to help the veteran connect with mental health resources if needed and support secure firearm storage as necessary. The overall goal is to learn how to identify warning signs for suicide and how to respond to a mental health crisis through a collaborative process, including securing firearms in a crisis situation.

Materials, Educational Strategies, and Instructors

Training for delivering the intervention was provided via direct consultation with the developer of the intervention and manual. The manual contains pertinent background information to provide context for the intervention’s significance and rationale, including the role of firearms in suicides and current lethal means safety initiatives. It also describes the purpose and objective of each intervention component in detail in addition to providing a script for interventionists to follow to complete each objective.

Training materials for veterans and CSOs include a single Firearms Secure Storage Planning worksheet completed during the intervention, with which the interventionist guides participants through the creation of a secure firearm storage plan (Table). Educational strategies include psychoeducation and Socratic questioning (eg, questioning focused on guiding participants toward the intervention goals) delivered verbally by the interventionist.

The intervention is delivered in person or virtually during a single 90-minute session with a veteran and CSO. Veterans and CSOs work with the interventionist to complete collaborative activities during the session and have self-directive learning activities or homework.

The intervention has 4 primary components: (1) CSO involvement; (2) psychoeducation; (3) secure firearm storage; and (4) how to respond to a mental health crisis. Each CSO should have an established relationship with the veteran, be willing and able to be present during the intervention, and remain an encouraging support person for the veteran. The interventionist emphasizes that it is part of the VA mission for staff to care about the veteran, and that initiating such contact with a CSO is meant to prioritize veteran safety and the safety of their family. Psychoeducation on mental health symptoms, suicide warning signs, veteran suicide rates and lethal means, and the benefits of secure firearm storage, is incorporated in the intervention.

The secure firearm storage component consists of 7 subcomponents: (1) general lethal means secure storage; (2) warning signs; (3) dyad communication; (4) lethal means safety when symptoms emerge; (5) coping strategies; (6) social support; and (7) emergency contacts. A lethal means safety worksheet rooted in the Stanley and Brown suicide safety plan model and implemented in VA health care settings is used to facilitate discussions of secure storage (Appendix).¹⁶

CSOs typically have little or no suicidal crisis response training, yet they likely have more interaction with the veteran on a daily basis than HCPs, putting them in a vital position to identify a crisis early and connect the veteran with the proper care. The crisis component prepares the CSO and veteran to navigate a crisis scenario so they can practice their newly developed safety plan and increase their comfort in discussing mental health and suicidal crisis.

FICTIONAL CASE STUDY

Cole, aged 59 years, is a Persian Gulf War veteran and retired police officer. His medical history includes hypothyroidism, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic posttraumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, and insomnia.

Cole's wife of > 30 years, Sheila, joined him for the FFAST intervention. They report having 4 firearms in the home, 3 of which are loaded but stored in a lockbox and 1 that Cole reports is kept on his person for protection. Cole reports passive suicidal ideation, but no plans or intent. When discussing warning signs that a mental health crisis is building, Cole describes feeling anxious, having a change in his speech patterns, and isolating himself. Sheila agrees, but also mentions that Cole is easily angered and becomes nonverbal. Cole and Sheila express difficulty communicating and appear to have a breakthrough moment when Cole says he does not like when Sheila repeats herself, as he feels like she is “poking” at him. Sheila shares concerns for his safety and that she only repeats herself because he refuses to talk.

Cole agrees to verbalize that he is safe but needs time to process his thoughts. Sheila agrees to give him space with a plan to revisit the conversation within an agreed upon timeline. When discussing an updated secure storage plan for their firearms when a mental health crisis is building, Cole commits to allowing Sheila to store the firearm currently on his person in their gun safe, with the ammunition stored separately, and to giving her the gun safe key. They agree to implement this practice until the mental health crisis has passed.

To mitigate a potential crisis, the interventionist discusses possible internal coping strategies for Cole, including writing, reading, walking the dog, listening to music, and baking. People and social settings that could provide distraction involve going to the gym, talking to his friend Carl or his daughter Kelly, and attending the men’s ministry at church. The intervention concludes by discussing professionals or agencies that Cole and Sheila could contact during a crisis. After the intervention, Cole and Sheila are asked to rate their likelihood of using the plan they established during the conversation on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being highly unlikely and 10 being extremely likely. Cole responds with 9 and Sheila responds with 10.

DISCUSSION

Lethal means safety remains a critical component of veteran suicide prevention. However, lethal means safety discussions are often implemented after suicide risk has been identified, which may be too late. Thus, having these conversations early and before a crisis may be imperative. Veterans have expressed a desire to have CSOs involved in their suicide prevention treatment, and CSOs can play a key role in recognizing risk factors during everyday life. The FFAST intervention addresses many of these gaps.

Having discussions in advance of a crisis allows veterans to consider an effective secure firearm storage plan outside of the context of a crisis. Including a CSO galvanizes another person to understand a veteran’s needs and assist with secure firearm storage, identify warning signs, and support them during a crisis. These discussions occur in a context where there is less pressure than during a crisis. Features that were more appealing to veterans and their CSOs were also incorporated, such as having the dyad build a plan that is conceptually similar to other public safety initiatives (eg, a fire safety plan, tornado plan, or hurricane plan). Previous research demonstrates that veterans appreciated the nonjudgmental approach and some preferred that clinicians approach the discussion of secure firearm storage within the context of general home and family safety.¹⁷ Additionally, this intervention can build on veterans’ prior military training in preparedness.

Other potential benefits associated with the FFAST intervention include creating an opportunity to strengthen communication between the veteran and CSO. While FFAST is intended to be used with all types of CSOs, this work is consistent with preliminary data from a couples-based suicide prevention study that indicated veterans and their partners reported increases in relationship functioning and marginal decreases in suicidal ideation.¹⁸ It is possible that communication strategies gained from the current intervention could improve veterans’ relationships with their CSOs, which are associated with a greater sense of social support and reduced suicide risk.¹²

The intervention is a brief, single session that may be appealing to veterans and CSOs with full schedules. Evidence suggests that even brief, single-session interventions have a significant impact on beliefs about secure firearm storage, knowledge of lethal means safety, and confidence in having secure firearm storage conversations.¹⁹ However, clinicians should be cautious when extrapolating from the findings of the current case example, which was a one-time intervention with no follow-up.

Future Directions

Pilot testing of the proposed intervention is underway, and future research will include feedback from veterans and CSOs, as well as feasibility and acceptability data collected during the pilot process. The pilot study uses a successive cohort design with an initial 2 sets of 5 veteran and CSO dyads, and subsequent funding has expanded the pilot study to include an additional 30 dyads. Qualitative interviews will be conducted separately with each veteran and CSO, and additional constructs such as feasibility, acceptability, barriers and facilitators to implementation, and changes in secure storage will be examined. This future research may provide a deeper understanding of the broader acceptability, feasibility, and satisfaction associated with a suicide prevention intervention focused on securing firearms and involving veterans and their CSOs. These data could be used to inform future implementation trials and inform the development of an implementation strategy. In the interim, the nature of the manual is summarized in the context of the urgency of suicide prevention in this at-risk population.

Conclusions

FFAST is a novel approach to veteran firearm suicide prevention. By involving CSOs and emphasizing mental health crisis preparedness between them and veterans, the dyad can work in association with HCPs to establish and exercise secure firearm storage practices as part of an at-home safety plan. Implementation of FFAST may be beneficial for all veterans, not only those who have been identified as being at high suicide risk.

T he US Census Bureau projects that the number of older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) will exceed 49 million by 2030, and an estimated 20% (nearly 10 million) of this population will experience cognitive or mental health disorders.^1,2 The mental health workforce is not equipped to address the specialized mental health care needs of many older adults.^2,3 For example, geriatric psychiatrists specialize in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness and cognitive disorders in the later stages of life, but their numbers are few and declining. Only 33.5% of geriatric psychiatry fellowship training slots were filled from 2017 to 2021, and only 62 fellows trained during the 2021-2022 academic year.⁴ Board-certified geriatric psychiatrists also tend to be concentrated in larger, urban, academically-affiliated medical centers, often leaving rural areas and smaller facilities without access, including facilities in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).⁵

The VHA has been optimizing access to specialty geriatric mental health services via regional and national virtual consultation services. Seven of 19 Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) Clinical Resource Hubs (CRHs) have geriatric mental health teams.⁶ These provide interdisciplinary geriatric mental telehealth services, including geriatric psychiatry, for older veterans with complex care needs.^7,8 Likewise, the VHA National Expert Consultation & Specialized Services-Mental Health (NEXCSS- MH, formerly known as the National Telemental Health Center) sponsors video teleconsultations with board-certified geriatric psychiatrists and an Ask the Expert email consultation program.

This article describes the Ask the Expert Geriatric Psychiatry email program (one of several similar programs at NEXCSS-MH), building upon a symposium presented at the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry (AAGP) annual meeting in March 2022.⁹ The program was initiated in June 2021 as a result of discussions between the National Mental Health Director, Geriatric Mental Health in the VHA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (now known as the Office of Mental Health [OMH]), and National Telemental Health Center leadership. VHA board certified geriatric psychiatrists were recruited to serve as expert consultants and respond to email questions submitted by VHA clinicians regarding the psychiatric care of older adult veterans. The results of this program identify educational needs among clinical staff and may inform the development of program materials for a range of clinicians.

Program Description

The national geriatric mental health director recruited prospective experts and met with each to assess interest and qualifications, consulting with OMH psychiatrist leaders before making selections. Five experts were initially selected; 1 later stepped down and was replaced by another, who also stepped down. The experts were board certified in psychiatry and geriatric psychiatry and held a variety of local and national leadership positions, including geriatric psychiatry fellowship director, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) research and clinical leader, and various roles in the AAGP; some had received teaching awards.

Operations

The national geriatric mental health director announced the program in June 2021 to VHA mental health and geriatric program email groups with reminders sent every few months. The announcement included information about the types of questions appropriate to submit, including examples of general clinical management questions that did not share patient-specific protected health information, and clarified that experts would not be conducting chart reviews because the time required for detailed chart reviews was not feasible for volunteer experts to integrate into their otherwise full-time jobs at their respective VA medical centers. The announcement also included brief biographies of the experts.

The Figure describes the daily operations of the Ask the Expert Geriatric Psychiatry email consultation program. The NEXCSS- MH developed a Microsoft Outlook mailbox and group email address where clinicians from across the VHA could submit questions. The experts, as well as the national geriatric mental health director and NEXCSS-MH staff, had access to this mailbox to track and/or respond to questions. One expert volunteered to be the program’s primary mailbox coordinator. The coordinator checked the inbox daily and assigned each question to one of the experts on a rotating basis using the color-coding feature in Outlook. The other experts were advised to check the email account at least once weekly and reply to any assigned questions.

Responding to a question entailed first determining whether the question was appropriate for the service. For example, if a question requested a chart review, the expert replied that experts could not provide chart reviews and requested that the question be reframed. Next, the expert often needed to define a specific clinical question from the information provided, as email questions often touched upon several topics. The expert provided personalized advice on diagnostic testing, nonpharmacologic treatment strategies, and/or pharmacologic treatment options. Experts also often attached relevant guidelines or review articles. The goal was to provide a response within 7 business days.

All email responses included a disclaimer indicating that the program was not intended for urgent or immediate medical advice and that the information provided was for VHA clinician education purposes only. The disclaimer explained that email communication did not establish a doctor-patient relationship between the expert and a specific veteran and that, if desired, a request for a clinical consultation could be submitted on a specific case (ie, a video teleconsultation).

Methods for Reviewing Questions

Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means, and minimum and maximum ranges, were used to capture the number of questions the program received, type of requester, and length of time prior to response for emailed questions.⁹ Conventional content analysis procedures were used between January and October 2024 to analyze clinicians’ questions.¹⁰ Four subject matter experts (3 geriatric psychiatrists and 1 geropsychologist) served as coders, assigned in groups of 2 to review questions. Each coder independently reviewed assigned questions and identified preliminary themes. Themes were reviewed and revised using an iterative process during regular team meetings with coders to clarify and confirm interpretations. Discrepancies were discussed within team meetings to achieve consensus.

Questions received. Between February 2022 and December 2023, the program received 101 email questions. Requesters included 39 physicians, 17 nurse practitioners or physician assistants, 15 social workers, 14 psychologists, 9 nurses, 5 pharmacists, 1 dietitian, and 1 who was undetermined. Experts responded to the questions an average of 6 days after receipt (range, < 1-19); 73 responses (72%) met the 7-day goal.

Iterative changes to coded themes were made during group discussions. Multiple clinical questions were often posed within the same email. Initially, some coders identified themes solely based on reported symptoms; others identified themes based on reported and/or potential diagnostic conditions attributed to the symptom(s) described within the email. For example, some coders selected a primary theme of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) only if a behavior contributing to distress in the veteran or others was described, while others selected this theme when any psychiatric symptom (eg, psychosis) was present in the context of dementia. The group identified 1 primary theme per question based on the main clinical symptom or main concern presented. Co-occurring diagnostic conditions highlighted in the email requests were included as secondary themes, and each question could have > 1 secondary theme.

The most frequent requests related to clinical symptoms included questions about agitated behaviors, sleep and/or nightmares, and depression symptoms (Table 1). Twentyseven of 33 email requests on agitated behaviors were related to a dementia diagnosis, as were several questions about sleep/nightmares, depression, psychosis/mania, and anxiety. Many diagnostic conditions were described in the email requests (Table 2). The most frequent condition was dementia, followed by a medical condition, depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and/or serious mental illness.

Request for Feedback. In February 2022, an email request was sent to the 64 clinicians who asked email questions from the start of the program in June 2021 through December 2021. A second request included 11 clinicians who asked questions from January through February 2022. These requests were sent as part of preparations for the symposium on the program presented at the AAGP annual meeting in March 2022.⁹ In May 2024, feedback was requested from 37 clinicians who submitted questions from May 1, 2023, through May 15, 2024.

Requests for feedback included 6 closedended and 1 open-ended question: (1) Did the answer you received help inform clinical practice? (2) Did you receive a timely response? (3) What type of information was useful to you in addressing your question (ie, direct/specific answer to a clinical scenario, guidelines, articles, VA resources)? (4) Do you have access to a geriatric psychiatrist at your facility? (5) Are you likely to use Ask the Expert Geriatric Psychiatry in the future? (6) Would you use a geriatric psychiatry teleconsultation service? (7) Share suggestions for improvement. Frequencies of response selection were obtained for each question. Text responses to the open-ended question asking for suggestions for improvement were reviewed and summarized.

Responses

Thirty users responded to the feedback request (27% response rate). Respondents considered the answers received extremely (n = 14; 47%) or very much (n = 12; 40%) helpful for their clinical practice. Twenty-three respondents (77%) felt an answer was provided promptly, 7 respondents (23%) felt the answer was not timely but still useful, and none felt that the answer was too late. Respondents reported that the most useful type of information in addressing their questions was a direct/specific answer to a clinical scenario (n = 27; 90%), followed by guidelines (n = 12; 40%), articles (n = 7; 23%), and VA resources (n = 4; 13%).

Sixteen respondents (53%) reported that they rarely had ready access to a geriatric psychiatrist at their facility, 3 (10%) had access sometimes, 4 (14%) had access usually, 3 (10%) had access regularly, and 3 (10%) never had access. Twenty-seven respondents (90%) indicated they would be very likely to use the service again. If geriatric psychiatry teleconsultation and/or e-consultation were offered, many respondents indicated they would be extremely (n = 10; 33%) or very (n = 12; 40%) likely to use teleconsultation and/or e-consultation.

Suggestions for improvement included supporting experts to perform chart reviews for email questions, developing a template or consult form, holding a biweekly drop-in meeting to present questions to and discuss cases with a panel of experts, and providing further help addressing complex decisional capacity issues, delirium, and care or placement for veterans with severe behavioral issues in a rural setting.

Discussion

Although many older adults experience cognitive and mental health disorders that may benefit from management by a geriatric psychiatrist, the number of trained geriatric psychiatrists available is insufficient to allow for direct care for each patient. The Ask the Expert Geriatric Psychiatry email consultation program is one aspect of a multicomponent strategy within the VHA to increase access to specialty geriatric mental health services for veterans. A key advantage of the program is that it is not resource intensive. Experts can participate voluntarily, providing timely feedback to clinicians around the country while continuing other duties at their respective VA medical centers. Email replies to the experts’ answers elicited positive feedback on the program, include: “I found this service to be extremely helpful and I have shared the information they sent me with several other coworkers!”, “It was great!”, and “I endorsed the service to our VISN Rehabilitation and Extended Care group.”

The coding of primary and secondary themes from 101 email questions that were retained revealed the range and relative frequencies of clinical and administrative topics with which clinicians needed help. The most common (33%) theme was agitated behaviors. Nearly half of the questions (48%) were related to underlying dementia, and 29% were related to a patient’s medical comorbidities. These findings suggest that the expertise of a geriatric psychiatrist is particularly relevant when caring for older patients experiencing BPSD or patients with complex, overlapping psychiatric and medical conditions.

Despite a 27% response rate, participant feedback has been helpful. The program reached its intended audience of clinicians in rural areas and at smaller facilities with 53% of requesters reporting they rarely had access to a geriatric psychiatrist. Suggestions for improvement indicated that some clinicians desired additional support, including chart reviews, meetings with experts, and a video teleconsultation service (available through NEXCSS-MH).

Many clinicians without training in specialty geriatric mental health may require help with complex clinical presentations. For example, 39 clinicians who submitted questions to the program were physicians. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education program requirements for general psychiatry residency include 4 weeks of geriatric psychiatry.¹¹ The findings of this study suggest that this level of training may not be adequate to independently care for every patient who experiences dementia or multimorbidity. Several training and mentoring initiatives have been developed to address the professional development need for psychiatrists.^12-14

The need for geriatric workforce development is significant across health care, including other mental health professions.^15,16 The VHA Geriatric Scholars program trains rural primary care practitioners, psychologists, and psychiatrists.^17,18 Likewise, consultative geriatric specialty support for primary care practitioners in rural areas is provided via the Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center Connect program.¹⁹ The Ask the Expert Geriatric Psychiatry email program is an additional economical model to support clinician educational development and provide rapid educational responses to inform patient care.

Ask the Expert received fewer email questions than anticipated. Enhanced optimization may require more frequent and widespread announcements about the program. Clinical staff may not be aware of the program due to an overload of email communications. Likewise, it may be challenging for busy clinicians to take the time to seek consultation or recognize a potential gap in their knowledge or skills. Had more questions been submitted, the 5 volunteer experts may have had more difficulty addressing the demand. Feedback from this project may inform development of a frequently asked questions document to share with VHA teams and a drop-in office hour to pose clinical questions of geriatric psychiatry experts, as recommended by a clinician who participated in the program.

Limitations

Not all requesters were sent a request for feedback, and the response rate for the request for feedback was only 27%. As the program has evolved, it began sending a request for feedback immediately after answering each question, which may increase the odds of response. The goal of experts answering questions within 7 business days was met 72% of the time, likely an artifact of experts integrating question answering with many other duties. The mailbox coordinator has since provided email prompts to experts immediately upon being assigned a question with the goal of improving timeliness. The program did not include chart reviews or patient consultations, as neither was feasible for volunteer experts. The email consultation service is a single component of virtual consultative specialty geriatric mental health services within the VHA, including video consultations via NEXCSS-MH and regional geriatric mental health teams.

Conclusions

The need for specialty geriatric mental health services is increasing in the VHA and across the US. However, there are too few board-certified geriatric psychiatrists to provide direct patient care to all older adults with cognitive and mental health disorders. The VHA has leveraged telehealth to improve access to geriatric mental health care. The VHA Ask the Expert Geriatric Psychiatry email consultation program is a low-resource service which provides rapid feedback to clinicians nationwide on challenging clinical scenarios, many of which are dementia-related. Most users of the service who responded to requests for feedback reported that answers to their questions were helpful and timely. The email consultation program should continue to be supplemented by more comprehensive geriatric telemental health services for particularly complex cases to meet the needs of older veterans.

T he US Census Bureau projects that the number of older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) will exceed 49 million by 2030, and an estimated 20% (nearly 10 million) of this population will experience cognitive or mental health disorders.^1,2 The mental health workforce is not equipped to address the specialized mental health care needs of many older adults.^2,3 For example, geriatric psychiatrists specialize in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness and cognitive disorders in the later stages of life, but their numbers are few and declining. Only 33.5% of geriatric psychiatry fellowship training slots were filled from 2017 to 2021, and only 62 fellows trained during the 2021-2022 academic year.⁴ Board-certified geriatric psychiatrists also tend to be concentrated in larger, urban, academically-affiliated medical centers, often leaving rural areas and smaller facilities without access, including facilities in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).⁵

The VHA has been optimizing access to specialty geriatric mental health services via regional and national virtual consultation services. Seven of 19 Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) Clinical Resource Hubs (CRHs) have geriatric mental health teams.⁶ These provide interdisciplinary geriatric mental telehealth services, including geriatric psychiatry, for older veterans with complex care needs.^7,8 Likewise, the VHA National Expert Consultation & Specialized Services-Mental Health (NEXCSS- MH, formerly known as the National Telemental Health Center) sponsors video teleconsultations with board-certified geriatric psychiatrists and an Ask the Expert email consultation program.

This article describes the Ask the Expert Geriatric Psychiatry email program (one of several similar programs at NEXCSS-MH), building upon a symposium presented at the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry (AAGP) annual meeting in March 2022.⁹ The program was initiated in June 2021 as a result of discussions between the National Mental Health Director, Geriatric Mental Health in the VHA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (now known as the Office of Mental Health [OMH]), and National Telemental Health Center leadership. VHA board certified geriatric psychiatrists were recruited to serve as expert consultants and respond to email questions submitted by VHA clinicians regarding the psychiatric care of older adult veterans. The results of this program identify educational needs among clinical staff and may inform the development of program materials for a range of clinicians.

Program Description

The national geriatric mental health director recruited prospective experts and met with each to assess interest and qualifications, consulting with OMH psychiatrist leaders before making selections. Five experts were initially selected; 1 later stepped down and was replaced by another, who also stepped down. The experts were board certified in psychiatry and geriatric psychiatry and held a variety of local and national leadership positions, including geriatric psychiatry fellowship director, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) research and clinical leader, and various roles in the AAGP; some had received teaching awards.

Operations

The national geriatric mental health director announced the program in June 2021 to VHA mental health and geriatric program email groups with reminders sent every few months. The announcement included information about the types of questions appropriate to submit, including examples of general clinical management questions that did not share patient-specific protected health information, and clarified that experts would not be conducting chart reviews because the time required for detailed chart reviews was not feasible for volunteer experts to integrate into their otherwise full-time jobs at their respective VA medical centers. The announcement also included brief biographies of the experts.

The Figure describes the daily operations of the Ask the Expert Geriatric Psychiatry email consultation program. The NEXCSS- MH developed a Microsoft Outlook mailbox and group email address where clinicians from across the VHA could submit questions. The experts, as well as the national geriatric mental health director and NEXCSS-MH staff, had access to this mailbox to track and/or respond to questions. One expert volunteered to be the program’s primary mailbox coordinator. The coordinator checked the inbox daily and assigned each question to one of the experts on a rotating basis using the color-coding feature in Outlook. The other experts were advised to check the email account at least once weekly and reply to any assigned questions.

Responding to a question entailed first determining whether the question was appropriate for the service. For example, if a question requested a chart review, the expert replied that experts could not provide chart reviews and requested that the question be reframed. Next, the expert often needed to define a specific clinical question from the information provided, as email questions often touched upon several topics. The expert provided personalized advice on diagnostic testing, nonpharmacologic treatment strategies, and/or pharmacologic treatment options. Experts also often attached relevant guidelines or review articles. The goal was to provide a response within 7 business days.

All email responses included a disclaimer indicating that the program was not intended for urgent or immediate medical advice and that the information provided was for VHA clinician education purposes only. The disclaimer explained that email communication did not establish a doctor-patient relationship between the expert and a specific veteran and that, if desired, a request for a clinical consultation could be submitted on a specific case (ie, a video teleconsultation).

Methods for Reviewing Questions

Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means, and minimum and maximum ranges, were used to capture the number of questions the program received, type of requester, and length of time prior to response for emailed questions.⁹ Conventional content analysis procedures were used between January and October 2024 to analyze clinicians’ questions.¹⁰ Four subject matter experts (3 geriatric psychiatrists and 1 geropsychologist) served as coders, assigned in groups of 2 to review questions. Each coder independently reviewed assigned questions and identified preliminary themes. Themes were reviewed and revised using an iterative process during regular team meetings with coders to clarify and confirm interpretations. Discrepancies were discussed within team meetings to achieve consensus.

Questions received. Between February 2022 and December 2023, the program received 101 email questions. Requesters included 39 physicians, 17 nurse practitioners or physician assistants, 15 social workers, 14 psychologists, 9 nurses, 5 pharmacists, 1 dietitian, and 1 who was undetermined. Experts responded to the questions an average of 6 days after receipt (range, < 1-19); 73 responses (72%) met the 7-day goal.

Iterative changes to coded themes were made during group discussions. Multiple clinical questions were often posed within the same email. Initially, some coders identified themes solely based on reported symptoms; others identified themes based on reported and/or potential diagnostic conditions attributed to the symptom(s) described within the email. For example, some coders selected a primary theme of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) only if a behavior contributing to distress in the veteran or others was described, while others selected this theme when any psychiatric symptom (eg, psychosis) was present in the context of dementia. The group identified 1 primary theme per question based on the main clinical symptom or main concern presented. Co-occurring diagnostic conditions highlighted in the email requests were included as secondary themes, and each question could have > 1 secondary theme.

The most frequent requests related to clinical symptoms included questions about agitated behaviors, sleep and/or nightmares, and depression symptoms (Table 1). Twentyseven of 33 email requests on agitated behaviors were related to a dementia diagnosis, as were several questions about sleep/nightmares, depression, psychosis/mania, and anxiety. Many diagnostic conditions were described in the email requests (Table 2). The most frequent condition was dementia, followed by a medical condition, depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and/or serious mental illness.

Request for Feedback. In February 2022, an email request was sent to the 64 clinicians who asked email questions from the start of the program in June 2021 through December 2021. A second request included 11 clinicians who asked questions from January through February 2022. These requests were sent as part of preparations for the symposium on the program presented at the AAGP annual meeting in March 2022.⁹ In May 2024, feedback was requested from 37 clinicians who submitted questions from May 1, 2023, through May 15, 2024.

Requests for feedback included 6 closedended and 1 open-ended question: (1) Did the answer you received help inform clinical practice? (2) Did you receive a timely response? (3) What type of information was useful to you in addressing your question (ie, direct/specific answer to a clinical scenario, guidelines, articles, VA resources)? (4) Do you have access to a geriatric psychiatrist at your facility? (5) Are you likely to use Ask the Expert Geriatric Psychiatry in the future? (6) Would you use a geriatric psychiatry teleconsultation service? (7) Share suggestions for improvement. Frequencies of response selection were obtained for each question. Text responses to the open-ended question asking for suggestions for improvement were reviewed and summarized.

Responses

Thirty users responded to the feedback request (27% response rate). Respondents considered the answers received extremely (n = 14; 47%) or very much (n = 12; 40%) helpful for their clinical practice. Twenty-three respondents (77%) felt an answer was provided promptly, 7 respondents (23%) felt the answer was not timely but still useful, and none felt that the answer was too late. Respondents reported that the most useful type of information in addressing their questions was a direct/specific answer to a clinical scenario (n = 27; 90%), followed by guidelines (n = 12; 40%), articles (n = 7; 23%), and VA resources (n = 4; 13%).

Sixteen respondents (53%) reported that they rarely had ready access to a geriatric psychiatrist at their facility, 3 (10%) had access sometimes, 4 (14%) had access usually, 3 (10%) had access regularly, and 3 (10%) never had access. Twenty-seven respondents (90%) indicated they would be very likely to use the service again. If geriatric psychiatry teleconsultation and/or e-consultation were offered, many respondents indicated they would be extremely (n = 10; 33%) or very (n = 12; 40%) likely to use teleconsultation and/or e-consultation.

Suggestions for improvement included supporting experts to perform chart reviews for email questions, developing a template or consult form, holding a biweekly drop-in meeting to present questions to and discuss cases with a panel of experts, and providing further help addressing complex decisional capacity issues, delirium, and care or placement for veterans with severe behavioral issues in a rural setting.

Discussion

Although many older adults experience cognitive and mental health disorders that may benefit from management by a geriatric psychiatrist, the number of trained geriatric psychiatrists available is insufficient to allow for direct care for each patient. The Ask the Expert Geriatric Psychiatry email consultation program is one aspect of a multicomponent strategy within the VHA to increase access to specialty geriatric mental health services for veterans. A key advantage of the program is that it is not resource intensive. Experts can participate voluntarily, providing timely feedback to clinicians around the country while continuing other duties at their respective VA medical centers. Email replies to the experts’ answers elicited positive feedback on the program, include: “I found this service to be extremely helpful and I have shared the information they sent me with several other coworkers!”, “It was great!”, and “I endorsed the service to our VISN Rehabilitation and Extended Care group.”

The coding of primary and secondary themes from 101 email questions that were retained revealed the range and relative frequencies of clinical and administrative topics with which clinicians needed help. The most common (33%) theme was agitated behaviors. Nearly half of the questions (48%) were related to underlying dementia, and 29% were related to a patient’s medical comorbidities. These findings suggest that the expertise of a geriatric psychiatrist is particularly relevant when caring for older patients experiencing BPSD or patients with complex, overlapping psychiatric and medical conditions.

Despite a 27% response rate, participant feedback has been helpful. The program reached its intended audience of clinicians in rural areas and at smaller facilities with 53% of requesters reporting they rarely had access to a geriatric psychiatrist. Suggestions for improvement indicated that some clinicians desired additional support, including chart reviews, meetings with experts, and a video teleconsultation service (available through NEXCSS-MH).

Many clinicians without training in specialty geriatric mental health may require help with complex clinical presentations. For example, 39 clinicians who submitted questions to the program were physicians. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education program requirements for general psychiatry residency include 4 weeks of geriatric psychiatry.¹¹ The findings of this study suggest that this level of training may not be adequate to independently care for every patient who experiences dementia or multimorbidity. Several training and mentoring initiatives have been developed to address the professional development need for psychiatrists.^12-14

The need for geriatric workforce development is significant across health care, including other mental health professions.^15,16 The VHA Geriatric Scholars program trains rural primary care practitioners, psychologists, and psychiatrists.^17,18 Likewise, consultative geriatric specialty support for primary care practitioners in rural areas is provided via the Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center Connect program.¹⁹ The Ask the Expert Geriatric Psychiatry email program is an additional economical model to support clinician educational development and provide rapid educational responses to inform patient care.

Ask the Expert received fewer email questions than anticipated. Enhanced optimization may require more frequent and widespread announcements about the program. Clinical staff may not be aware of the program due to an overload of email communications. Likewise, it may be challenging for busy clinicians to take the time to seek consultation or recognize a potential gap in their knowledge or skills. Had more questions been submitted, the 5 volunteer experts may have had more difficulty addressing the demand. Feedback from this project may inform development of a frequently asked questions document to share with VHA teams and a drop-in office hour to pose clinical questions of geriatric psychiatry experts, as recommended by a clinician who participated in the program.

Limitations

Not all requesters were sent a request for feedback, and the response rate for the request for feedback was only 27%. As the program has evolved, it began sending a request for feedback immediately after answering each question, which may increase the odds of response. The goal of experts answering questions within 7 business days was met 72% of the time, likely an artifact of experts integrating question answering with many other duties. The mailbox coordinator has since provided email prompts to experts immediately upon being assigned a question with the goal of improving timeliness. The program did not include chart reviews or patient consultations, as neither was feasible for volunteer experts. The email consultation service is a single component of virtual consultative specialty geriatric mental health services within the VHA, including video consultations via NEXCSS-MH and regional geriatric mental health teams.

Conclusions

The need for specialty geriatric mental health services is increasing in the VHA and across the US. However, there are too few board-certified geriatric psychiatrists to provide direct patient care to all older adults with cognitive and mental health disorders. The VHA has leveraged telehealth to improve access to geriatric mental health care. The VHA Ask the Expert Geriatric Psychiatry email consultation program is a low-resource service which provides rapid feedback to clinicians nationwide on challenging clinical scenarios, many of which are dementia-related. Most users of the service who responded to requests for feedback reported that answers to their questions were helpful and timely. The email consultation program should continue to be supplemented by more comprehensive geriatric telemental health services for particularly complex cases to meet the needs of older veterans.

T he US Census Bureau projects that the number of older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) will exceed 49 million by 2030, and an estimated 20% (nearly 10 million) of this population will experience cognitive or mental health disorders.^1,2 The mental health workforce is not equipped to address the specialized mental health care needs of many older adults.^2,3 For example, geriatric psychiatrists specialize in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness and cognitive disorders in the later stages of life, but their numbers are few and declining. Only 33.5% of geriatric psychiatry fellowship training slots were filled from 2017 to 2021, and only 62 fellows trained during the 2021-2022 academic year.⁴ Board-certified geriatric psychiatrists also tend to be concentrated in larger, urban, academically-affiliated medical centers, often leaving rural areas and smaller facilities without access, including facilities in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).⁵

The VHA has been optimizing access to specialty geriatric mental health services via regional and national virtual consultation services. Seven of 19 Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) Clinical Resource Hubs (CRHs) have geriatric mental health teams.⁶ These provide interdisciplinary geriatric mental telehealth services, including geriatric psychiatry, for older veterans with complex care needs.^7,8 Likewise, the VHA National Expert Consultation & Specialized Services-Mental Health (NEXCSS- MH, formerly known as the National Telemental Health Center) sponsors video teleconsultations with board-certified geriatric psychiatrists and an Ask the Expert email consultation program.

This article describes the Ask the Expert Geriatric Psychiatry email program (one of several similar programs at NEXCSS-MH), building upon a symposium presented at the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry (AAGP) annual meeting in March 2022.⁹ The program was initiated in June 2021 as a result of discussions between the National Mental Health Director, Geriatric Mental Health in the VHA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (now known as the Office of Mental Health [OMH]), and National Telemental Health Center leadership. VHA board certified geriatric psychiatrists were recruited to serve as expert consultants and respond to email questions submitted by VHA clinicians regarding the psychiatric care of older adult veterans. The results of this program identify educational needs among clinical staff and may inform the development of program materials for a range of clinicians.

Program Description

The national geriatric mental health director recruited prospective experts and met with each to assess interest and qualifications, consulting with OMH psychiatrist leaders before making selections. Five experts were initially selected; 1 later stepped down and was replaced by another, who also stepped down. The experts were board certified in psychiatry and geriatric psychiatry and held a variety of local and national leadership positions, including geriatric psychiatry fellowship director, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) research and clinical leader, and various roles in the AAGP; some had received teaching awards.

Operations

The national geriatric mental health director announced the program in June 2021 to VHA mental health and geriatric program email groups with reminders sent every few months. The announcement included information about the types of questions appropriate to submit, including examples of general clinical management questions that did not share patient-specific protected health information, and clarified that experts would not be conducting chart reviews because the time required for detailed chart reviews was not feasible for volunteer experts to integrate into their otherwise full-time jobs at their respective VA medical centers. The announcement also included brief biographies of the experts.

The Figure describes the daily operations of the Ask the Expert Geriatric Psychiatry email consultation program. The NEXCSS- MH developed a Microsoft Outlook mailbox and group email address where clinicians from across the VHA could submit questions. The experts, as well as the national geriatric mental health director and NEXCSS-MH staff, had access to this mailbox to track and/or respond to questions. One expert volunteered to be the program’s primary mailbox coordinator. The coordinator checked the inbox daily and assigned each question to one of the experts on a rotating basis using the color-coding feature in Outlook. The other experts were advised to check the email account at least once weekly and reply to any assigned questions.

Responding to a question entailed first determining whether the question was appropriate for the service. For example, if a question requested a chart review, the expert replied that experts could not provide chart reviews and requested that the question be reframed. Next, the expert often needed to define a specific clinical question from the information provided, as email questions often touched upon several topics. The expert provided personalized advice on diagnostic testing, nonpharmacologic treatment strategies, and/or pharmacologic treatment options. Experts also often attached relevant guidelines or review articles. The goal was to provide a response within 7 business days.

All email responses included a disclaimer indicating that the program was not intended for urgent or immediate medical advice and that the information provided was for VHA clinician education purposes only. The disclaimer explained that email communication did not establish a doctor-patient relationship between the expert and a specific veteran and that, if desired, a request for a clinical consultation could be submitted on a specific case (ie, a video teleconsultation).

Methods for Reviewing Questions

Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means, and minimum and maximum ranges, were used to capture the number of questions the program received, type of requester, and length of time prior to response for emailed questions.⁹ Conventional content analysis procedures were used between January and October 2024 to analyze clinicians’ questions.¹⁰ Four subject matter experts (3 geriatric psychiatrists and 1 geropsychologist) served as coders, assigned in groups of 2 to review questions. Each coder independently reviewed assigned questions and identified preliminary themes. Themes were reviewed and revised using an iterative process during regular team meetings with coders to clarify and confirm interpretations. Discrepancies were discussed within team meetings to achieve consensus.

Questions received. Between February 2022 and December 2023, the program received 101 email questions. Requesters included 39 physicians, 17 nurse practitioners or physician assistants, 15 social workers, 14 psychologists, 9 nurses, 5 pharmacists, 1 dietitian, and 1 who was undetermined. Experts responded to the questions an average of 6 days after receipt (range, < 1-19); 73 responses (72%) met the 7-day goal.

Iterative changes to coded themes were made during group discussions. Multiple clinical questions were often posed within the same email. Initially, some coders identified themes solely based on reported symptoms; others identified themes based on reported and/or potential diagnostic conditions attributed to the symptom(s) described within the email. For example, some coders selected a primary theme of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) only if a behavior contributing to distress in the veteran or others was described, while others selected this theme when any psychiatric symptom (eg, psychosis) was present in the context of dementia. The group identified 1 primary theme per question based on the main clinical symptom or main concern presented. Co-occurring diagnostic conditions highlighted in the email requests were included as secondary themes, and each question could have > 1 secondary theme.

The most frequent requests related to clinical symptoms included questions about agitated behaviors, sleep and/or nightmares, and depression symptoms (Table 1). Twentyseven of 33 email requests on agitated behaviors were related to a dementia diagnosis, as were several questions about sleep/nightmares, depression, psychosis/mania, and anxiety. Many diagnostic conditions were described in the email requests (Table 2). The most frequent condition was dementia, followed by a medical condition, depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and/or serious mental illness.

Request for Feedback. In February 2022, an email request was sent to the 64 clinicians who asked email questions from the start of the program in June 2021 through December 2021. A second request included 11 clinicians who asked questions from January through February 2022. These requests were sent as part of preparations for the symposium on the program presented at the AAGP annual meeting in March 2022.⁹ In May 2024, feedback was requested from 37 clinicians who submitted questions from May 1, 2023, through May 15, 2024.

Requests for feedback included 6 closedended and 1 open-ended question: (1) Did the answer you received help inform clinical practice? (2) Did you receive a timely response? (3) What type of information was useful to you in addressing your question (ie, direct/specific answer to a clinical scenario, guidelines, articles, VA resources)? (4) Do you have access to a geriatric psychiatrist at your facility? (5) Are you likely to use Ask the Expert Geriatric Psychiatry in the future? (6) Would you use a geriatric psychiatry teleconsultation service? (7) Share suggestions for improvement. Frequencies of response selection were obtained for each question. Text responses to the open-ended question asking for suggestions for improvement were reviewed and summarized.

Responses

Thirty users responded to the feedback request (27% response rate). Respondents considered the answers received extremely (n = 14; 47%) or very much (n = 12; 40%) helpful for their clinical practice. Twenty-three respondents (77%) felt an answer was provided promptly, 7 respondents (23%) felt the answer was not timely but still useful, and none felt that the answer was too late. Respondents reported that the most useful type of information in addressing their questions was a direct/specific answer to a clinical scenario (n = 27; 90%), followed by guidelines (n = 12; 40%), articles (n = 7; 23%), and VA resources (n = 4; 13%).

Sixteen respondents (53%) reported that they rarely had ready access to a geriatric psychiatrist at their facility, 3 (10%) had access sometimes, 4 (14%) had access usually, 3 (10%) had access regularly, and 3 (10%) never had access. Twenty-seven respondents (90%) indicated they would be very likely to use the service again. If geriatric psychiatry teleconsultation and/or e-consultation were offered, many respondents indicated they would be extremely (n = 10; 33%) or very (n = 12; 40%) likely to use teleconsultation and/or e-consultation.

Suggestions for improvement included supporting experts to perform chart reviews for email questions, developing a template or consult form, holding a biweekly drop-in meeting to present questions to and discuss cases with a panel of experts, and providing further help addressing complex decisional capacity issues, delirium, and care or placement for veterans with severe behavioral issues in a rural setting.

Discussion

Although many older adults experience cognitive and mental health disorders that may benefit from management by a geriatric psychiatrist, the number of trained geriatric psychiatrists available is insufficient to allow for direct care for each patient. The Ask the Expert Geriatric Psychiatry email consultation program is one aspect of a multicomponent strategy within the VHA to increase access to specialty geriatric mental health services for veterans. A key advantage of the program is that it is not resource intensive. Experts can participate voluntarily, providing timely feedback to clinicians around the country while continuing other duties at their respective VA medical centers. Email replies to the experts’ answers elicited positive feedback on the program, include: “I found this service to be extremely helpful and I have shared the information they sent me with several other coworkers!”, “It was great!”, and “I endorsed the service to our VISN Rehabilitation and Extended Care group.”

The coding of primary and secondary themes from 101 email questions that were retained revealed the range and relative frequencies of clinical and administrative topics with which clinicians needed help. The most common (33%) theme was agitated behaviors. Nearly half of the questions (48%) were related to underlying dementia, and 29% were related to a patient’s medical comorbidities. These findings suggest that the expertise of a geriatric psychiatrist is particularly relevant when caring for older patients experiencing BPSD or patients with complex, overlapping psychiatric and medical conditions.

Despite a 27% response rate, participant feedback has been helpful. The program reached its intended audience of clinicians in rural areas and at smaller facilities with 53% of requesters reporting they rarely had access to a geriatric psychiatrist. Suggestions for improvement indicated that some clinicians desired additional support, including chart reviews, meetings with experts, and a video teleconsultation service (available through NEXCSS-MH).

Many clinicians without training in specialty geriatric mental health may require help with complex clinical presentations. For example, 39 clinicians who submitted questions to the program were physicians. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education program requirements for general psychiatry residency include 4 weeks of geriatric psychiatry.¹¹ The findings of this study suggest that this level of training may not be adequate to independently care for every patient who experiences dementia or multimorbidity. Several training and mentoring initiatives have been developed to address the professional development need for psychiatrists.^12-14

The need for geriatric workforce development is significant across health care, including other mental health professions.^15,16 The VHA Geriatric Scholars program trains rural primary care practitioners, psychologists, and psychiatrists.^17,18 Likewise, consultative geriatric specialty support for primary care practitioners in rural areas is provided via the Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center Connect program.¹⁹ The Ask the Expert Geriatric Psychiatry email program is an additional economical model to support clinician educational development and provide rapid educational responses to inform patient care.

Ask the Expert received fewer email questions than anticipated. Enhanced optimization may require more frequent and widespread announcements about the program. Clinical staff may not be aware of the program due to an overload of email communications. Likewise, it may be challenging for busy clinicians to take the time to seek consultation or recognize a potential gap in their knowledge or skills. Had more questions been submitted, the 5 volunteer experts may have had more difficulty addressing the demand. Feedback from this project may inform development of a frequently asked questions document to share with VHA teams and a drop-in office hour to pose clinical questions of geriatric psychiatry experts, as recommended by a clinician who participated in the program.

Limitations

Not all requesters were sent a request for feedback, and the response rate for the request for feedback was only 27%. As the program has evolved, it began sending a request for feedback immediately after answering each question, which may increase the odds of response. The goal of experts answering questions within 7 business days was met 72% of the time, likely an artifact of experts integrating question answering with many other duties. The mailbox coordinator has since provided email prompts to experts immediately upon being assigned a question with the goal of improving timeliness. The program did not include chart reviews or patient consultations, as neither was feasible for volunteer experts. The email consultation service is a single component of virtual consultative specialty geriatric mental health services within the VHA, including video consultations via NEXCSS-MH and regional geriatric mental health teams.

Conclusions

The need for specialty geriatric mental health services is increasing in the VHA and across the US. However, there are too few board-certified geriatric psychiatrists to provide direct patient care to all older adults with cognitive and mental health disorders. The VHA has leveraged telehealth to improve access to geriatric mental health care. The VHA Ask the Expert Geriatric Psychiatry email consultation program is a low-resource service which provides rapid feedback to clinicians nationwide on challenging clinical scenarios, many of which are dementia-related. Most users of the service who responded to requests for feedback reported that answers to their questions were helpful and timely. The email consultation program should continue to be supplemented by more comprehensive geriatric telemental health services for particularly complex cases to meet the needs of older veterans.

Accessible and effective mental health services are a vital component of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) mission to provide exceptional care that improves veterans’ health and well-being. Veterans are seeking mental health care at the VHA at significantly higher rates than in previous years. From 2009 through 2024, the number of veterans who received direct mental health care from the VHA increased 78%.¹ The proportion of veterans enrolled in the VHA who also received direct mental health care expanded from 23% of total enrollees in 2009 to 33% in 2024. The increase in VHA mental health care delivery is also reflected in the number of outpatient mental health care and treatment visits at the VHA, which increased from 12.7 million to 21.5 million over the same period.

The Sergeant First Class (SFC) Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022 expanded eligibility for VHA services, including mental health care and counseling, to new cohorts of toxic-exposed veterans. From 2022 to 2024, &gr; 680,000 veterans enrolled in VHA care, and 45% of those were PACT Act-eligible cohorts.² Research highlighted the high prevalence of physical and psychiatric comorbidities in toxic-exposed veterans.³ As such, the VHA may face greater demand for direct mental health care with these newly eligible cohorts of veterans.

Veterans often have mental health conditions (eg, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]), substance use disorders (SUDs), unique military experiences (eg, deployments), and injuries and illnesses (eg, traumatic brain injury [TBI]) that increase the complexity of their clinical presentation. The varied nature of these mental health conditions, as well as veterans’ unique military-related experiences, necessitates specialized centers focused on distinct high-priority areas of mental health in the VHA.

A series of public laws charged the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with developing specialized mental health Centers of Excellence (CoEs) focused on highpriority areas of veteran mental health. The first of these laws, Public Law 98- 528, established the National Center for PTSD (NCPTSD), which opened in 1989.⁴ In 1996, Congress established specialized mental health CoEs known as Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Centers (MIRECCs) across the VHA.⁵ To address the unique needs of post-9/11 veterans, 3 additional specialized centers were established in 2005.⁶ Finally, under the authority of the Secretary of the VA, specialized mental health CoEs were established to focus on SUD and integrated health care.

There are 17 geographically diverse mental health CoEs and MIRECCs across the VA (Table). CoEs are embedded in VA medical centers (VAMCs) with strong medical school academic affiliations. Organizational oversight of the CoEs is provided by the VA Office of Mental Health and Office of Suicide Prevention, respectively. As part of the oversight process, CoEs submit annual reports detailing their advancements in research, education and training, and clinical activities, as well as participate in a peer-reviewed renewal process.

These specialized centers are united in a shared tripartite mission to generate new knowledge about the causes and treatments of mental health conditions, to educate and train VHA clinicians and personnel, and to develop and implement innovative clinical programs within the VHA. This combined focus on research, education, and improved clinical care reduces the time from discovery to implementation and improves the health and well-being of veterans.

Examples of this acceleration translation from scientific discovery to clinical practice are evident throughout mental health CoEs. The NCPTSD is a leader in research on PTSD and traumatic stress. Its work led to the development of national training programs for VHA clinicians, facilitating the broad dissemination of efficacious PTSD treatments across the enterprise.⁷ Researchers at the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 21 Sierra Pacific MIRECC identified depression as a significant risk factor for dementia and subsequently launched the first multisite trial of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the VHA in 2012 (CSP #556: the effectiveness of rTMS in depressed VA patients).⁸ This project laid the groundwork for the national clinical rTMS program launched in 2017, which is now clinically available at 60 VAMCs. In the largest pragmatic randomized clinical trial of its kind, the VISN 4 Philadelphia and Pittsburgh MIRECC found that pharmacogenomic testing significantly reduced the number of prescription medications with predicted drug-gene interactions and improved clinical outcomes among veterans with depression.⁹

Mental health CoEs are also leaders in suicide prevention, a top clinical priority for the VHA. The VISN 2 New York MIRECC developed Project Life Force, a safety planning skills group for veterans with suicidal ideation, now implemented across 10 VAMCs, including telehealth hubs, outpatient settings, and veteran peer programs.¹⁰ The VISN 2 CoE for Suicide Prevention and VISN 19 Rocky Mountain MIRECC coordinate key suicide prevention services for VA, including the analysis of suicide surveillance data; evaluation of national VA suicide prevention initiatives; the support of veterans, families, and clinicians; and enhanced access to evidencebased treatments for at-risk veterans.

Mental health CoEs are a key operational partner in VHA treatment of SUDs. The CoEs in Substance Addiction Treatment and Education (CESATEs) are national resources dedicated to improving the quality, clinical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of VHA SUD treatment. CESATEs developed and implemented a national rollout of an effective treatment for stimulant use disorders, training staff at > 120 VA programs. The VISN 1 Mid-Atlantic MIRECC’s focus on SUD and comorbid/co-occurring mental health conditions has highlighted the significant prevalence of these conditions and the impact they have on treatment response.¹¹

Serious mental illness (SMI) (eg, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder) impacts up to 5% of veterans.¹² VISN 22 Desert Pacific MIRECC has developed interventions to improve the lives of veterans with SMI. Its research established supported employment as an effective intervention to improve outcomes in veterans with psychotic disorders and supported its implementation in the VHA.¹³ Peer specialists are a cornerstone in the VHA commitment to recovery-oriented services for veterans with SMI. VISN 5 Capitol MIRECC has long championed research, clinical training, and educational activities that contributed to the effective deployment of peer specialists across the VHA enterprise.

Veterans have unique military-related experiences (eg, deployment, traumatic stress, transition to civilian status) and injuries and illnesses (eg, TBI, posttraumatic headaches) that significantly impact their mental health and quality of life.

The period between active duty and transition to civilian status is a critical time in a veteran’s life. The VISN 17 CoE Veteran Sponsorship Initiative connects veterans with VA care within 30 days postdischarge, with the option of additional support in the community. The VISN 22 CoE for Stress and Mental Health (CESAMH) develops, evaluates, and disseminates diagnostics and treatments for veterans affected by traumatic events and brain injuries, with a unique focus on supporting their whole health needs. The VISN 6 Mid-Atlantic MIRECC leads the ongoing VISN-6 Post-Deployment Mental Health (PDMH) study, the largest biorepository of post-9/11 veterans. PDMH has greatly expanded the understanding of the unique needs of post-9/11 veterans, with > 100 peerreviewed publications to date. Veterans with mild TBI frequently experience chronic posttraumatic headaches that can be disabling and nonresponsive to treatment. The VISN 20 Northwest MIRECC demonstrated that prazosin, a repurposed, low-cost, widely available, nonaddictive medication, can safely and effectively reduce the frequency of these headaches and improve functional impairment in veterans and active-duty service members.¹⁴

Increased and enhanced access to effective mental health treatment is a priority for VA. In 2007, the VA launched the National Primary Care Mental Health Integration program, which integrated mental health services into primary care settings. The Center for Integrated Healthcare (CIH) has supported the VA in these efforts. In 2024, CIH trained > 5000 health care staff on high-fidelity integration of behavioral health and medical care. VA has also focused on increasing access to mental health services via expanded telehealth offerings. The VISN 16 MIRECC, with its unique focus on increasing access to care for rural veterans via distancebased and digital health technology, supported the VA Offices of Mental Health and Connected Care to virtualize mental health care and promote adoption and sustained use of VA Video Connect across the enterprise.

Specialized MH CoEs are uniquely equipped to support the VHA in providing training and education to VA clinicians, veterans, care partners and family members, and the community on high-priority mental health topics. Education is a core component of the MH CoEs tripartite mission. As such, MH CoEs offer national trainings, conferences, consultation services, clinical demonstration projects, development of clinical dashboards and toolkits, and public awareness campaigns. Researchers, educators, and clinicians at the CoEs frequently serve as subject matter experts on topics aligned with their respective missions. Several national rollout programs that disseminated evidencebased treatments for mental health conditions to the field (eg, cognitive behavioral therapy for depression, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia, and prolonged exposure) were developed at specialized CoEs.

The VHA provides advanced training, residencies, and fellowships to > 120,000 trainees annually. Many of these trainees choose to remain at the VA. Seven of 10 VHA psychologists and 6 of 10 VHA physicians trained within the VHA prior to their employment.¹⁵ The MH CoEs and MIRECCs play an important role in preparing these trainees for VHA mental health careers. These centers are funded to provide advanced postdoctoral training to physicians as well as allied health professionals in clinical and counseling psychology, social work, pharmacy, and nursing. Training is not limited to postdoctoral fellows: graduate students, residents, and interns from affiliated accredited training programs may rotate through mental health CoEs each academic year.

Conclusions

For > 30 years, mental health CoEs have brought thousands of veterans advanced treatments for their mental health needs and helped reduce death by suicide. The centers have a bright future ahead, harnessing advances in artificial intelligence and genomics to permit the matching of the individual veterans to the treatment most likely to benefit them. Precision medicine, as espoused by the Hannon Act, will not only encourage the efficient use of health care resources but also rapidly reduce pain in veterans with mental health and SUDs.

Accessible and effective mental health services are a vital component of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) mission to provide exceptional care that improves veterans’ health and well-being. Veterans are seeking mental health care at the VHA at significantly higher rates than in previous years. From 2009 through 2024, the number of veterans who received direct mental health care from the VHA increased 78%.¹ The proportion of veterans enrolled in the VHA who also received direct mental health care expanded from 23% of total enrollees in 2009 to 33% in 2024. The increase in VHA mental health care delivery is also reflected in the number of outpatient mental health care and treatment visits at the VHA, which increased from 12.7 million to 21.5 million over the same period.

The Sergeant First Class (SFC) Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022 expanded eligibility for VHA services, including mental health care and counseling, to new cohorts of toxic-exposed veterans. From 2022 to 2024, &gr; 680,000 veterans enrolled in VHA care, and 45% of those were PACT Act-eligible cohorts.² Research highlighted the high prevalence of physical and psychiatric comorbidities in toxic-exposed veterans.³ As such, the VHA may face greater demand for direct mental health care with these newly eligible cohorts of veterans.

Veterans often have mental health conditions (eg, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]), substance use disorders (SUDs), unique military experiences (eg, deployments), and injuries and illnesses (eg, traumatic brain injury [TBI]) that increase the complexity of their clinical presentation. The varied nature of these mental health conditions, as well as veterans’ unique military-related experiences, necessitates specialized centers focused on distinct high-priority areas of mental health in the VHA.

A series of public laws charged the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with developing specialized mental health Centers of Excellence (CoEs) focused on highpriority areas of veteran mental health. The first of these laws, Public Law 98- 528, established the National Center for PTSD (NCPTSD), which opened in 1989.⁴ In 1996, Congress established specialized mental health CoEs known as Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Centers (MIRECCs) across the VHA.⁵ To address the unique needs of post-9/11 veterans, 3 additional specialized centers were established in 2005.⁶ Finally, under the authority of the Secretary of the VA, specialized mental health CoEs were established to focus on SUD and integrated health care.

There are 17 geographically diverse mental health CoEs and MIRECCs across the VA (Table). CoEs are embedded in VA medical centers (VAMCs) with strong medical school academic affiliations. Organizational oversight of the CoEs is provided by the VA Office of Mental Health and Office of Suicide Prevention, respectively. As part of the oversight process, CoEs submit annual reports detailing their advancements in research, education and training, and clinical activities, as well as participate in a peer-reviewed renewal process.

These specialized centers are united in a shared tripartite mission to generate new knowledge about the causes and treatments of mental health conditions, to educate and train VHA clinicians and personnel, and to develop and implement innovative clinical programs within the VHA. This combined focus on research, education, and improved clinical care reduces the time from discovery to implementation and improves the health and well-being of veterans.

Examples of this acceleration translation from scientific discovery to clinical practice are evident throughout mental health CoEs. The NCPTSD is a leader in research on PTSD and traumatic stress. Its work led to the development of national training programs for VHA clinicians, facilitating the broad dissemination of efficacious PTSD treatments across the enterprise.⁷ Researchers at the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 21 Sierra Pacific MIRECC identified depression as a significant risk factor for dementia and subsequently launched the first multisite trial of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the VHA in 2012 (CSP #556: the effectiveness of rTMS in depressed VA patients).⁸ This project laid the groundwork for the national clinical rTMS program launched in 2017, which is now clinically available at 60 VAMCs. In the largest pragmatic randomized clinical trial of its kind, the VISN 4 Philadelphia and Pittsburgh MIRECC found that pharmacogenomic testing significantly reduced the number of prescription medications with predicted drug-gene interactions and improved clinical outcomes among veterans with depression.⁹

Mental health CoEs are also leaders in suicide prevention, a top clinical priority for the VHA. The VISN 2 New York MIRECC developed Project Life Force, a safety planning skills group for veterans with suicidal ideation, now implemented across 10 VAMCs, including telehealth hubs, outpatient settings, and veteran peer programs.¹⁰ The VISN 2 CoE for Suicide Prevention and VISN 19 Rocky Mountain MIRECC coordinate key suicide prevention services for VA, including the analysis of suicide surveillance data; evaluation of national VA suicide prevention initiatives; the support of veterans, families, and clinicians; and enhanced access to evidencebased treatments for at-risk veterans.

Mental health CoEs are a key operational partner in VHA treatment of SUDs. The CoEs in Substance Addiction Treatment and Education (CESATEs) are national resources dedicated to improving the quality, clinical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of VHA SUD treatment. CESATEs developed and implemented a national rollout of an effective treatment for stimulant use disorders, training staff at > 120 VA programs. The VISN 1 Mid-Atlantic MIRECC’s focus on SUD and comorbid/co-occurring mental health conditions has highlighted the significant prevalence of these conditions and the impact they have on treatment response.¹¹

Serious mental illness (SMI) (eg, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder) impacts up to 5% of veterans.¹² VISN 22 Desert Pacific MIRECC has developed interventions to improve the lives of veterans with SMI. Its research established supported employment as an effective intervention to improve outcomes in veterans with psychotic disorders and supported its implementation in the VHA.¹³ Peer specialists are a cornerstone in the VHA commitment to recovery-oriented services for veterans with SMI. VISN 5 Capitol MIRECC has long championed research, clinical training, and educational activities that contributed to the effective deployment of peer specialists across the VHA enterprise.

Veterans have unique military-related experiences (eg, deployment, traumatic stress, transition to civilian status) and injuries and illnesses (eg, TBI, posttraumatic headaches) that significantly impact their mental health and quality of life.

The period between active duty and transition to civilian status is a critical time in a veteran’s life. The VISN 17 CoE Veteran Sponsorship Initiative connects veterans with VA care within 30 days postdischarge, with the option of additional support in the community. The VISN 22 CoE for Stress and Mental Health (CESAMH) develops, evaluates, and disseminates diagnostics and treatments for veterans affected by traumatic events and brain injuries, with a unique focus on supporting their whole health needs. The VISN 6 Mid-Atlantic MIRECC leads the ongoing VISN-6 Post-Deployment Mental Health (PDMH) study, the largest biorepository of post-9/11 veterans. PDMH has greatly expanded the understanding of the unique needs of post-9/11 veterans, with > 100 peerreviewed publications to date. Veterans with mild TBI frequently experience chronic posttraumatic headaches that can be disabling and nonresponsive to treatment. The VISN 20 Northwest MIRECC demonstrated that prazosin, a repurposed, low-cost, widely available, nonaddictive medication, can safely and effectively reduce the frequency of these headaches and improve functional impairment in veterans and active-duty service members.¹⁴

Increased and enhanced access to effective mental health treatment is a priority for VA. In 2007, the VA launched the National Primary Care Mental Health Integration program, which integrated mental health services into primary care settings. The Center for Integrated Healthcare (CIH) has supported the VA in these efforts. In 2024, CIH trained > 5000 health care staff on high-fidelity integration of behavioral health and medical care. VA has also focused on increasing access to mental health services via expanded telehealth offerings. The VISN 16 MIRECC, with its unique focus on increasing access to care for rural veterans via distancebased and digital health technology, supported the VA Offices of Mental Health and Connected Care to virtualize mental health care and promote adoption and sustained use of VA Video Connect across the enterprise.

Specialized MH CoEs are uniquely equipped to support the VHA in providing training and education to VA clinicians, veterans, care partners and family members, and the community on high-priority mental health topics. Education is a core component of the MH CoEs tripartite mission. As such, MH CoEs offer national trainings, conferences, consultation services, clinical demonstration projects, development of clinical dashboards and toolkits, and public awareness campaigns. Researchers, educators, and clinicians at the CoEs frequently serve as subject matter experts on topics aligned with their respective missions. Several national rollout programs that disseminated evidencebased treatments for mental health conditions to the field (eg, cognitive behavioral therapy for depression, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia, and prolonged exposure) were developed at specialized CoEs.

The VHA provides advanced training, residencies, and fellowships to > 120,000 trainees annually. Many of these trainees choose to remain at the VA. Seven of 10 VHA psychologists and 6 of 10 VHA physicians trained within the VHA prior to their employment.¹⁵ The MH CoEs and MIRECCs play an important role in preparing these trainees for VHA mental health careers. These centers are funded to provide advanced postdoctoral training to physicians as well as allied health professionals in clinical and counseling psychology, social work, pharmacy, and nursing. Training is not limited to postdoctoral fellows: graduate students, residents, and interns from affiliated accredited training programs may rotate through mental health CoEs each academic year.

Conclusions

For > 30 years, mental health CoEs have brought thousands of veterans advanced treatments for their mental health needs and helped reduce death by suicide. The centers have a bright future ahead, harnessing advances in artificial intelligence and genomics to permit the matching of the individual veterans to the treatment most likely to benefit them. Precision medicine, as espoused by the Hannon Act, will not only encourage the efficient use of health care resources but also rapidly reduce pain in veterans with mental health and SUDs.

Accessible and effective mental health services are a vital component of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) mission to provide exceptional care that improves veterans’ health and well-being. Veterans are seeking mental health care at the VHA at significantly higher rates than in previous years. From 2009 through 2024, the number of veterans who received direct mental health care from the VHA increased 78%.¹ The proportion of veterans enrolled in the VHA who also received direct mental health care expanded from 23% of total enrollees in 2009 to 33% in 2024. The increase in VHA mental health care delivery is also reflected in the number of outpatient mental health care and treatment visits at the VHA, which increased from 12.7 million to 21.5 million over the same period.

The Sergeant First Class (SFC) Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022 expanded eligibility for VHA services, including mental health care and counseling, to new cohorts of toxic-exposed veterans. From 2022 to 2024, &gr; 680,000 veterans enrolled in VHA care, and 45% of those were PACT Act-eligible cohorts.² Research highlighted the high prevalence of physical and psychiatric comorbidities in toxic-exposed veterans.³ As such, the VHA may face greater demand for direct mental health care with these newly eligible cohorts of veterans.

Veterans often have mental health conditions (eg, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]), substance use disorders (SUDs), unique military experiences (eg, deployments), and injuries and illnesses (eg, traumatic brain injury [TBI]) that increase the complexity of their clinical presentation. The varied nature of these mental health conditions, as well as veterans’ unique military-related experiences, necessitates specialized centers focused on distinct high-priority areas of mental health in the VHA.

A series of public laws charged the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with developing specialized mental health Centers of Excellence (CoEs) focused on highpriority areas of veteran mental health. The first of these laws, Public Law 98- 528, established the National Center for PTSD (NCPTSD), which opened in 1989.⁴ In 1996, Congress established specialized mental health CoEs known as Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Centers (MIRECCs) across the VHA.⁵ To address the unique needs of post-9/11 veterans, 3 additional specialized centers were established in 2005.⁶ Finally, under the authority of the Secretary of the VA, specialized mental health CoEs were established to focus on SUD and integrated health care.

There are 17 geographically diverse mental health CoEs and MIRECCs across the VA (Table). CoEs are embedded in VA medical centers (VAMCs) with strong medical school academic affiliations. Organizational oversight of the CoEs is provided by the VA Office of Mental Health and Office of Suicide Prevention, respectively. As part of the oversight process, CoEs submit annual reports detailing their advancements in research, education and training, and clinical activities, as well as participate in a peer-reviewed renewal process.

These specialized centers are united in a shared tripartite mission to generate new knowledge about the causes and treatments of mental health conditions, to educate and train VHA clinicians and personnel, and to develop and implement innovative clinical programs within the VHA. This combined focus on research, education, and improved clinical care reduces the time from discovery to implementation and improves the health and well-being of veterans.

Examples of this acceleration translation from scientific discovery to clinical practice are evident throughout mental health CoEs. The NCPTSD is a leader in research on PTSD and traumatic stress. Its work led to the development of national training programs for VHA clinicians, facilitating the broad dissemination of efficacious PTSD treatments across the enterprise.⁷ Researchers at the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 21 Sierra Pacific MIRECC identified depression as a significant risk factor for dementia and subsequently launched the first multisite trial of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the VHA in 2012 (CSP #556: the effectiveness of rTMS in depressed VA patients).⁸ This project laid the groundwork for the national clinical rTMS program launched in 2017, which is now clinically available at 60 VAMCs. In the largest pragmatic randomized clinical trial of its kind, the VISN 4 Philadelphia and Pittsburgh MIRECC found that pharmacogenomic testing significantly reduced the number of prescription medications with predicted drug-gene interactions and improved clinical outcomes among veterans with depression.⁹

Mental health CoEs are also leaders in suicide prevention, a top clinical priority for the VHA. The VISN 2 New York MIRECC developed Project Life Force, a safety planning skills group for veterans with suicidal ideation, now implemented across 10 VAMCs, including telehealth hubs, outpatient settings, and veteran peer programs.¹⁰ The VISN 2 CoE for Suicide Prevention and VISN 19 Rocky Mountain MIRECC coordinate key suicide prevention services for VA, including the analysis of suicide surveillance data; evaluation of national VA suicide prevention initiatives; the support of veterans, families, and clinicians; and enhanced access to evidencebased treatments for at-risk veterans.

Mental health CoEs are a key operational partner in VHA treatment of SUDs. The CoEs in Substance Addiction Treatment and Education (CESATEs) are national resources dedicated to improving the quality, clinical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of VHA SUD treatment. CESATEs developed and implemented a national rollout of an effective treatment for stimulant use disorders, training staff at > 120 VA programs. The VISN 1 Mid-Atlantic MIRECC’s focus on SUD and comorbid/co-occurring mental health conditions has highlighted the significant prevalence of these conditions and the impact they have on treatment response.¹¹

Serious mental illness (SMI) (eg, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder) impacts up to 5% of veterans.¹² VISN 22 Desert Pacific MIRECC has developed interventions to improve the lives of veterans with SMI. Its research established supported employment as an effective intervention to improve outcomes in veterans with psychotic disorders and supported its implementation in the VHA.¹³ Peer specialists are a cornerstone in the VHA commitment to recovery-oriented services for veterans with SMI. VISN 5 Capitol MIRECC has long championed research, clinical training, and educational activities that contributed to the effective deployment of peer specialists across the VHA enterprise.

Veterans have unique military-related experiences (eg, deployment, traumatic stress, transition to civilian status) and injuries and illnesses (eg, TBI, posttraumatic headaches) that significantly impact their mental health and quality of life.

The period between active duty and transition to civilian status is a critical time in a veteran’s life. The VISN 17 CoE Veteran Sponsorship Initiative connects veterans with VA care within 30 days postdischarge, with the option of additional support in the community. The VISN 22 CoE for Stress and Mental Health (CESAMH) develops, evaluates, and disseminates diagnostics and treatments for veterans affected by traumatic events and brain injuries, with a unique focus on supporting their whole health needs. The VISN 6 Mid-Atlantic MIRECC leads the ongoing VISN-6 Post-Deployment Mental Health (PDMH) study, the largest biorepository of post-9/11 veterans. PDMH has greatly expanded the understanding of the unique needs of post-9/11 veterans, with > 100 peerreviewed publications to date. Veterans with mild TBI frequently experience chronic posttraumatic headaches that can be disabling and nonresponsive to treatment. The VISN 20 Northwest MIRECC demonstrated that prazosin, a repurposed, low-cost, widely available, nonaddictive medication, can safely and effectively reduce the frequency of these headaches and improve functional impairment in veterans and active-duty service members.¹⁴

Increased and enhanced access to effective mental health treatment is a priority for VA. In 2007, the VA launched the National Primary Care Mental Health Integration program, which integrated mental health services into primary care settings. The Center for Integrated Healthcare (CIH) has supported the VA in these efforts. In 2024, CIH trained > 5000 health care staff on high-fidelity integration of behavioral health and medical care. VA has also focused on increasing access to mental health services via expanded telehealth offerings. The VISN 16 MIRECC, with its unique focus on increasing access to care for rural veterans via distancebased and digital health technology, supported the VA Offices of Mental Health and Connected Care to virtualize mental health care and promote adoption and sustained use of VA Video Connect across the enterprise.

Specialized MH CoEs are uniquely equipped to support the VHA in providing training and education to VA clinicians, veterans, care partners and family members, and the community on high-priority mental health topics. Education is a core component of the MH CoEs tripartite mission. As such, MH CoEs offer national trainings, conferences, consultation services, clinical demonstration projects, development of clinical dashboards and toolkits, and public awareness campaigns. Researchers, educators, and clinicians at the CoEs frequently serve as subject matter experts on topics aligned with their respective missions. Several national rollout programs that disseminated evidencebased treatments for mental health conditions to the field (eg, cognitive behavioral therapy for depression, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia, and prolonged exposure) were developed at specialized CoEs.

The VHA provides advanced training, residencies, and fellowships to > 120,000 trainees annually. Many of these trainees choose to remain at the VA. Seven of 10 VHA psychologists and 6 of 10 VHA physicians trained within the VHA prior to their employment.¹⁵ The MH CoEs and MIRECCs play an important role in preparing these trainees for VHA mental health careers. These centers are funded to provide advanced postdoctoral training to physicians as well as allied health professionals in clinical and counseling psychology, social work, pharmacy, and nursing. Training is not limited to postdoctoral fellows: graduate students, residents, and interns from affiliated accredited training programs may rotate through mental health CoEs each academic year.

Conclusions

For > 30 years, mental health CoEs have brought thousands of veterans advanced treatments for their mental health needs and helped reduce death by suicide. The centers have a bright future ahead, harnessing advances in artificial intelligence and genomics to permit the matching of the individual veterans to the treatment most likely to benefit them. Precision medicine, as espoused by the Hannon Act, will not only encourage the efficient use of health care resources but also rapidly reduce pain in veterans with mental health and SUDs.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is supported as an effective treatment for depression by clinical practice guidelines from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and US Department of Defense.^1-3 Despite research supporting the use of evidence-based CBT for anxiety, mood, and emotional disorders, patient access to these interventions is limited.⁴ One barrier to CBT for anxiety, mood, and emotional disorders is the traditional use of single-disorder protocols (SDPs) to separately treat each disorder (eg, major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder).

Use of SDPs places a high burden on clinicians, requiring them to learn and competently implement multiple different manualized interventions for each anxiety, mood, or emotional disorder encountered in practice.⁴ It is common for individuals who present with an anxiety, mood, or emotional disorder to experience co-occurring disorders.⁵ Traditional SDP-based CBT may require multiple SDPs to address co-occurring disorders, extending time in treatment and increasing training burden. There is evidence that even when an SDP is used, co-occurring difficulties may decrease in intensity.⁶ Thus, evidence-based CBT for 1 presenting concern may positively affect co-occurring difficulties that are not the primary treatment target.⁶

Unified Protocol (UP) is a transdiagnostic CBT intervention for anxiety and mood disorders. UP targets emotional experiences (eg, negative affect and emotional distress) that are present in multiple anxiety, depression, and emotional disorders. UP is organized into 8 modules and uses interventions present in other CBT SDPs, such as teaching objective assessment methods to clients, motivational enhancement and goal setting, emotion psychoeducation, mindful awareness, cognitive reframing, and exposure principles as mechanisms of change (Table 1).⁴ UP is an ideal intervention for addressing a number of anxiety, mood, and emotional disorders as well as addressing cooccurring disorders within the same course of treatment.

UP has been compared to SDPs; studies illustrate that UP is equivalent to SDPs at the end of treatment and at 6 months posttreatment.^4,7 Additionally, patients who received UP experienced symptom reduction for multiple co-occurring disorders.⁷ Furthermore, patients were less likely to drop out of UP when compared with SDPs.⁴

Studies have reported positive impacts on affective disorders with UP. A 2019 metaanalysis found significant reductions in depression and anxiety-related disorders.⁸ Additionally, UP has been shown to be effective when delivered in person and via telehealth.^9,10 UP has also been successfully used in veterans.¹¹ While traditional models of UP (1-2 sessions weekly) have a lower dropout rate than SDPs, UP and CBT dropout rates still leave room for improvement.^12-14 Specifically, rates of attrition from SDP CBT and transdiagnostic CBT protocols range from 9% to 35%, and dropout reduces the likelihood of attaining a full therapeutic dose of any course of CBT. Notably, accelerated delivery of CBT (ie, ≥3 sessions/wk) has been shown to reduce risk of dropout.^14,15

Veterans are at increased risk for suicide, and anxiety and mood disorders are associated with increased risk of suicide attempt and death.^16,17 Very few veterans who could benefit from high-quality CBT interventions, whether SDP or UP, are able to access them. Only 6.3% of veterans received ≥1 session of an evidence-based CBT SDP for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at 6 clinics evaluated in 2010.¹⁸

We identified 2 strategies to increase access to and completion of an evidence-based CBT course. First, the use of transdiagnostic UP instead of SDPs reduced burden on therapists and allowed them to address presenting and co-occurring disorders within the same course of care. Second, the use of an accelerated model of service delivery reduced dropout risk. Training clinicians to deliver UP is efficient and cost-effective, considering clinicians use core strategies that can be tailored and flexibly applied to a range of emotional difficulties. Thus, implementing UP may decrease barriers to receiving an optimal dose of an evidence-based CBT delivered with fidelity in a time- and cost-efficient manner.⁴ Two studies have found no evidence of differences in outcomes between UP and SDPs, suggesting that training and supervising clinicians in a single transdiagnostic UP intervention may prepare them to treat heterogeneous and co-occurring anxiety, mood, and emotional disorders with less burden than learning multiple SDPs.^7,19

Delivering UP in an accelerated or massed format (≥4 sessions/wk) instead of the traditional spaced model (1 session/wk) has empirical support but has not been widely implemented. This approach, sometimes referred to as a UP-intensive outpatient program (UP-IOP) or UP-intensive outpatient track (UP-IOT), has been shown to be feasible, acceptable, and effective, with increased completion rates compared with traditional UP delivery (1-2 sessions/wk).^20-22

Ragsdale et al describe a 2-week IOP with multiple treatment tracks, including a general track.²⁰ The general track includes massed UP 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, psychoeducation, motivational interviewing, relapse prevention). In other words, this was an UP-IOP.²⁰

Thompson-Brenner et al described a successful implementation of massed UP applied in intensive treatment settings, such as residential and day-hospital programs, for eating disorders. Patients reported improvements in 3 UP targets: experiential avoidance, mindfulness, and anxiety.²¹ Watkins et al evaluated a 2-week IOP using CBT for comorbid substance use and mental health disorders, including prolonged exposure, UP, and relapse prevention for substance use disorders. Participants were post-9/11 veterans and activeduty personnel. Results indicated that UP reduced PTSD and depressive symptoms following treatment. Furthermore, the retention rate (91%) was higher than retention in outpatient treatment (39%-65%), supporting the IOP model as a strategy to reduce dropout.²²

Massed psychotherapy has been extended to IOP programs for PTSD treatment within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Yamokoski et al found that patients who completed an IOP that included massed CBT for PTSD had high retention, high satisfaction, and significant reduction in self-reported co-occurring depression symptoms. The authors also found that this model of care could be implemented and sustained within a VHA facility using minimal staffing resources.²³

The UP-IOP models described by Ragsdale et al and Watkins et al included massed UP as the primary evidence-based practice (EBP) with adjunctive groups (eg, wellness and educational groups and access to complementary interventions such as mindfulness and yoga); they found that adding these groups increased retention and patient- reported satisfaction (ie, UP-IOP).^20,22 The addition of wellness education alongside a primary EBP aligns with the VHA focus on whole health well-being and wellness. This includes understanding factors that motivate a patient toward health and well-being, providing health education, and offering access to complementary interventions such as mindfulness.²⁴

Dryden et al described the whole health transformation within VHA as a proactive approach to addressing both employee and patient wellness. Their research found that the whole health model promoted wellbeing in patients and staff and these improvements were sustained during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dryden et al also noted that virtual technologies facilitated continued whole health implementation.²⁵

The literature illustrates that (1) massed UP can be delivered with complementary education and wellness offerings that may increase retention and satisfaction by enriching treatment (eg, delivering UP-IOP); (2) whole health, including wellness education and complementary interventions (eg, mindfulness, motivational enhancement), promotes well-being in patients and clinicians; and (3) whole health education and complementary interventions can be delivered virtually.

IVET

Health Care Need

Veterans Affairs Pacific Islands Health Care System (VAPIHCS) provides medical services to veterans in the Hawaiian Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and Saipan spanning nearly 4000 miles across the Pacific Ocean. Prior to implementation of this program, veterans who received care at VAPIHCS had little to no access to UP in outpatient settings and no access to UP in residential settings. Access to UP depended on the presence of a therapist trained in UP within a given clinic and was geographically limited to the location of the UPtrained therapist. The limited outpatient access to UP was restricted to the traditional UP delivery model (eg, about 1 session/wk); thus, there was no access to accelerated UP for veterans served at VAPIHCS. In the fiscal year prior to implementation of the massed UP program, > 1000 VAPIHCS veterans had been diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive related disorder or anxiety. A massed-UP program with weekly rolling admissions would support access to UP for more veterans over 12 months, and the virtual treatment modality would reduce barriers for diverse and underserved veterans, making care more equitable and inclusive.

Successful implementation and sustainment of an EBP prompted the establishment of this UP program. In 2022, VAPIHCS launched the Intensive Virtual Evidence- Based Psychotherapy Team (iVET) for treatment of PTSD. This clinic and associated EBP project demonstrated that massed (≥3 individual sessions/wk) of prolonged exposure (PE) therapy, delivered virtually to a geographically diverse veteran population with PTSD, resulted in significant reductions in PTSD, depression, and anxiety symptoms and substance use risk factors, with very high retention rates. The iVET for PTSD program was feasible, acceptable, and effective, with veterans reporting significant improvement in quality of life and high satisfaction with their mental health services.¹⁵ Given the known benefits of transdiagnostic UP treatment (vs SDPs), the need for accelerated UP, and success with accelerated PE, our goal was to spread the EBP of massed (≥3 sessions/ wk) virtual psychotherapy to other presenting problems (eg, anxiety disorders with or without co-occurring unipolar depression) using transdiagnostic UP.

Program Description

The program implemented within outpatient mental health services at VAPIHCS was iVET for the treatment of anxiety with or without co-occurring depression. The program model consists of an accelerated course of UP and whole health education provided via VA Video Connect (VVC), the VA video telehealth platform. iVET is a 2- to 4-week program and consists of 3 parts: (1) massed individual UP for transdiagnostic treatment of anxiety and co-occurring depression, (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 participation from Guam and Saipan.

When a patient is referred to iVET, the first contact is a video (or telephone) appointment with a registered nurse (RN) for a screening session. The screening session is designed to provide education about the program (including interventions, time commitment, and resources required for participation). Following education, the RN completes a safety screening, including screening for suicidal ideation and risk, as well as intimate partner violence risk. If urgent safety concerns are present, a licensed social worker or psychologist joins the screening to complete further risk assessment and address any safety concerns.

Following screening, patients are scheduled for a VVC telehealth intake with a licensed therapist (social worker or psychologist) to complete a diagnostic interview. Patients are sent a secure link to complete a measurement-based care (MBC) battery of self-report measures, including assessments of demographics, anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, substance use, psychological flexibility, quality of life, and satisfaction with mental health care. The results of the diagnostic interview and self-report measures are discussed with the patient during the intake session to plan next steps and support shared decision-making. This initial VVC intake not only allows for fit assessment but also serves to troubleshoot technical difficulties with the virtual platforms.

Notably, there are minimal exclusion criteria for participation in iVET. These include active unmanaged psychosis or manic symptoms, recent suicidal crises (attempt within 8 weeks), active nonsuicidal self-injury (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 receive program materials for individual and group classes and are told they will receive email links for all VVC telehealth appointments. Patients are admitted to the iVET on a rolling basis, thereby increasing access compared with closed group and/or cohort models of care.

Patients receiving iVET attend 2 to 4 telehealth appointments daily and complete exercises between sessions. The primary iVET for Anxiety program EBP intervention is a massed or accelerated individual course of UP, which includes 8 primary components: assessment, goals and motivation, understanding emotions, mindful emotion awareness, cognitive flexibility, countering emotional behaviors, understanding and confronting physical sensations, and emotional exposures. UP is delivered in 4 to 8 individual sessions weekly (60-90 minutes each), allowing completion of the full UP protocol with fidelity in 2 to 4 weeks. In addition to primary EBP intervention, patients participate in 4 group sessions weekly (50 minutes each) of a whole health and wellness education class and have access to 1 individual health coaching session weekly (30- 60 minutes) to set wellness goals and receive coaching. During iVET, patients are invited to complete MBC batteries of self-report measures assessing anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, substance use, psychological flexibility, quality of life, and satisfaction with mental health care at sessions 1, 5, 9, 13, and the final UP session. Following discharge from the iVET, patients are offered 1-, 3-, and 6-month individual postdischarge check-up sessions with a therapist, during which they are invited to complete MBC measures and review relapse prevention and maintenance of treatment gains. Likewise, patients are offered 1-, 3-, and 6-month individual postdischarge check-up sessions with an RN focused on maintaining wellness gains.

The iVET for Anxiety staff has 3 therapists (psychologists or social workers) and 1 RN. Additionally, the iVET for Anxiety is supported by a program manager and a program support assistant who support 2 programs total (the iVET for Anxiety plus another mental health program). The primary cost of the program is staff salary. Additional resources included computer equipment for staff and supplies (eg, printed materials for patients and office supplies). Due to the virtual environment of care, iVET staff telework and do not require physical space within VAPIHCS.

Outcomes

Veterans receiving iVET for Anxiety are invited to complete MBC multiple times, including pretreatment, during UP treatment (sessions 1, 5, 9, 13, and the final session), and posttreatment (1, 3, and 6 months). MBC measures include self-reported demographics; a 2-item measure of satisfaction with mental health services; the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire II,²⁶ the Brief Addiction Monitor-Intensive Outpatient Program, ²⁷ the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7,²⁸ the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9),²⁹ and the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form.³⁰

Forty-two veterans completed the iVET for Anxiety program, with a retention rate of 87.5% completing . 16 sessions of massed UP (Table 2). Veterans reported reduced anxiety (P < .001), depression (P < .001), and substance use risk (P < .001). Veterans experienced improved acceptance of emotional experiences (P < .001) and quality of life (P < .001), based on paired sample t tests comparing session 1 vs final session scores on the self-reported measures. Veterans also reported high satisfaction with mental health care in iVET for Anxiety.

Veterans experienced reduced thoughts of death or suicidal ideation (SI) based on responses to item 9 of PHQ-9. When SI was categorically analyzed (presence vs absence) using PHQ-9 item 9, there was an association observed between absence of SI and completion of a course of massed UP that does not appear to be due to chance, (X² [1, N = 42) = 3.94; P = .047). In addition, veterans who completed the program showed a significant decrease in SI severity measured continuously (range, 0-3) on PHQ-9 item 9 (P < .05) (Table 3).

Future Directions

The aim of this program is to see sustained patient outcomes as iVET continues to serve more veterans. Another line of inquiry is longer- term follow-up, given that long-term follow- up was not addressed in this project. We also hope that the accelerated model of care can be applied to treatment of other presenting concerns (eg, relationship difficulties, insomnia). Expansion of accelerated mental health treatment into other federal and nonfederal health care settings is another area worthy of future inquiry. Exploration of staff satisfaction and burnout related to providing accelerated UP is another important future direction. Relatedly, assessment of the staff burden to learn 1 transdiagnostic EBP vs learning multiple SDPs is another future direction. Likewise, exploration of institutional benefits of investment in transdiagnostic training, supervision, and consultation for UP vs multiple SDPs may be important. These areas could also result in insightful, beneficial evidence of the effectiveness of massed UP to add to the existing literature.

Conclusions

UP for transdiagnostic treatment of anxiety, depressive, and emotional disorders has demonstrated reduced suffering and improved functioning and is supported by multiple clinical practice guidelines.^1-4 Federal practitioners are positioned to improve access to this intervention, thereby reducing pain and improving lives. Indeed, it is crucial to envision a future state in which access to UP for a range of anxiety and depressive disorders is improved and broad, retention rates are dramatically improved, and clinicians providing UP do not experience the high burden and burnout associated with needing to learn and implement a variety of SDPs. Development of these programs, or similar tracks within existing programs, that provide massed or accelerated UP for transdiagnostic treatment of a range of anxiety and depressive disorders with virtual delivery options, is imperative to advance improved care for patients and clinicians.

Federal health care settings treating patients with anxiety and depression, such as those within the US Department of Defense, Indian Health Services, Bureau of Prisons, and VHA, are positioned to implement programs like iVET. Moreover, at the institutional level, investment in training and supervision in the transdiagnostic UP as opposed to multiple SDPs warrants consideration. We believe this model of care has great merit and foresee a future where all patients seeking treatment for anxiety and depression have the option to complete an accelerated or massed course of transdiagnostic care with UP if they so desire. Our experiences with iVET illustrate the feasibility, acceptability, and sustainability of such programs without requiring substantial staffing and financial resources.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is supported as an effective treatment for depression by clinical practice guidelines from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and US Department of Defense.^1-3 Despite research supporting the use of evidence-based CBT for anxiety, mood, and emotional disorders, patient access to these interventions is limited.⁴ One barrier to CBT for anxiety, mood, and emotional disorders is the traditional use of single-disorder protocols (SDPs) to separately treat each disorder (eg, major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder).

Use of SDPs places a high burden on clinicians, requiring them to learn and competently implement multiple different manualized interventions for each anxiety, mood, or emotional disorder encountered in practice.⁴ It is common for individuals who present with an anxiety, mood, or emotional disorder to experience co-occurring disorders.⁵ Traditional SDP-based CBT may require multiple SDPs to address co-occurring disorders, extending time in treatment and increasing training burden. There is evidence that even when an SDP is used, co-occurring difficulties may decrease in intensity.⁶ Thus, evidence-based CBT for 1 presenting concern may positively affect co-occurring difficulties that are not the primary treatment target.⁶

Unified Protocol (UP) is a transdiagnostic CBT intervention for anxiety and mood disorders. UP targets emotional experiences (eg, negative affect and emotional distress) that are present in multiple anxiety, depression, and emotional disorders. UP is organized into 8 modules and uses interventions present in other CBT SDPs, such as teaching objective assessment methods to clients, motivational enhancement and goal setting, emotion psychoeducation, mindful awareness, cognitive reframing, and exposure principles as mechanisms of change (Table 1).⁴ UP is an ideal intervention for addressing a number of anxiety, mood, and emotional disorders as well as addressing cooccurring disorders within the same course of treatment.

UP has been compared to SDPs; studies illustrate that UP is equivalent to SDPs at the end of treatment and at 6 months posttreatment.^4,7 Additionally, patients who received UP experienced symptom reduction for multiple co-occurring disorders.⁷ Furthermore, patients were less likely to drop out of UP when compared with SDPs.⁴

Studies have reported positive impacts on affective disorders with UP. A 2019 metaanalysis found significant reductions in depression and anxiety-related disorders.⁸ Additionally, UP has been shown to be effective when delivered in person and via telehealth.^9,10 UP has also been successfully used in veterans.¹¹ While traditional models of UP (1-2 sessions weekly) have a lower dropout rate than SDPs, UP and CBT dropout rates still leave room for improvement.^12-14 Specifically, rates of attrition from SDP CBT and transdiagnostic CBT protocols range from 9% to 35%, and dropout reduces the likelihood of attaining a full therapeutic dose of any course of CBT. Notably, accelerated delivery of CBT (ie, ≥3 sessions/wk) has been shown to reduce risk of dropout.^14,15

Veterans are at increased risk for suicide, and anxiety and mood disorders are associated with increased risk of suicide attempt and death.^16,17 Very few veterans who could benefit from high-quality CBT interventions, whether SDP or UP, are able to access them. Only 6.3% of veterans received ≥1 session of an evidence-based CBT SDP for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at 6 clinics evaluated in 2010.¹⁸

We identified 2 strategies to increase access to and completion of an evidence-based CBT course. First, the use of transdiagnostic UP instead of SDPs reduced burden on therapists and allowed them to address presenting and co-occurring disorders within the same course of care. Second, the use of an accelerated model of service delivery reduced dropout risk. Training clinicians to deliver UP is efficient and cost-effective, considering clinicians use core strategies that can be tailored and flexibly applied to a range of emotional difficulties. Thus, implementing UP may decrease barriers to receiving an optimal dose of an evidence-based CBT delivered with fidelity in a time- and cost-efficient manner.⁴ Two studies have found no evidence of differences in outcomes between UP and SDPs, suggesting that training and supervising clinicians in a single transdiagnostic UP intervention may prepare them to treat heterogeneous and co-occurring anxiety, mood, and emotional disorders with less burden than learning multiple SDPs.^7,19

Delivering UP in an accelerated or massed format (≥4 sessions/wk) instead of the traditional spaced model (1 session/wk) has empirical support but has not been widely implemented. This approach, sometimes referred to as a UP-intensive outpatient program (UP-IOP) or UP-intensive outpatient track (UP-IOT), has been shown to be feasible, acceptable, and effective, with increased completion rates compared with traditional UP delivery (1-2 sessions/wk).^20-22

Ragsdale et al describe a 2-week IOP with multiple treatment tracks, including a general track.²⁰ The general track includes massed UP 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, psychoeducation, motivational interviewing, relapse prevention). In other words, this was an UP-IOP.²⁰

Thompson-Brenner et al described a successful implementation of massed UP applied in intensive treatment settings, such as residential and day-hospital programs, for eating disorders. Patients reported improvements in 3 UP targets: experiential avoidance, mindfulness, and anxiety.²¹ Watkins et al evaluated a 2-week IOP using CBT for comorbid substance use and mental health disorders, including prolonged exposure, UP, and relapse prevention for substance use disorders. Participants were post-9/11 veterans and activeduty personnel. Results indicated that UP reduced PTSD and depressive symptoms following treatment. Furthermore, the retention rate (91%) was higher than retention in outpatient treatment (39%-65%), supporting the IOP model as a strategy to reduce dropout.²²

Massed psychotherapy has been extended to IOP programs for PTSD treatment within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Yamokoski et al found that patients who completed an IOP that included massed CBT for PTSD had high retention, high satisfaction, and significant reduction in self-reported co-occurring depression symptoms. The authors also found that this model of care could be implemented and sustained within a VHA facility using minimal staffing resources.²³

The UP-IOP models described by Ragsdale et al and Watkins et al included massed UP as the primary evidence-based practice (EBP) with adjunctive groups (eg, wellness and educational groups and access to complementary interventions such as mindfulness and yoga); they found that adding these groups increased retention and patient- reported satisfaction (ie, UP-IOP).^20,22 The addition of wellness education alongside a primary EBP aligns with the VHA focus on whole health well-being and wellness. This includes understanding factors that motivate a patient toward health and well-being, providing health education, and offering access to complementary interventions such as mindfulness.²⁴

Dryden et al described the whole health transformation within VHA as a proactive approach to addressing both employee and patient wellness. Their research found that the whole health model promoted wellbeing in patients and staff and these improvements were sustained during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dryden et al also noted that virtual technologies facilitated continued whole health implementation.²⁵

The literature illustrates that (1) massed UP can be delivered with complementary education and wellness offerings that may increase retention and satisfaction by enriching treatment (eg, delivering UP-IOP); (2) whole health, including wellness education and complementary interventions (eg, mindfulness, motivational enhancement), promotes well-being in patients and clinicians; and (3) whole health education and complementary interventions can be delivered virtually.

IVET

Health Care Need

Veterans Affairs Pacific Islands Health Care System (VAPIHCS) provides medical services to veterans in the Hawaiian Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and Saipan spanning nearly 4000 miles across the Pacific Ocean. Prior to implementation of this program, veterans who received care at VAPIHCS had little to no access to UP in outpatient settings and no access to UP in residential settings. Access to UP depended on the presence of a therapist trained in UP within a given clinic and was geographically limited to the location of the UPtrained therapist. The limited outpatient access to UP was restricted to the traditional UP delivery model (eg, about 1 session/wk); thus, there was no access to accelerated UP for veterans served at VAPIHCS. In the fiscal year prior to implementation of the massed UP program, > 1000 VAPIHCS veterans had been diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive related disorder or anxiety. A massed-UP program with weekly rolling admissions would support access to UP for more veterans over 12 months, and the virtual treatment modality would reduce barriers for diverse and underserved veterans, making care more equitable and inclusive.

Successful implementation and sustainment of an EBP prompted the establishment of this UP program. In 2022, VAPIHCS launched the Intensive Virtual Evidence- Based Psychotherapy Team (iVET) for treatment of PTSD. This clinic and associated EBP project demonstrated that massed (≥3 individual sessions/wk) of prolonged exposure (PE) therapy, delivered virtually to a geographically diverse veteran population with PTSD, resulted in significant reductions in PTSD, depression, and anxiety symptoms and substance use risk factors, with very high retention rates. The iVET for PTSD program was feasible, acceptable, and effective, with veterans reporting significant improvement in quality of life and high satisfaction with their mental health services.¹⁵ Given the known benefits of transdiagnostic UP treatment (vs SDPs), the need for accelerated UP, and success with accelerated PE, our goal was to spread the EBP of massed (≥3 sessions/ wk) virtual psychotherapy to other presenting problems (eg, anxiety disorders with or without co-occurring unipolar depression) using transdiagnostic UP.

Program Description

The program implemented within outpatient mental health services at VAPIHCS was iVET for the treatment of anxiety with or without co-occurring depression. The program model consists of an accelerated course of UP and whole health education provided via VA Video Connect (VVC), the VA video telehealth platform. iVET is a 2- to 4-week program and consists of 3 parts: (1) massed individual UP for transdiagnostic treatment of anxiety and co-occurring depression, (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 participation from Guam and Saipan.

When a patient is referred to iVET, the first contact is a video (or telephone) appointment with a registered nurse (RN) for a screening session. The screening session is designed to provide education about the program (including interventions, time commitment, and resources required for participation). Following education, the RN completes a safety screening, including screening for suicidal ideation and risk, as well as intimate partner violence risk. If urgent safety concerns are present, a licensed social worker or psychologist joins the screening to complete further risk assessment and address any safety concerns.

Following screening, patients are scheduled for a VVC telehealth intake with a licensed therapist (social worker or psychologist) to complete a diagnostic interview. Patients are sent a secure link to complete a measurement-based care (MBC) battery of self-report measures, including assessments of demographics, anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, substance use, psychological flexibility, quality of life, and satisfaction with mental health care. The results of the diagnostic interview and self-report measures are discussed with the patient during the intake session to plan next steps and support shared decision-making. This initial VVC intake not only allows for fit assessment but also serves to troubleshoot technical difficulties with the virtual platforms.

Notably, there are minimal exclusion criteria for participation in iVET. These include active unmanaged psychosis or manic symptoms, recent suicidal crises (attempt within 8 weeks), active nonsuicidal self-injury (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 receive program materials for individual and group classes and are told they will receive email links for all VVC telehealth appointments. Patients are admitted to the iVET on a rolling basis, thereby increasing access compared with closed group and/or cohort models of care.

Patients receiving iVET attend 2 to 4 telehealth appointments daily and complete exercises between sessions. The primary iVET for Anxiety program EBP intervention is a massed or accelerated individual course of UP, which includes 8 primary components: assessment, goals and motivation, understanding emotions, mindful emotion awareness, cognitive flexibility, countering emotional behaviors, understanding and confronting physical sensations, and emotional exposures. UP is delivered in 4 to 8 individual sessions weekly (60-90 minutes each), allowing completion of the full UP protocol with fidelity in 2 to 4 weeks. In addition to primary EBP intervention, patients participate in 4 group sessions weekly (50 minutes each) of a whole health and wellness education class and have access to 1 individual health coaching session weekly (30- 60 minutes) to set wellness goals and receive coaching. During iVET, patients are invited to complete MBC batteries of self-report measures assessing anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, substance use, psychological flexibility, quality of life, and satisfaction with mental health care at sessions 1, 5, 9, 13, and the final UP session. Following discharge from the iVET, patients are offered 1-, 3-, and 6-month individual postdischarge check-up sessions with a therapist, during which they are invited to complete MBC measures and review relapse prevention and maintenance of treatment gains. Likewise, patients are offered 1-, 3-, and 6-month individual postdischarge check-up sessions with an RN focused on maintaining wellness gains.

The iVET for Anxiety staff has 3 therapists (psychologists or social workers) and 1 RN. Additionally, the iVET for Anxiety is supported by a program manager and a program support assistant who support 2 programs total (the iVET for Anxiety plus another mental health program). The primary cost of the program is staff salary. Additional resources included computer equipment for staff and supplies (eg, printed materials for patients and office supplies). Due to the virtual environment of care, iVET staff telework and do not require physical space within VAPIHCS.

Outcomes

Veterans receiving iVET for Anxiety are invited to complete MBC multiple times, including pretreatment, during UP treatment (sessions 1, 5, 9, 13, and the final session), and posttreatment (1, 3, and 6 months). MBC measures include self-reported demographics; a 2-item measure of satisfaction with mental health services; the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire II,²⁶ the Brief Addiction Monitor-Intensive Outpatient Program, ²⁷ the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7,²⁸ the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9),²⁹ and the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form.³⁰

Forty-two veterans completed the iVET for Anxiety program, with a retention rate of 87.5% completing . 16 sessions of massed UP (Table 2). Veterans reported reduced anxiety (P < .001), depression (P < .001), and substance use risk (P < .001). Veterans experienced improved acceptance of emotional experiences (P < .001) and quality of life (P < .001), based on paired sample t tests comparing session 1 vs final session scores on the self-reported measures. Veterans also reported high satisfaction with mental health care in iVET for Anxiety.

Veterans experienced reduced thoughts of death or suicidal ideation (SI) based on responses to item 9 of PHQ-9. When SI was categorically analyzed (presence vs absence) using PHQ-9 item 9, there was an association observed between absence of SI and completion of a course of massed UP that does not appear to be due to chance, (X² [1, N = 42) = 3.94; P = .047). In addition, veterans who completed the program showed a significant decrease in SI severity measured continuously (range, 0-3) on PHQ-9 item 9 (P < .05) (Table 3).

Future Directions

The aim of this program is to see sustained patient outcomes as iVET continues to serve more veterans. Another line of inquiry is longer- term follow-up, given that long-term follow- up was not addressed in this project. We also hope that the accelerated model of care can be applied to treatment of other presenting concerns (eg, relationship difficulties, insomnia). Expansion of accelerated mental health treatment into other federal and nonfederal health care settings is another area worthy of future inquiry. Exploration of staff satisfaction and burnout related to providing accelerated UP is another important future direction. Relatedly, assessment of the staff burden to learn 1 transdiagnostic EBP vs learning multiple SDPs is another future direction. Likewise, exploration of institutional benefits of investment in transdiagnostic training, supervision, and consultation for UP vs multiple SDPs may be important. These areas could also result in insightful, beneficial evidence of the effectiveness of massed UP to add to the existing literature.

Conclusions

UP for transdiagnostic treatment of anxiety, depressive, and emotional disorders has demonstrated reduced suffering and improved functioning and is supported by multiple clinical practice guidelines.^1-4 Federal practitioners are positioned to improve access to this intervention, thereby reducing pain and improving lives. Indeed, it is crucial to envision a future state in which access to UP for a range of anxiety and depressive disorders is improved and broad, retention rates are dramatically improved, and clinicians providing UP do not experience the high burden and burnout associated with needing to learn and implement a variety of SDPs. Development of these programs, or similar tracks within existing programs, that provide massed or accelerated UP for transdiagnostic treatment of a range of anxiety and depressive disorders with virtual delivery options, is imperative to advance improved care for patients and clinicians.

Federal health care settings treating patients with anxiety and depression, such as those within the US Department of Defense, Indian Health Services, Bureau of Prisons, and VHA, are positioned to implement programs like iVET. Moreover, at the institutional level, investment in training and supervision in the transdiagnostic UP as opposed to multiple SDPs warrants consideration. We believe this model of care has great merit and foresee a future where all patients seeking treatment for anxiety and depression have the option to complete an accelerated or massed course of transdiagnostic care with UP if they so desire. Our experiences with iVET illustrate the feasibility, acceptability, and sustainability of such programs without requiring substantial staffing and financial resources.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is supported as an effective treatment for depression by clinical practice guidelines from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and US Department of Defense.^1-3 Despite research supporting the use of evidence-based CBT for anxiety, mood, and emotional disorders, patient access to these interventions is limited.⁴ One barrier to CBT for anxiety, mood, and emotional disorders is the traditional use of single-disorder protocols (SDPs) to separately treat each disorder (eg, major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder).

Use of SDPs places a high burden on clinicians, requiring them to learn and competently implement multiple different manualized interventions for each anxiety, mood, or emotional disorder encountered in practice.⁴ It is common for individuals who present with an anxiety, mood, or emotional disorder to experience co-occurring disorders.⁵ Traditional SDP-based CBT may require multiple SDPs to address co-occurring disorders, extending time in treatment and increasing training burden. There is evidence that even when an SDP is used, co-occurring difficulties may decrease in intensity.⁶ Thus, evidence-based CBT for 1 presenting concern may positively affect co-occurring difficulties that are not the primary treatment target.⁶

Unified Protocol (UP) is a transdiagnostic CBT intervention for anxiety and mood disorders. UP targets emotional experiences (eg, negative affect and emotional distress) that are present in multiple anxiety, depression, and emotional disorders. UP is organized into 8 modules and uses interventions present in other CBT SDPs, such as teaching objective assessment methods to clients, motivational enhancement and goal setting, emotion psychoeducation, mindful awareness, cognitive reframing, and exposure principles as mechanisms of change (Table 1).⁴ UP is an ideal intervention for addressing a number of anxiety, mood, and emotional disorders as well as addressing cooccurring disorders within the same course of treatment.

UP has been compared to SDPs; studies illustrate that UP is equivalent to SDPs at the end of treatment and at 6 months posttreatment.^4,7 Additionally, patients who received UP experienced symptom reduction for multiple co-occurring disorders.⁷ Furthermore, patients were less likely to drop out of UP when compared with SDPs.⁴

Studies have reported positive impacts on affective disorders with UP. A 2019 metaanalysis found significant reductions in depression and anxiety-related disorders.⁸ Additionally, UP has been shown to be effective when delivered in person and via telehealth.^9,10 UP has also been successfully used in veterans.¹¹ While traditional models of UP (1-2 sessions weekly) have a lower dropout rate than SDPs, UP and CBT dropout rates still leave room for improvement.^12-14 Specifically, rates of attrition from SDP CBT and transdiagnostic CBT protocols range from 9% to 35%, and dropout reduces the likelihood of attaining a full therapeutic dose of any course of CBT. Notably, accelerated delivery of CBT (ie, ≥3 sessions/wk) has been shown to reduce risk of dropout.^14,15

Veterans are at increased risk for suicide, and anxiety and mood disorders are associated with increased risk of suicide attempt and death.^16,17 Very few veterans who could benefit from high-quality CBT interventions, whether SDP or UP, are able to access them. Only 6.3% of veterans received ≥1 session of an evidence-based CBT SDP for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at 6 clinics evaluated in 2010.¹⁸

We identified 2 strategies to increase access to and completion of an evidence-based CBT course. First, the use of transdiagnostic UP instead of SDPs reduced burden on therapists and allowed them to address presenting and co-occurring disorders within the same course of care. Second, the use of an accelerated model of service delivery reduced dropout risk. Training clinicians to deliver UP is efficient and cost-effective, considering clinicians use core strategies that can be tailored and flexibly applied to a range of emotional difficulties. Thus, implementing UP may decrease barriers to receiving an optimal dose of an evidence-based CBT delivered with fidelity in a time- and cost-efficient manner.⁴ Two studies have found no evidence of differences in outcomes between UP and SDPs, suggesting that training and supervising clinicians in a single transdiagnostic UP intervention may prepare them to treat heterogeneous and co-occurring anxiety, mood, and emotional disorders with less burden than learning multiple SDPs.^7,19

Delivering UP in an accelerated or massed format (≥4 sessions/wk) instead of the traditional spaced model (1 session/wk) has empirical support but has not been widely implemented. This approach, sometimes referred to as a UP-intensive outpatient program (UP-IOP) or UP-intensive outpatient track (UP-IOT), has been shown to be feasible, acceptable, and effective, with increased completion rates compared with traditional UP delivery (1-2 sessions/wk).^20-22

Ragsdale et al describe a 2-week IOP with multiple treatment tracks, including a general track.²⁰ The general track includes massed UP 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, psychoeducation, motivational interviewing, relapse prevention). In other words, this was an UP-IOP.²⁰

Thompson-Brenner et al described a successful implementation of massed UP applied in intensive treatment settings, such as residential and day-hospital programs, for eating disorders. Patients reported improvements in 3 UP targets: experiential avoidance, mindfulness, and anxiety.²¹ Watkins et al evaluated a 2-week IOP using CBT for comorbid substance use and mental health disorders, including prolonged exposure, UP, and relapse prevention for substance use disorders. Participants were post-9/11 veterans and activeduty personnel. Results indicated that UP reduced PTSD and depressive symptoms following treatment. Furthermore, the retention rate (91%) was higher than retention in outpatient treatment (39%-65%), supporting the IOP model as a strategy to reduce dropout.²²

Massed psychotherapy has been extended to IOP programs for PTSD treatment within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Yamokoski et al found that patients who completed an IOP that included massed CBT for PTSD had high retention, high satisfaction, and significant reduction in self-reported co-occurring depression symptoms. The authors also found that this model of care could be implemented and sustained within a VHA facility using minimal staffing resources.²³

The UP-IOP models described by Ragsdale et al and Watkins et al included massed UP as the primary evidence-based practice (EBP) with adjunctive groups (eg, wellness and educational groups and access to complementary interventions such as mindfulness and yoga); they found that adding these groups increased retention and patient- reported satisfaction (ie, UP-IOP).^20,22 The addition of wellness education alongside a primary EBP aligns with the VHA focus on whole health well-being and wellness. This includes understanding factors that motivate a patient toward health and well-being, providing health education, and offering access to complementary interventions such as mindfulness.²⁴

Dryden et al described the whole health transformation within VHA as a proactive approach to addressing both employee and patient wellness. Their research found that the whole health model promoted wellbeing in patients and staff and these improvements were sustained during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dryden et al also noted that virtual technologies facilitated continued whole health implementation.²⁵

The literature illustrates that (1) massed UP can be delivered with complementary education and wellness offerings that may increase retention and satisfaction by enriching treatment (eg, delivering UP-IOP); (2) whole health, including wellness education and complementary interventions (eg, mindfulness, motivational enhancement), promotes well-being in patients and clinicians; and (3) whole health education and complementary interventions can be delivered virtually.

IVET

Health Care Need

Veterans Affairs Pacific Islands Health Care System (VAPIHCS) provides medical services to veterans in the Hawaiian Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and Saipan spanning nearly 4000 miles across the Pacific Ocean. Prior to implementation of this program, veterans who received care at VAPIHCS had little to no access to UP in outpatient settings and no access to UP in residential settings. Access to UP depended on the presence of a therapist trained in UP within a given clinic and was geographically limited to the location of the UPtrained therapist. The limited outpatient access to UP was restricted to the traditional UP delivery model (eg, about 1 session/wk); thus, there was no access to accelerated UP for veterans served at VAPIHCS. In the fiscal year prior to implementation of the massed UP program, > 1000 VAPIHCS veterans had been diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive related disorder or anxiety. A massed-UP program with weekly rolling admissions would support access to UP for more veterans over 12 months, and the virtual treatment modality would reduce barriers for diverse and underserved veterans, making care more equitable and inclusive.

Successful implementation and sustainment of an EBP prompted the establishment of this UP program. In 2022, VAPIHCS launched the Intensive Virtual Evidence- Based Psychotherapy Team (iVET) for treatment of PTSD. This clinic and associated EBP project demonstrated that massed (≥3 individual sessions/wk) of prolonged exposure (PE) therapy, delivered virtually to a geographically diverse veteran population with PTSD, resulted in significant reductions in PTSD, depression, and anxiety symptoms and substance use risk factors, with very high retention rates. The iVET for PTSD program was feasible, acceptable, and effective, with veterans reporting significant improvement in quality of life and high satisfaction with their mental health services.¹⁵ Given the known benefits of transdiagnostic UP treatment (vs SDPs), the need for accelerated UP, and success with accelerated PE, our goal was to spread the EBP of massed (≥3 sessions/ wk) virtual psychotherapy to other presenting problems (eg, anxiety disorders with or without co-occurring unipolar depression) using transdiagnostic UP.

Program Description

The program implemented within outpatient mental health services at VAPIHCS was iVET for the treatment of anxiety with or without co-occurring depression. The program model consists of an accelerated course of UP and whole health education provided via VA Video Connect (VVC), the VA video telehealth platform. iVET is a 2- to 4-week program and consists of 3 parts: (1) massed individual UP for transdiagnostic treatment of anxiety and co-occurring depression, (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 participation from Guam and Saipan.

When a patient is referred to iVET, the first contact is a video (or telephone) appointment with a registered nurse (RN) for a screening session. The screening session is designed to provide education about the program (including interventions, time commitment, and resources required for participation). Following education, the RN completes a safety screening, including screening for suicidal ideation and risk, as well as intimate partner violence risk. If urgent safety concerns are present, a licensed social worker or psychologist joins the screening to complete further risk assessment and address any safety concerns.

Following screening, patients are scheduled for a VVC telehealth intake with a licensed therapist (social worker or psychologist) to complete a diagnostic interview. Patients are sent a secure link to complete a measurement-based care (MBC) battery of self-report measures, including assessments of demographics, anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, substance use, psychological flexibility, quality of life, and satisfaction with mental health care. The results of the diagnostic interview and self-report measures are discussed with the patient during the intake session to plan next steps and support shared decision-making. This initial VVC intake not only allows for fit assessment but also serves to troubleshoot technical difficulties with the virtual platforms.

Notably, there are minimal exclusion criteria for participation in iVET. These include active unmanaged psychosis or manic symptoms, recent suicidal crises (attempt within 8 weeks), active nonsuicidal self-injury (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 receive program materials for individual and group classes and are told they will receive email links for all VVC telehealth appointments. Patients are admitted to the iVET on a rolling basis, thereby increasing access compared with closed group and/or cohort models of care.

Patients receiving iVET attend 2 to 4 telehealth appointments daily and complete exercises between sessions. The primary iVET for Anxiety program EBP intervention is a massed or accelerated individual course of UP, which includes 8 primary components: assessment, goals and motivation, understanding emotions, mindful emotion awareness, cognitive flexibility, countering emotional behaviors, understanding and confronting physical sensations, and emotional exposures. UP is delivered in 4 to 8 individual sessions weekly (60-90 minutes each), allowing completion of the full UP protocol with fidelity in 2 to 4 weeks. In addition to primary EBP intervention, patients participate in 4 group sessions weekly (50 minutes each) of a whole health and wellness education class and have access to 1 individual health coaching session weekly (30- 60 minutes) to set wellness goals and receive coaching. During iVET, patients are invited to complete MBC batteries of self-report measures assessing anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, substance use, psychological flexibility, quality of life, and satisfaction with mental health care at sessions 1, 5, 9, 13, and the final UP session. Following discharge from the iVET, patients are offered 1-, 3-, and 6-month individual postdischarge check-up sessions with a therapist, during which they are invited to complete MBC measures and review relapse prevention and maintenance of treatment gains. Likewise, patients are offered 1-, 3-, and 6-month individual postdischarge check-up sessions with an RN focused on maintaining wellness gains.

The iVET for Anxiety staff has 3 therapists (psychologists or social workers) and 1 RN. Additionally, the iVET for Anxiety is supported by a program manager and a program support assistant who support 2 programs total (the iVET for Anxiety plus another mental health program). The primary cost of the program is staff salary. Additional resources included computer equipment for staff and supplies (eg, printed materials for patients and office supplies). Due to the virtual environment of care, iVET staff telework and do not require physical space within VAPIHCS.

Outcomes

Veterans receiving iVET for Anxiety are invited to complete MBC multiple times, including pretreatment, during UP treatment (sessions 1, 5, 9, 13, and the final session), and posttreatment (1, 3, and 6 months). MBC measures include self-reported demographics; a 2-item measure of satisfaction with mental health services; the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire II,²⁶ the Brief Addiction Monitor-Intensive Outpatient Program, ²⁷ the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7,²⁸ the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9),²⁹ and the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form.³⁰

Forty-two veterans completed the iVET for Anxiety program, with a retention rate of 87.5% completing . 16 sessions of massed UP (Table 2). Veterans reported reduced anxiety (P < .001), depression (P < .001), and substance use risk (P < .001). Veterans experienced improved acceptance of emotional experiences (P < .001) and quality of life (P < .001), based on paired sample t tests comparing session 1 vs final session scores on the self-reported measures. Veterans also reported high satisfaction with mental health care in iVET for Anxiety.

Veterans experienced reduced thoughts of death or suicidal ideation (SI) based on responses to item 9 of PHQ-9. When SI was categorically analyzed (presence vs absence) using PHQ-9 item 9, there was an association observed between absence of SI and completion of a course of massed UP that does not appear to be due to chance, (X² [1, N = 42) = 3.94; P = .047). In addition, veterans who completed the program showed a significant decrease in SI severity measured continuously (range, 0-3) on PHQ-9 item 9 (P < .05) (Table 3).

Future Directions

The aim of this program is to see sustained patient outcomes as iVET continues to serve more veterans. Another line of inquiry is longer- term follow-up, given that long-term follow- up was not addressed in this project. We also hope that the accelerated model of care can be applied to treatment of other presenting concerns (eg, relationship difficulties, insomnia). Expansion of accelerated mental health treatment into other federal and nonfederal health care settings is another area worthy of future inquiry. Exploration of staff satisfaction and burnout related to providing accelerated UP is another important future direction. Relatedly, assessment of the staff burden to learn 1 transdiagnostic EBP vs learning multiple SDPs is another future direction. Likewise, exploration of institutional benefits of investment in transdiagnostic training, supervision, and consultation for UP vs multiple SDPs may be important. These areas could also result in insightful, beneficial evidence of the effectiveness of massed UP to add to the existing literature.

Conclusions

UP for transdiagnostic treatment of anxiety, depressive, and emotional disorders has demonstrated reduced suffering and improved functioning and is supported by multiple clinical practice guidelines.^1-4 Federal practitioners are positioned to improve access to this intervention, thereby reducing pain and improving lives. Indeed, it is crucial to envision a future state in which access to UP for a range of anxiety and depressive disorders is improved and broad, retention rates are dramatically improved, and clinicians providing UP do not experience the high burden and burnout associated with needing to learn and implement a variety of SDPs. Development of these programs, or similar tracks within existing programs, that provide massed or accelerated UP for transdiagnostic treatment of a range of anxiety and depressive disorders with virtual delivery options, is imperative to advance improved care for patients and clinicians.

Federal health care settings treating patients with anxiety and depression, such as those within the US Department of Defense, Indian Health Services, Bureau of Prisons, and VHA, are positioned to implement programs like iVET. Moreover, at the institutional level, investment in training and supervision in the transdiagnostic UP as opposed to multiple SDPs warrants consideration. We believe this model of care has great merit and foresee a future where all patients seeking treatment for anxiety and depression have the option to complete an accelerated or massed course of transdiagnostic care with UP if they so desire. Our experiences with iVET illustrate the feasibility, acceptability, and sustainability of such programs without requiring substantial staffing and financial resources.

TOPLINE:

Among young adults with suicidal ideation, factors associated with the use of crisis text services were female sex, minoritized sexual orientation, engagement with a mental health provider, and prior hospitalizations. Participants who never texted crisis lines faced barriers such as doubts about effectiveness and embarrassment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey study in Oregon from August to December 2023 to identify characteristics linked to the use of crisis text services and barriers to use in young adults aged 18-24 years with suicidal ideation and financial stress.
• Overall, 118 participants were recruited through community partners and social media advertisements; 76% of them identified having a minoritized gender or sexual orientation.
• Participants completed an online survey with 38 closed-ended and two open-ended items, including questions about hospitalizations for suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, mental health provider status, service use, decision-making factors for contacting crisis lines, and barriers preventing the use of the service.
• Differences in demographic and health care characteristics between those who had ever texted crisis lines and those who had never were examined.

TAKEAWAY:

• When asked about disclosing suicidal ideation, participants most frequently told no one (69%), told a friend/boyfriend/girlfriend (64%), and texted/chatted with a crisis line (47%).
• Female sex (P = .019) and having a minoritized sexual orientation (P = .048) were significantly associated with the use of crisis text services, whereas minoritized gender status, race, and urbanicity showed no significant association. Having a mental health provider correlated with the use of crisis text services (P = .010), as did prior hospitalization for suicidal ideation or suicide attempt (P = .003).
• Participants who had ever texted crisis lines (n = 55) most often reported using crisis text services because they had no one else to talk to (78%), felt like a burden to others (71%), and preferred anonymity (65%).
• Among 63 participants who never texted crisis lines, 84% had heard of crisis text services but chose not to use them; key reasons for not texting included believing it would not help (46%), embarrassment (41%), and preferring to solve the problem independently (35%).

IN PRACTICE:

"[The study findings] highlight that unique outreach efforts may be necessary to engage young adults reluctant to seek support," the authors wrote, further suggesting that "local and national lines could benefit from improved conversational quality within CTS [crisis text services], possibly including enhanced training for counselors to increase the personalization of counseling and sensitivity to texters' situations."

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kate LaForge, PhD, MPH, of the Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care at the VA Portland Healthcare System in Portland, Oregon. It was published online on March 13, 2026, in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design did not allow for determining causal relationships between healthcare characteristics and the use of the crisis text service. Relying on self-reported data may have introduced recall bias. The severity of suicidal ideation was not measured, and the sample size was small.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Office of Academic Affiliations and the Office of Research and Development Health Systems Research Service, US Department of Veterans Affairs. Some authors reported being supported by various sources, including the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality, National Institute on Drug Abuse, or Department of Veterans Affairs Health Systems Research, and one of them reported being a paid consultant for Google Health. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Among young adults with suicidal ideation, factors associated with the use of crisis text services were female sex, minoritized sexual orientation, engagement with a mental health provider, and prior hospitalizations. Participants who never texted crisis lines faced barriers such as doubts about effectiveness and embarrassment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey study in Oregon from August to December 2023 to identify characteristics linked to the use of crisis text services and barriers to use in young adults aged 18-24 years with suicidal ideation and financial stress.
• Overall, 118 participants were recruited through community partners and social media advertisements; 76% of them identified having a minoritized gender or sexual orientation.
• Participants completed an online survey with 38 closed-ended and two open-ended items, including questions about hospitalizations for suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, mental health provider status, service use, decision-making factors for contacting crisis lines, and barriers preventing the use of the service.
• Differences in demographic and health care characteristics between those who had ever texted crisis lines and those who had never were examined.

TAKEAWAY:

• When asked about disclosing suicidal ideation, participants most frequently told no one (69%), told a friend/boyfriend/girlfriend (64%), and texted/chatted with a crisis line (47%).
• Female sex (P = .019) and having a minoritized sexual orientation (P = .048) were significantly associated with the use of crisis text services, whereas minoritized gender status, race, and urbanicity showed no significant association. Having a mental health provider correlated with the use of crisis text services (P = .010), as did prior hospitalization for suicidal ideation or suicide attempt (P = .003).
• Participants who had ever texted crisis lines (n = 55) most often reported using crisis text services because they had no one else to talk to (78%), felt like a burden to others (71%), and preferred anonymity (65%).
• Among 63 participants who never texted crisis lines, 84% had heard of crisis text services but chose not to use them; key reasons for not texting included believing it would not help (46%), embarrassment (41%), and preferring to solve the problem independently (35%).

IN PRACTICE:

"[The study findings] highlight that unique outreach efforts may be necessary to engage young adults reluctant to seek support," the authors wrote, further suggesting that "local and national lines could benefit from improved conversational quality within CTS [crisis text services], possibly including enhanced training for counselors to increase the personalization of counseling and sensitivity to texters' situations."

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kate LaForge, PhD, MPH, of the Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care at the VA Portland Healthcare System in Portland, Oregon. It was published online on March 13, 2026, in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design did not allow for determining causal relationships between healthcare characteristics and the use of the crisis text service. Relying on self-reported data may have introduced recall bias. The severity of suicidal ideation was not measured, and the sample size was small.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Office of Academic Affiliations and the Office of Research and Development Health Systems Research Service, US Department of Veterans Affairs. Some authors reported being supported by various sources, including the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality, National Institute on Drug Abuse, or Department of Veterans Affairs Health Systems Research, and one of them reported being a paid consultant for Google Health. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Among young adults with suicidal ideation, factors associated with the use of crisis text services were female sex, minoritized sexual orientation, engagement with a mental health provider, and prior hospitalizations. Participants who never texted crisis lines faced barriers such as doubts about effectiveness and embarrassment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey study in Oregon from August to December 2023 to identify characteristics linked to the use of crisis text services and barriers to use in young adults aged 18-24 years with suicidal ideation and financial stress.
• Overall, 118 participants were recruited through community partners and social media advertisements; 76% of them identified having a minoritized gender or sexual orientation.
• Participants completed an online survey with 38 closed-ended and two open-ended items, including questions about hospitalizations for suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, mental health provider status, service use, decision-making factors for contacting crisis lines, and barriers preventing the use of the service.
• Differences in demographic and health care characteristics between those who had ever texted crisis lines and those who had never were examined.

TAKEAWAY:

• When asked about disclosing suicidal ideation, participants most frequently told no one (69%), told a friend/boyfriend/girlfriend (64%), and texted/chatted with a crisis line (47%).
• Female sex (P = .019) and having a minoritized sexual orientation (P = .048) were significantly associated with the use of crisis text services, whereas minoritized gender status, race, and urbanicity showed no significant association. Having a mental health provider correlated with the use of crisis text services (P = .010), as did prior hospitalization for suicidal ideation or suicide attempt (P = .003).
• Participants who had ever texted crisis lines (n = 55) most often reported using crisis text services because they had no one else to talk to (78%), felt like a burden to others (71%), and preferred anonymity (65%).
• Among 63 participants who never texted crisis lines, 84% had heard of crisis text services but chose not to use them; key reasons for not texting included believing it would not help (46%), embarrassment (41%), and preferring to solve the problem independently (35%).

IN PRACTICE:

"[The study findings] highlight that unique outreach efforts may be necessary to engage young adults reluctant to seek support," the authors wrote, further suggesting that "local and national lines could benefit from improved conversational quality within CTS [crisis text services], possibly including enhanced training for counselors to increase the personalization of counseling and sensitivity to texters' situations."

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kate LaForge, PhD, MPH, of the Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care at the VA Portland Healthcare System in Portland, Oregon. It was published online on March 13, 2026, in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design did not allow for determining causal relationships between healthcare characteristics and the use of the crisis text service. Relying on self-reported data may have introduced recall bias. The severity of suicidal ideation was not measured, and the sample size was small.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Office of Academic Affiliations and the Office of Research and Development Health Systems Research Service, US Department of Veterans Affairs. Some authors reported being supported by various sources, including the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality, National Institute on Drug Abuse, or Department of Veterans Affairs Health Systems Research, and one of them reported being a paid consultant for Google Health. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

At the 24th edition of the L’Encéphale Congress, a psychiatry conference held in Paris, France, speakers discussed how the growing use of drones has become a defining feature of modern warfare and how these technologies may affect the mental health of both combatants and civilian populations. The topic was addressed during a session on war psychiatry.

The growing integration of drones into military operations is transforming the conduct of modern warfare and raising new concerns about the mental health effects on soldiers and civilian populations.

“In the age of drones, a new era of warfare has begun,” said Marie Dominique Colas, MD, a psychiatrist, and general practitioner at Military Teaching Hospital Sainte Anne in Toulon, France, speaking during a session on war.

The conflict following the Russian invasion of Ukraine illustrates this change. Drones are now widely used across multiple tactical levels for reconnaissance, surveillance, and attacks. According to Colas, this is the first high-intensity conflict in which these systems have been deployed on a large scale, primarily to destroy targets and cause casualties, rather than to eliminate specific identified individuals, which had been more typical in earlier operations in the Sahel or Afghanistan.

Combat Experience

The characteristics of drones, particularly their observation capabilities and ease of operation, have been gamechangers on the battlefield.

“The widespread use of drones has changed the subjective experience of combat,” said Emeric Saguin, MD, a psychiatrist in the Department of Psychiatry at the Begin Military Teaching Hospital, Saint-Mandé, France.

These miniaturized, stealthy, and often undetectable weapons have made battlefields increasingly transparent. “In Ukraine, enemy observation is almost constant for several kilometers behind the front line, creating a persistent sense of vulnerability and limiting medical care to basic first aid provided by fellow soldiers,” said Saguin.

The nature of these attacks has changed. “Gunshot wounds have become almost anecdotal. In Ukraine, more than 90% of attacks are caused by artillery and drones,” he added. Therefore, mental health specialists are increasingly examining how the constant threat posed by these weapons may affect psychological functioning, both individually and within groups.

Psychological Effects

Beyond their destructive capacity, drones are estimated to account for approximately 50% of casualties, and they can affect the morale of both opposing forces and civilian populations. Therefore, these precision weapons act as powerful tools for psychological attrition.

Clinically, “what predominates is not so much the traumatic impact of an isolated event as the repetition of exposures and the lack of recovery, leading to cumulative fatigue,” Saguin said. In his view, the clinical patterns observed are “less the result of a single shock than of a process of cumulative erosion.”

A key question raised by specialists is whether the widespread use of drones could lead to new clinical forms of war-related psychological disorders among drone operators.

Although drone operators remain physically distant from combat zones, they are not immune to the psychological effects of warfare. “Nearly half of drone operators show signs of psychological distress, primarily anxiety, which can affect both professional functioning and family life,” said Cécile Gorin, a senior psychiatrist at the Hôpital d’Instruction des Armées Sainte-Anne in Toulon, France. Greater vulnerability to emotional disengagement, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and burnout among drone operators has been linked to specific working conditions, including prolonged periods of intense vigilance, repeated exposure to detailed combat footage, and direct involvement in lethal decision-making.

“Exposure to images of destruction, particularly when civilians are affected by bombings, is a major risk factor for developing PTSD among these operators,” Gorin stated. A study analyzing drone operators found that 45.7% presented at least one psychological symptom, such as alcohol consumption, sleep disturbances, or anxiety. PTSD was identified with 2.9% of participants. However, according to the available literature, the prevalence of PTSD among drone operators may range from 5% to 10%, lower than among combatants deployed on the ground, where rates can reach up to 35%, Gorin noted.

The repeated and large-scale use of drones, including swarms and single-use devices, affects both civilians and combatants. This persistent threat can disrupt daily life and economic activity while creating a climate of constant uncertainty.

“The permanent, diffuse, and inescapable threat alters temporal and spatial reference points and fosters isolation,” Gorin explained. Prolonged exposure to such conditions can contribute to collective trauma, characterized by generalized anxiety, depressive episodes, erosion of social ties, and declining trust in institutions responsible for maintaining security.

Civilian populations living under continuous drone surveillance may also change their behavior patterns. Studies conducted among Afghan populations during wartime have described a phenomenon of self-objectification linked to constant surveillance and unpredictable strikes. In the context of chronic psychological insecurity, civilians gradually modified their behavior, particularly in social settings, avoiding gatherings, and adjusting daily activities to reduce the risk of being perceived as a threat.

Although the available data remain limited, similar patterns have emerged in Ukraine. A recent study on parents of Ukrainian children exposed to war conditions reported increased anxiety in 35% of respondents and sadness in 25%, along with behavioral problems and attention difficulties in approximately 25% of children.

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

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

At the 24th edition of the L’Encéphale Congress, a psychiatry conference held in Paris, France, speakers discussed how the growing use of drones has become a defining feature of modern warfare and how these technologies may affect the mental health of both combatants and civilian populations. The topic was addressed during a session on war psychiatry.

The growing integration of drones into military operations is transforming the conduct of modern warfare and raising new concerns about the mental health effects on soldiers and civilian populations.

“In the age of drones, a new era of warfare has begun,” said Marie Dominique Colas, MD, a psychiatrist, and general practitioner at Military Teaching Hospital Sainte Anne in Toulon, France, speaking during a session on war.

The conflict following the Russian invasion of Ukraine illustrates this change. Drones are now widely used across multiple tactical levels for reconnaissance, surveillance, and attacks. According to Colas, this is the first high-intensity conflict in which these systems have been deployed on a large scale, primarily to destroy targets and cause casualties, rather than to eliminate specific identified individuals, which had been more typical in earlier operations in the Sahel or Afghanistan.

Combat Experience

The characteristics of drones, particularly their observation capabilities and ease of operation, have been gamechangers on the battlefield.

“The widespread use of drones has changed the subjective experience of combat,” said Emeric Saguin, MD, a psychiatrist in the Department of Psychiatry at the Begin Military Teaching Hospital, Saint-Mandé, France.

These miniaturized, stealthy, and often undetectable weapons have made battlefields increasingly transparent. “In Ukraine, enemy observation is almost constant for several kilometers behind the front line, creating a persistent sense of vulnerability and limiting medical care to basic first aid provided by fellow soldiers,” said Saguin.

The nature of these attacks has changed. “Gunshot wounds have become almost anecdotal. In Ukraine, more than 90% of attacks are caused by artillery and drones,” he added. Therefore, mental health specialists are increasingly examining how the constant threat posed by these weapons may affect psychological functioning, both individually and within groups.

Psychological Effects

Beyond their destructive capacity, drones are estimated to account for approximately 50% of casualties, and they can affect the morale of both opposing forces and civilian populations. Therefore, these precision weapons act as powerful tools for psychological attrition.

Clinically, “what predominates is not so much the traumatic impact of an isolated event as the repetition of exposures and the lack of recovery, leading to cumulative fatigue,” Saguin said. In his view, the clinical patterns observed are “less the result of a single shock than of a process of cumulative erosion.”

A key question raised by specialists is whether the widespread use of drones could lead to new clinical forms of war-related psychological disorders among drone operators.

Although drone operators remain physically distant from combat zones, they are not immune to the psychological effects of warfare. “Nearly half of drone operators show signs of psychological distress, primarily anxiety, which can affect both professional functioning and family life,” said Cécile Gorin, a senior psychiatrist at the Hôpital d’Instruction des Armées Sainte-Anne in Toulon, France. Greater vulnerability to emotional disengagement, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and burnout among drone operators has been linked to specific working conditions, including prolonged periods of intense vigilance, repeated exposure to detailed combat footage, and direct involvement in lethal decision-making.

“Exposure to images of destruction, particularly when civilians are affected by bombings, is a major risk factor for developing PTSD among these operators,” Gorin stated. A study analyzing drone operators found that 45.7% presented at least one psychological symptom, such as alcohol consumption, sleep disturbances, or anxiety. PTSD was identified with 2.9% of participants. However, according to the available literature, the prevalence of PTSD among drone operators may range from 5% to 10%, lower than among combatants deployed on the ground, where rates can reach up to 35%, Gorin noted.

The repeated and large-scale use of drones, including swarms and single-use devices, affects both civilians and combatants. This persistent threat can disrupt daily life and economic activity while creating a climate of constant uncertainty.

“The permanent, diffuse, and inescapable threat alters temporal and spatial reference points and fosters isolation,” Gorin explained. Prolonged exposure to such conditions can contribute to collective trauma, characterized by generalized anxiety, depressive episodes, erosion of social ties, and declining trust in institutions responsible for maintaining security.

Civilian populations living under continuous drone surveillance may also change their behavior patterns. Studies conducted among Afghan populations during wartime have described a phenomenon of self-objectification linked to constant surveillance and unpredictable strikes. In the context of chronic psychological insecurity, civilians gradually modified their behavior, particularly in social settings, avoiding gatherings, and adjusting daily activities to reduce the risk of being perceived as a threat.

Although the available data remain limited, similar patterns have emerged in Ukraine. A recent study on parents of Ukrainian children exposed to war conditions reported increased anxiety in 35% of respondents and sadness in 25%, along with behavioral problems and attention difficulties in approximately 25% of children.

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

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

At the 24th edition of the L’Encéphale Congress, a psychiatry conference held in Paris, France, speakers discussed how the growing use of drones has become a defining feature of modern warfare and how these technologies may affect the mental health of both combatants and civilian populations. The topic was addressed during a session on war psychiatry.

The growing integration of drones into military operations is transforming the conduct of modern warfare and raising new concerns about the mental health effects on soldiers and civilian populations.

“In the age of drones, a new era of warfare has begun,” said Marie Dominique Colas, MD, a psychiatrist, and general practitioner at Military Teaching Hospital Sainte Anne in Toulon, France, speaking during a session on war.

The conflict following the Russian invasion of Ukraine illustrates this change. Drones are now widely used across multiple tactical levels for reconnaissance, surveillance, and attacks. According to Colas, this is the first high-intensity conflict in which these systems have been deployed on a large scale, primarily to destroy targets and cause casualties, rather than to eliminate specific identified individuals, which had been more typical in earlier operations in the Sahel or Afghanistan.

Combat Experience

The characteristics of drones, particularly their observation capabilities and ease of operation, have been gamechangers on the battlefield.

“The widespread use of drones has changed the subjective experience of combat,” said Emeric Saguin, MD, a psychiatrist in the Department of Psychiatry at the Begin Military Teaching Hospital, Saint-Mandé, France.

These miniaturized, stealthy, and often undetectable weapons have made battlefields increasingly transparent. “In Ukraine, enemy observation is almost constant for several kilometers behind the front line, creating a persistent sense of vulnerability and limiting medical care to basic first aid provided by fellow soldiers,” said Saguin.

The nature of these attacks has changed. “Gunshot wounds have become almost anecdotal. In Ukraine, more than 90% of attacks are caused by artillery and drones,” he added. Therefore, mental health specialists are increasingly examining how the constant threat posed by these weapons may affect psychological functioning, both individually and within groups.

Psychological Effects

Beyond their destructive capacity, drones are estimated to account for approximately 50% of casualties, and they can affect the morale of both opposing forces and civilian populations. Therefore, these precision weapons act as powerful tools for psychological attrition.

Clinically, “what predominates is not so much the traumatic impact of an isolated event as the repetition of exposures and the lack of recovery, leading to cumulative fatigue,” Saguin said. In his view, the clinical patterns observed are “less the result of a single shock than of a process of cumulative erosion.”

A key question raised by specialists is whether the widespread use of drones could lead to new clinical forms of war-related psychological disorders among drone operators.

Although drone operators remain physically distant from combat zones, they are not immune to the psychological effects of warfare. “Nearly half of drone operators show signs of psychological distress, primarily anxiety, which can affect both professional functioning and family life,” said Cécile Gorin, a senior psychiatrist at the Hôpital d’Instruction des Armées Sainte-Anne in Toulon, France. Greater vulnerability to emotional disengagement, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and burnout among drone operators has been linked to specific working conditions, including prolonged periods of intense vigilance, repeated exposure to detailed combat footage, and direct involvement in lethal decision-making.

“Exposure to images of destruction, particularly when civilians are affected by bombings, is a major risk factor for developing PTSD among these operators,” Gorin stated. A study analyzing drone operators found that 45.7% presented at least one psychological symptom, such as alcohol consumption, sleep disturbances, or anxiety. PTSD was identified with 2.9% of participants. However, according to the available literature, the prevalence of PTSD among drone operators may range from 5% to 10%, lower than among combatants deployed on the ground, where rates can reach up to 35%, Gorin noted.

The repeated and large-scale use of drones, including swarms and single-use devices, affects both civilians and combatants. This persistent threat can disrupt daily life and economic activity while creating a climate of constant uncertainty.

“The permanent, diffuse, and inescapable threat alters temporal and spatial reference points and fosters isolation,” Gorin explained. Prolonged exposure to such conditions can contribute to collective trauma, characterized by generalized anxiety, depressive episodes, erosion of social ties, and declining trust in institutions responsible for maintaining security.

Civilian populations living under continuous drone surveillance may also change their behavior patterns. Studies conducted among Afghan populations during wartime have described a phenomenon of self-objectification linked to constant surveillance and unpredictable strikes. In the context of chronic psychological insecurity, civilians gradually modified their behavior, particularly in social settings, avoiding gatherings, and adjusting daily activities to reduce the risk of being perceived as a threat.

Although the available data remain limited, similar patterns have emerged in Ukraine. A recent study on parents of Ukrainian children exposed to war conditions reported increased anxiety in 35% of respondents and sadness in 25%, along with behavioral problems and attention difficulties in approximately 25% of children.

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

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

The Public Health and Welfare Act of 1988 prohibited the use of federal funds to “provide individuals with hypodermic needles or syringes so that such individuals may use illegal drugs.”¹ Although the Act included the caveat that the US Surgeon General may determine that “a demonstration needle exchange program would be effective in reducing drug abuse,” and thus federal funds could be used, the legislation prohibited federal, state, and local agencies from funding syringe services programs (SSPs). SSPs use various harm reduction tools to improve public safety and reduce the potential harmful consequences of risky behaviors, similar to how using a seat belt while driving reduces the risk of injury or death.² SSPs are rooted in evidence-based practices, and several studies, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have found that people who use drugs (PWUDs) who use community-based SSPs are 5 times more likely to enter treatment than those who do not use these programs. Additionally, these programs have shown an estimated 50% reduction in HIV and hepatitis C infections.³

Amid a 2015 HIV outbreak in Indiana among individuals sharing needles for injection drug use, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill that partially lifted the federal funding restriction. Federal funds now may be used for operational costs that support SSPs but may not be used to purchase syringes themselves.⁴

Following the 2015 legislation, federal agencies began implementing SSPs. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) established SSPs at 3 medical centers in 2017.⁵ Veterans who participated in the programs were able to access supplies (eg, syringes, fentanyl test strips, wound care kits, and condoms) through donations to US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs). The success of these programs laid the foundation for the VHA to implement SSPs nationally. VHA SSPs provided access to naloxone (an opioid overdose reversal medication), fentanyl test strips, condoms, sterile syringe distribution, testing for blood-borne viruses, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, as well as educational materials and resources, and low-barrier access to drug treatment (eg, medications for opioid use disorder [OUD]).

In 2020, the Biden Administration outlined 7 drug policy priorities, which included enhancing evidence-based harm reduction efforts. ⁶ This policy also discussed mandates for federal agencies to remove barriers to federal funding for purchasing syringes and other harm reduction supplies. The VHA responded to the policy by publishing guidance that recommended VAMCs develop and/or ensure veterans have access to harm reduction services in the community, where state law is not legally more stringent.⁷

In 2025 the Trump administration Statement of Drug Policy Priorities encouraged local jurisdictions to increase the availability of drug test strips and naloxone.⁸ These significant policy shifts moved SSPs from being housed mostly in local public health departments and community-based organizations to also being available at health care facilities. ⁹ VAMCs have unique opportunities to provide universal health care that includes both prevention services and other medical management to PWUD.

One study assessed staff perceptions of PWUD at a VAMC in preparation for a training program about harm reduction. The results indicated an overall positive staff perception of PWUD, although only the Drug and Drug Problems Perceptions Questionnaire (DDPPQ) was administered, which assessed comfort of working with this population and not explicitly the use of harm reduction.¹⁰ Another study interviewed clinical pharmacists, primary care clinicians, social workers, and directors of addiction and mental health services to determine barriers and facilitators (ie, potential opportunities to promote change) to implementing harm reduction at the VHA. The study identified barriers to be a lack of knowledge, time, and comfort, while suggesting opportunities for improvement were engagement of champions, communication and educational strategies, and adaptation of existing infrastructure.¹¹

While these findings are insightful for the VHA to disseminate a harm reduction program, there remains a gap in assessing staff willingness to provide harm reduction services. Evidence on harm reduction services among veterans is limited and more research is needed to better understand the role of these services and acceptance among enrolled veterans and VHA staff. Specifically, more research is needed on health care practitioners’ (HCPs) perceptions of harm reduction use.

Mental health care practitioners frequently treat patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), making them an ideal initial cohort to assess willingness to provide harm reduction to this population. By analyzing mental HCPs’ perceptions, additional interventions could be identified, implemented, and evaluated to improve their willingness to provide harm reduction tools.

This project focused on mental health clinicians with prescribing privileges: physicians (allopathic and osteopathic physicians), nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and clinical pharmacist practitioners. Mental health prescribers were selected because they are uniquely positioned at the intersection of prevention and treatment in drug use. Furthermore, mental health prescribers at the VAMCs included in this study are usually the primary point of entry to SUD clinics. This mixed-methods study used an anonymous online survey and voluntary postsurvey discussions with mental health care prescribers to elaborate on their beliefs and attitudes, providing deeper insight into their responses regarding harm reduction.

Methods

This project was conducted by the Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) 5 academic detailing team. VISN 5 serves veterans from economically and demographically diverse areas in Maryland; Washington, DC; West Virginia; and portions of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky. VAMCs in Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC, serve a largely urban population while the 4 West Virginia facilities in Martinsburg, Huntington, Beckley, and Clarksburg, serve a largely rural population. West Virginia has been the epicenter of the opioid crisis and consistently has the highest drug overdose deaths per capita in the United States.¹² Among cities, Baltimore, Maryland, has the highest number of drug overdose deaths per capita with 174.1 per 100,000 people.^12,13

At the time of this project, the 6 VISN 5 VAMCs had established overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) programs. Although OEND programs have existed since 2013, VISN 5 SSPs and harm reduction services that provided fentanyl test strips were only available at the Martinsburg, Beckley, and Huntington VAMCs. All 6 VAMCs had substance use treatment programs with a variety of inpatient and outpatient mental health services. The Washington, DC and Baltimore VAMCs had opioid treatment programs that provided methadone maintenance.

The VISN 5 academic detailing team consists of 7 clinical pharmacists. These academic detailers plan annual systematic interventions to provide medical knowledge translation services on health-related campaigns. Academic detailers are trained in change management and motivational interviewing. They uniquely facilitate conversations with HCPs on various topics or campaigns, aiming for quality improvement and behavioral change through positive relationships and sharing resources.¹⁴ Academic detailing conversations and relationships with HCPs involve assessing and understanding HCP behaviors, including barriers and readiness to change to align with the goal of improving patient outcomes. Academic detailing has improved practice behaviors around providing OEND in VHA.¹⁵

To prepare for a harm reduction campaign, the academic detailers sought to gain insight from target VISN 5 mental health prescribers. Figure 1 outlines the project timeline, which started with emails inviting mental health prescribers to complete an anonymous online survey. Academic detailers from each site emailed mental health prescribers who completed the survey to determine interest in expanding on survey findings. Mental health prescribers who completed the survey could participate in a postsurvey discussion.

Surveys

Between January 29, 2024, and February 22, 2024, the academic detailers emailed facility mental health prescribers (N = 156) a link to an anonymous 15-question survey. The email informed recipients of the survey’s purpose: to gain a better understanding of prescriber perceptions of veterans with SUD and harm reduction programs and their willingness to provide harm reduction tools, to better determine interventions that could be implemented.

The survey collected prescriber demographic data and their perceptions of PWUD and harm reduction tools and education. Survey questions were extrapolated from validated surveys (eg, DDPPQ) and survey-based implicit association test.^16,17 The survey used multiple choice and 5-point Likert scale questions. Mental health prescribers were asked about their role at the VHA, years in practice, medical center affiliation, type of SUDs treated (eg, opioid, stimulant, alcohol, cannabis, or other), and whether they had previously met with academic detailers about harm reduction.

Respondents read statements about patients with or without SUD and provided Likert scale responses describing their regard, level of comfort, and preferences. The survey included Likert scale questions about respondents’ comfort in providing harm reduction education and supplies. Respondents also noted whether they believed harm reduction reduced substance use, harm reduction tools encourage people with SUD to continue using drugs, and whether HCPs can impact clinical change.

Postsurvey interviews with predetermined questions were conducted in-person or via video conference with ≥ 1 prescriber at each VAMC by an academic detailer. The postsurvey discussion offered an opportunity for respondents to further elaborate and describe previous experiences and current beliefs that may affect their attitudes toward people with SUD and their views on harm reduction. Participants received no compensation for survey completion or interviews.

Analysis

The Washington VAMC Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved this project as quality improvement with potential publication. No inferential statistics were calculated. Survey participant demographics were reported using frequencies and proportions reported for categorical variables. Notes from follow-up interviews were analyzed using the Prosci Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement (ADKAR) Model for Change Management.¹⁸ This framework is used by academic detailers to determine a prescriber’s stage of change, which helps select the appropriate resources to move the clinician along a change framework. Completed postsurvey interview sheets, including notes written by the academic detailer, were analyzed by the project lead (NJ) who reviewed each interview sheet and analysis with the academic detailer who led the discussion.

Results

Sixty-six respondents completed the online survey (42% response rate), and 7 mental health prescribers participated in a postsurvey discussion. Thirty-one participants (47%) were physicians and 17 (26%) were in practice for > 20 years. Response rates reflected the size of mental health staff at each VAMC at the time of the survey: 17 respondents (26%) worked at each of the Martinsburg and Baltimore VAMCs, with fewer at the other VAMCs (Table 1). Alcohol use disorder was the most commonly reported SUD treated (n = 62; 33%), followed by cannabis use disorder (n = 40; 21%), OUD (n = 38; 20%), and stimulant use disorder (n = 37; 20%).

Respondents felt comfortable and confident educating patients on ways to reduce harm related to substance use (91%; mean [SD], 4.24 [0.84]). Most prescribers surveyed (97%; mean [SD], 1.59 [0.68]) disagreed or strongly disagreed that harm reduction encourages patients with SUD to continue using drugs, and all prescribers surveyed disagreed that there is nothing they can do to encourage harm reduction. Survey results were mixed for personal comfort in working with people with SUD vs people without SUD (Figure 2). Respondents were most willing to provide naloxone (95%; mean [SD], 4.71 [0.78]), compared to fentanyl test strips (61%; mean [SD], 3.61 [1.41]) or syringes (39%; mean [SD], 3.18 [1.39]). Respondents were neutral or least willing to provide syringes (Figure 3).

Seven postsurvey interviews were completed between academic detailers and mental health clinicians across the 6 VAMCs. Respondents included 1 physician assistant, 1 nurse practitioner, 1 pharmacist, and 4 physicians. Notes were analyzed using the ADKAR Change Competency Model to organize clinician stages of change (Table 2).

Barriers identified by interviewees included lack of mobile services, lack of confidence and awareness of the availability of harm reduction at their respective medical center, lack of time to discuss harm reduction, negative sentiments toward providing SUD-related harm reduction, discomfort with harm reduction products, and lack of knowledge and time to learn about harm reduction services. Opportunities identified to drive change in practice included additional time allotted during patient appointments, educational discussions and presentations to increase knowledge of and comfort with harm reduction tools, a clear clinical patient care workflow and process for harm reduction services, and reinforcement strategies to recognize success.

Discussion

This project investigated mental health prescribers’ perceptions of harm reduction at VAMCs in West Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, DC. While previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of harm reduction tools, there is a lack of research on HCPs willingness to use these resources. This study suggests that while most respondents feel confident in and see the value of offering harm reduction resources to patients, a disparity exists between which resources HCPs are more likely to use and factors that would further enhance their ability to integrate harm reduction into practice. The follow-up interviews provided additional insight into the survey results.

Most respondents met the awareness and desire stage and moved to the knowledge, ability, or reinforcement ADKAR stage. It would be reasonable to extrapolate that most of the respondents felt comfortable with and were very likely to offer certain harm reduction tools. In the ADKAR interview analysis, the most common factors needed to drive change included having more time during patient appointments, additional education, clear processes for harm reduction services, and reinforcement strategies to sustain change. Respondents noted that harm reduction discussions took extra time in their already limited appointments with patients, which may have limited time for discussions surrounding all other mental health concerns. These discussions often necessitate in-depth conversations to accurately understand the patients’ needs. Given HCP time constraints, they may view harm reduction as lower in urgency and priority relative to other concerns. While most respondents were in the reinforcement phase, it is important to note the ADKAR model is fluid, and therefore an HCP could move forward or backward. This movement can be noted in the postsurvey interviews where, for example, prescriber 6 was determined to be in the reinforcement stage since they had already discussed harm reduction with patients. However, prescriber 6 also noted a barrier of unfamiliarity with local laws, which could shift them to the ADKAR knowledge stage.

Respondents noted that education through didactic sessions could lead to better incorporation of harm reduction into patient care. While harm reduction has evidence supporting its effectiveness, the respondents noted willingness to discuss harm reduction when treatment fails or the patient refuses treatment or referrals. Respondents expressed mixed opinions on use of harm reduction tools among patients with SUDs as some prescribers viewed harm reduction as part of a treatment plan and others viewed a return to drug use as a failure of treatment. Furthermore, respondents expressed hesitancy surrounding certain harm reduction tools, such as fentanyl test strips or syringes, and perceived these supplies as intended for medical use rather than harm reduction. HCPs may feel uncomfortable offering these supplies for drug use, despite their use for reducing risk.

Most responses were received from VAMCs with large mental health substance use programs. Respondents at larger, urban facilities (Washington, DC, and Baltimore, Maryland) expressed more hesitancy around using harm reduction tools despite having more harm reduction resources available compared to smaller or rural sites. These results align with previous studies that found no difference in prescribers providing medications for OUD in rural and urban VAMCs, showing urban sites, despite more resources, are not more willing to provide harm reduction or other addiction services.¹⁹ This evidence might indicate that urban sites may not use available resources (eg, methadone clinics) or that rural sites can provide just as robust medications for OUD care as urban sites.

Follow-up interview analysis indicated that HCPs lack knowledge of certain harm reduction tools. One-on-one peer discussions, like academic detailing, can facilitate discussions around a prescriber’s role in harm reduction, address gaps in knowledge by sharing what is available at the facilities for harm reduction, and suggest conversation points to help prescribers start harm reduction discussions with patients unwilling to begin treatment. Additionally, academic detailing can connect prescribers to available resources in the community to provide pragmatic approaches and suggestions. A clear and consistent treatment process may reduce barriers by reassuring prescribers they have support and by providing consistent directions so that prescribers do not waste time.

Reinforcement is important for sustaining change. VAMCs could consider positive feedback and other evidence-based reinforcement strategies (eg, social recognition, continuing education) to communicate that these changes are noticed and appreciated.²⁰ Late adopters may also be influenced by seeing positive feedback and results for peers. Systematic changes can be the catalyst for and sustain individual change.

Shifting perceptions and adopting change may be challenging, especially for SUD, which can be highly stigmatized. Promotion of successful change should be multifaceted and include both system and individual approaches. VHA systemic changes that could contribute to positive change include provision of time and access to SUD treatment training, a clear and sustainable treatment process, and reinforcement by recognizing success. In addition, facility leadership could provide support through dedicated time and resources during the workday for SUD treatment and harm reduction training. Support could empower HCPs and convey leadership support for harm reduction. This dedicated time could be used for didactic lecture sessions or individual meetings with academic detailers who can tailor discussions to the prescriber’s practice.

Strengths and Limitations

This survey included prescribers from a range of mental health care practice settings (eg, inpatient, outpatient clinic, rural, urban) and varied years of experience. This variety resulted in diverse perspectives and knowledge bases. Postsurvey interviews allowed academic detailers to gain deeper insight into answers in the survey, which can guide future interventions. Postsurvey interviews and application of the ADKAR model provided additional viewpoints on harm reduction.

A limitation of this project is the absence of an assessment of respondents’ harm reduction knowledge accuracy. Although respondents reported confidence in discussing harm reduction with patients, the survey did not assess whether their knowledge was accurate. Additionally, the survey did not ask about the availability of syringes and test strips at the prescribers’ VAMC, which could explain discrepancies in responses between naloxone and other forms of harm reduction (drug test strips and syringes were not available to all HCPs in the VISN). This lack of availability may have skewed responses. West Virginia SSPs, for example, were closed following legislative changes, which may contribute to stigma.²¹

Not all respondents were asked to do a follow-up interview, which limited the perspectives included in this study. Each site had ≥ 1 follow-up interview to limit the academic detailer’s workload. The initial survey included the phrase clean syringe, which can be stigmatizing and insinuate that PWUD are not clean. The preferred term would have been sterile syringe.²²

Conclusions

This survey of mental health prescribers found that most respondents are comfortable treating patients with SUD and confident in educating patients on harm reduction. Additionally, most respondents were more willing to provide naloxone vs fentanyl test strips or sterile syringes. A lack of time and awareness was the most frequently cited barrier to harm reduction services. As the VHA continues to expand access to harm reduction programs, which have proven to increase treatment rates and reduce disease, it will be imperative for HCPs, including mental health prescribers, to recognize the benefit of these programs for veterans with SUD. Future interventions should be designed and evaluated in collaboration with all HCPs and patients. This project determined ways to promote change for prescribers, but it will be important for further research to continue those conversations and incorporate patient perspectives.

The Public Health and Welfare Act of 1988 prohibited the use of federal funds to “provide individuals with hypodermic needles or syringes so that such individuals may use illegal drugs.”¹ Although the Act included the caveat that the US Surgeon General may determine that “a demonstration needle exchange program would be effective in reducing drug abuse,” and thus federal funds could be used, the legislation prohibited federal, state, and local agencies from funding syringe services programs (SSPs). SSPs use various harm reduction tools to improve public safety and reduce the potential harmful consequences of risky behaviors, similar to how using a seat belt while driving reduces the risk of injury or death.² SSPs are rooted in evidence-based practices, and several studies, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have found that people who use drugs (PWUDs) who use community-based SSPs are 5 times more likely to enter treatment than those who do not use these programs. Additionally, these programs have shown an estimated 50% reduction in HIV and hepatitis C infections.³

Amid a 2015 HIV outbreak in Indiana among individuals sharing needles for injection drug use, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill that partially lifted the federal funding restriction. Federal funds now may be used for operational costs that support SSPs but may not be used to purchase syringes themselves.⁴

Following the 2015 legislation, federal agencies began implementing SSPs. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) established SSPs at 3 medical centers in 2017.⁵ Veterans who participated in the programs were able to access supplies (eg, syringes, fentanyl test strips, wound care kits, and condoms) through donations to US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs). The success of these programs laid the foundation for the VHA to implement SSPs nationally. VHA SSPs provided access to naloxone (an opioid overdose reversal medication), fentanyl test strips, condoms, sterile syringe distribution, testing for blood-borne viruses, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, as well as educational materials and resources, and low-barrier access to drug treatment (eg, medications for opioid use disorder [OUD]).

In 2020, the Biden Administration outlined 7 drug policy priorities, which included enhancing evidence-based harm reduction efforts. ⁶ This policy also discussed mandates for federal agencies to remove barriers to federal funding for purchasing syringes and other harm reduction supplies. The VHA responded to the policy by publishing guidance that recommended VAMCs develop and/or ensure veterans have access to harm reduction services in the community, where state law is not legally more stringent.⁷

In 2025 the Trump administration Statement of Drug Policy Priorities encouraged local jurisdictions to increase the availability of drug test strips and naloxone.⁸ These significant policy shifts moved SSPs from being housed mostly in local public health departments and community-based organizations to also being available at health care facilities. ⁹ VAMCs have unique opportunities to provide universal health care that includes both prevention services and other medical management to PWUD.

One study assessed staff perceptions of PWUD at a VAMC in preparation for a training program about harm reduction. The results indicated an overall positive staff perception of PWUD, although only the Drug and Drug Problems Perceptions Questionnaire (DDPPQ) was administered, which assessed comfort of working with this population and not explicitly the use of harm reduction.¹⁰ Another study interviewed clinical pharmacists, primary care clinicians, social workers, and directors of addiction and mental health services to determine barriers and facilitators (ie, potential opportunities to promote change) to implementing harm reduction at the VHA. The study identified barriers to be a lack of knowledge, time, and comfort, while suggesting opportunities for improvement were engagement of champions, communication and educational strategies, and adaptation of existing infrastructure.¹¹

While these findings are insightful for the VHA to disseminate a harm reduction program, there remains a gap in assessing staff willingness to provide harm reduction services. Evidence on harm reduction services among veterans is limited and more research is needed to better understand the role of these services and acceptance among enrolled veterans and VHA staff. Specifically, more research is needed on health care practitioners’ (HCPs) perceptions of harm reduction use.

Mental health care practitioners frequently treat patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), making them an ideal initial cohort to assess willingness to provide harm reduction to this population. By analyzing mental HCPs’ perceptions, additional interventions could be identified, implemented, and evaluated to improve their willingness to provide harm reduction tools.

This project focused on mental health clinicians with prescribing privileges: physicians (allopathic and osteopathic physicians), nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and clinical pharmacist practitioners. Mental health prescribers were selected because they are uniquely positioned at the intersection of prevention and treatment in drug use. Furthermore, mental health prescribers at the VAMCs included in this study are usually the primary point of entry to SUD clinics. This mixed-methods study used an anonymous online survey and voluntary postsurvey discussions with mental health care prescribers to elaborate on their beliefs and attitudes, providing deeper insight into their responses regarding harm reduction.

Methods

This project was conducted by the Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) 5 academic detailing team. VISN 5 serves veterans from economically and demographically diverse areas in Maryland; Washington, DC; West Virginia; and portions of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky. VAMCs in Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC, serve a largely urban population while the 4 West Virginia facilities in Martinsburg, Huntington, Beckley, and Clarksburg, serve a largely rural population. West Virginia has been the epicenter of the opioid crisis and consistently has the highest drug overdose deaths per capita in the United States.¹² Among cities, Baltimore, Maryland, has the highest number of drug overdose deaths per capita with 174.1 per 100,000 people.^12,13

At the time of this project, the 6 VISN 5 VAMCs had established overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) programs. Although OEND programs have existed since 2013, VISN 5 SSPs and harm reduction services that provided fentanyl test strips were only available at the Martinsburg, Beckley, and Huntington VAMCs. All 6 VAMCs had substance use treatment programs with a variety of inpatient and outpatient mental health services. The Washington, DC and Baltimore VAMCs had opioid treatment programs that provided methadone maintenance.

The VISN 5 academic detailing team consists of 7 clinical pharmacists. These academic detailers plan annual systematic interventions to provide medical knowledge translation services on health-related campaigns. Academic detailers are trained in change management and motivational interviewing. They uniquely facilitate conversations with HCPs on various topics or campaigns, aiming for quality improvement and behavioral change through positive relationships and sharing resources.¹⁴ Academic detailing conversations and relationships with HCPs involve assessing and understanding HCP behaviors, including barriers and readiness to change to align with the goal of improving patient outcomes. Academic detailing has improved practice behaviors around providing OEND in VHA.¹⁵

To prepare for a harm reduction campaign, the academic detailers sought to gain insight from target VISN 5 mental health prescribers. Figure 1 outlines the project timeline, which started with emails inviting mental health prescribers to complete an anonymous online survey. Academic detailers from each site emailed mental health prescribers who completed the survey to determine interest in expanding on survey findings. Mental health prescribers who completed the survey could participate in a postsurvey discussion.

Surveys

Between January 29, 2024, and February 22, 2024, the academic detailers emailed facility mental health prescribers (N = 156) a link to an anonymous 15-question survey. The email informed recipients of the survey’s purpose: to gain a better understanding of prescriber perceptions of veterans with SUD and harm reduction programs and their willingness to provide harm reduction tools, to better determine interventions that could be implemented.

The survey collected prescriber demographic data and their perceptions of PWUD and harm reduction tools and education. Survey questions were extrapolated from validated surveys (eg, DDPPQ) and survey-based implicit association test.^16,17 The survey used multiple choice and 5-point Likert scale questions. Mental health prescribers were asked about their role at the VHA, years in practice, medical center affiliation, type of SUDs treated (eg, opioid, stimulant, alcohol, cannabis, or other), and whether they had previously met with academic detailers about harm reduction.

Respondents read statements about patients with or without SUD and provided Likert scale responses describing their regard, level of comfort, and preferences. The survey included Likert scale questions about respondents’ comfort in providing harm reduction education and supplies. Respondents also noted whether they believed harm reduction reduced substance use, harm reduction tools encourage people with SUD to continue using drugs, and whether HCPs can impact clinical change.

Postsurvey interviews with predetermined questions were conducted in-person or via video conference with ≥ 1 prescriber at each VAMC by an academic detailer. The postsurvey discussion offered an opportunity for respondents to further elaborate and describe previous experiences and current beliefs that may affect their attitudes toward people with SUD and their views on harm reduction. Participants received no compensation for survey completion or interviews.

Analysis

The Washington VAMC Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved this project as quality improvement with potential publication. No inferential statistics were calculated. Survey participant demographics were reported using frequencies and proportions reported for categorical variables. Notes from follow-up interviews were analyzed using the Prosci Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement (ADKAR) Model for Change Management.¹⁸ This framework is used by academic detailers to determine a prescriber’s stage of change, which helps select the appropriate resources to move the clinician along a change framework. Completed postsurvey interview sheets, including notes written by the academic detailer, were analyzed by the project lead (NJ) who reviewed each interview sheet and analysis with the academic detailer who led the discussion.

Results

Sixty-six respondents completed the online survey (42% response rate), and 7 mental health prescribers participated in a postsurvey discussion. Thirty-one participants (47%) were physicians and 17 (26%) were in practice for > 20 years. Response rates reflected the size of mental health staff at each VAMC at the time of the survey: 17 respondents (26%) worked at each of the Martinsburg and Baltimore VAMCs, with fewer at the other VAMCs (Table 1). Alcohol use disorder was the most commonly reported SUD treated (n = 62; 33%), followed by cannabis use disorder (n = 40; 21%), OUD (n = 38; 20%), and stimulant use disorder (n = 37; 20%).

Respondents felt comfortable and confident educating patients on ways to reduce harm related to substance use (91%; mean [SD], 4.24 [0.84]). Most prescribers surveyed (97%; mean [SD], 1.59 [0.68]) disagreed or strongly disagreed that harm reduction encourages patients with SUD to continue using drugs, and all prescribers surveyed disagreed that there is nothing they can do to encourage harm reduction. Survey results were mixed for personal comfort in working with people with SUD vs people without SUD (Figure 2). Respondents were most willing to provide naloxone (95%; mean [SD], 4.71 [0.78]), compared to fentanyl test strips (61%; mean [SD], 3.61 [1.41]) or syringes (39%; mean [SD], 3.18 [1.39]). Respondents were neutral or least willing to provide syringes (Figure 3).

Seven postsurvey interviews were completed between academic detailers and mental health clinicians across the 6 VAMCs. Respondents included 1 physician assistant, 1 nurse practitioner, 1 pharmacist, and 4 physicians. Notes were analyzed using the ADKAR Change Competency Model to organize clinician stages of change (Table 2).

Barriers identified by interviewees included lack of mobile services, lack of confidence and awareness of the availability of harm reduction at their respective medical center, lack of time to discuss harm reduction, negative sentiments toward providing SUD-related harm reduction, discomfort with harm reduction products, and lack of knowledge and time to learn about harm reduction services. Opportunities identified to drive change in practice included additional time allotted during patient appointments, educational discussions and presentations to increase knowledge of and comfort with harm reduction tools, a clear clinical patient care workflow and process for harm reduction services, and reinforcement strategies to recognize success.

Discussion

This project investigated mental health prescribers’ perceptions of harm reduction at VAMCs in West Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, DC. While previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of harm reduction tools, there is a lack of research on HCPs willingness to use these resources. This study suggests that while most respondents feel confident in and see the value of offering harm reduction resources to patients, a disparity exists between which resources HCPs are more likely to use and factors that would further enhance their ability to integrate harm reduction into practice. The follow-up interviews provided additional insight into the survey results.

Most respondents met the awareness and desire stage and moved to the knowledge, ability, or reinforcement ADKAR stage. It would be reasonable to extrapolate that most of the respondents felt comfortable with and were very likely to offer certain harm reduction tools. In the ADKAR interview analysis, the most common factors needed to drive change included having more time during patient appointments, additional education, clear processes for harm reduction services, and reinforcement strategies to sustain change. Respondents noted that harm reduction discussions took extra time in their already limited appointments with patients, which may have limited time for discussions surrounding all other mental health concerns. These discussions often necessitate in-depth conversations to accurately understand the patients’ needs. Given HCP time constraints, they may view harm reduction as lower in urgency and priority relative to other concerns. While most respondents were in the reinforcement phase, it is important to note the ADKAR model is fluid, and therefore an HCP could move forward or backward. This movement can be noted in the postsurvey interviews where, for example, prescriber 6 was determined to be in the reinforcement stage since they had already discussed harm reduction with patients. However, prescriber 6 also noted a barrier of unfamiliarity with local laws, which could shift them to the ADKAR knowledge stage.

Respondents noted that education through didactic sessions could lead to better incorporation of harm reduction into patient care. While harm reduction has evidence supporting its effectiveness, the respondents noted willingness to discuss harm reduction when treatment fails or the patient refuses treatment or referrals. Respondents expressed mixed opinions on use of harm reduction tools among patients with SUDs as some prescribers viewed harm reduction as part of a treatment plan and others viewed a return to drug use as a failure of treatment. Furthermore, respondents expressed hesitancy surrounding certain harm reduction tools, such as fentanyl test strips or syringes, and perceived these supplies as intended for medical use rather than harm reduction. HCPs may feel uncomfortable offering these supplies for drug use, despite their use for reducing risk.

Most responses were received from VAMCs with large mental health substance use programs. Respondents at larger, urban facilities (Washington, DC, and Baltimore, Maryland) expressed more hesitancy around using harm reduction tools despite having more harm reduction resources available compared to smaller or rural sites. These results align with previous studies that found no difference in prescribers providing medications for OUD in rural and urban VAMCs, showing urban sites, despite more resources, are not more willing to provide harm reduction or other addiction services.¹⁹ This evidence might indicate that urban sites may not use available resources (eg, methadone clinics) or that rural sites can provide just as robust medications for OUD care as urban sites.

Follow-up interview analysis indicated that HCPs lack knowledge of certain harm reduction tools. One-on-one peer discussions, like academic detailing, can facilitate discussions around a prescriber’s role in harm reduction, address gaps in knowledge by sharing what is available at the facilities for harm reduction, and suggest conversation points to help prescribers start harm reduction discussions with patients unwilling to begin treatment. Additionally, academic detailing can connect prescribers to available resources in the community to provide pragmatic approaches and suggestions. A clear and consistent treatment process may reduce barriers by reassuring prescribers they have support and by providing consistent directions so that prescribers do not waste time.

Reinforcement is important for sustaining change. VAMCs could consider positive feedback and other evidence-based reinforcement strategies (eg, social recognition, continuing education) to communicate that these changes are noticed and appreciated.²⁰ Late adopters may also be influenced by seeing positive feedback and results for peers. Systematic changes can be the catalyst for and sustain individual change.

Shifting perceptions and adopting change may be challenging, especially for SUD, which can be highly stigmatized. Promotion of successful change should be multifaceted and include both system and individual approaches. VHA systemic changes that could contribute to positive change include provision of time and access to SUD treatment training, a clear and sustainable treatment process, and reinforcement by recognizing success. In addition, facility leadership could provide support through dedicated time and resources during the workday for SUD treatment and harm reduction training. Support could empower HCPs and convey leadership support for harm reduction. This dedicated time could be used for didactic lecture sessions or individual meetings with academic detailers who can tailor discussions to the prescriber’s practice.

Strengths and Limitations

This survey included prescribers from a range of mental health care practice settings (eg, inpatient, outpatient clinic, rural, urban) and varied years of experience. This variety resulted in diverse perspectives and knowledge bases. Postsurvey interviews allowed academic detailers to gain deeper insight into answers in the survey, which can guide future interventions. Postsurvey interviews and application of the ADKAR model provided additional viewpoints on harm reduction.

A limitation of this project is the absence of an assessment of respondents’ harm reduction knowledge accuracy. Although respondents reported confidence in discussing harm reduction with patients, the survey did not assess whether their knowledge was accurate. Additionally, the survey did not ask about the availability of syringes and test strips at the prescribers’ VAMC, which could explain discrepancies in responses between naloxone and other forms of harm reduction (drug test strips and syringes were not available to all HCPs in the VISN). This lack of availability may have skewed responses. West Virginia SSPs, for example, were closed following legislative changes, which may contribute to stigma.²¹

Not all respondents were asked to do a follow-up interview, which limited the perspectives included in this study. Each site had ≥ 1 follow-up interview to limit the academic detailer’s workload. The initial survey included the phrase clean syringe, which can be stigmatizing and insinuate that PWUD are not clean. The preferred term would have been sterile syringe.²²

Conclusions

This survey of mental health prescribers found that most respondents are comfortable treating patients with SUD and confident in educating patients on harm reduction. Additionally, most respondents were more willing to provide naloxone vs fentanyl test strips or sterile syringes. A lack of time and awareness was the most frequently cited barrier to harm reduction services. As the VHA continues to expand access to harm reduction programs, which have proven to increase treatment rates and reduce disease, it will be imperative for HCPs, including mental health prescribers, to recognize the benefit of these programs for veterans with SUD. Future interventions should be designed and evaluated in collaboration with all HCPs and patients. This project determined ways to promote change for prescribers, but it will be important for further research to continue those conversations and incorporate patient perspectives.

The Public Health and Welfare Act of 1988 prohibited the use of federal funds to “provide individuals with hypodermic needles or syringes so that such individuals may use illegal drugs.”¹ Although the Act included the caveat that the US Surgeon General may determine that “a demonstration needle exchange program would be effective in reducing drug abuse,” and thus federal funds could be used, the legislation prohibited federal, state, and local agencies from funding syringe services programs (SSPs). SSPs use various harm reduction tools to improve public safety and reduce the potential harmful consequences of risky behaviors, similar to how using a seat belt while driving reduces the risk of injury or death.² SSPs are rooted in evidence-based practices, and several studies, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have found that people who use drugs (PWUDs) who use community-based SSPs are 5 times more likely to enter treatment than those who do not use these programs. Additionally, these programs have shown an estimated 50% reduction in HIV and hepatitis C infections.³

Amid a 2015 HIV outbreak in Indiana among individuals sharing needles for injection drug use, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill that partially lifted the federal funding restriction. Federal funds now may be used for operational costs that support SSPs but may not be used to purchase syringes themselves.⁴

Following the 2015 legislation, federal agencies began implementing SSPs. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) established SSPs at 3 medical centers in 2017.⁵ Veterans who participated in the programs were able to access supplies (eg, syringes, fentanyl test strips, wound care kits, and condoms) through donations to US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs). The success of these programs laid the foundation for the VHA to implement SSPs nationally. VHA SSPs provided access to naloxone (an opioid overdose reversal medication), fentanyl test strips, condoms, sterile syringe distribution, testing for blood-borne viruses, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, as well as educational materials and resources, and low-barrier access to drug treatment (eg, medications for opioid use disorder [OUD]).

In 2020, the Biden Administration outlined 7 drug policy priorities, which included enhancing evidence-based harm reduction efforts. ⁶ This policy also discussed mandates for federal agencies to remove barriers to federal funding for purchasing syringes and other harm reduction supplies. The VHA responded to the policy by publishing guidance that recommended VAMCs develop and/or ensure veterans have access to harm reduction services in the community, where state law is not legally more stringent.⁷

In 2025 the Trump administration Statement of Drug Policy Priorities encouraged local jurisdictions to increase the availability of drug test strips and naloxone.⁸ These significant policy shifts moved SSPs from being housed mostly in local public health departments and community-based organizations to also being available at health care facilities. ⁹ VAMCs have unique opportunities to provide universal health care that includes both prevention services and other medical management to PWUD.

One study assessed staff perceptions of PWUD at a VAMC in preparation for a training program about harm reduction. The results indicated an overall positive staff perception of PWUD, although only the Drug and Drug Problems Perceptions Questionnaire (DDPPQ) was administered, which assessed comfort of working with this population and not explicitly the use of harm reduction.¹⁰ Another study interviewed clinical pharmacists, primary care clinicians, social workers, and directors of addiction and mental health services to determine barriers and facilitators (ie, potential opportunities to promote change) to implementing harm reduction at the VHA. The study identified barriers to be a lack of knowledge, time, and comfort, while suggesting opportunities for improvement were engagement of champions, communication and educational strategies, and adaptation of existing infrastructure.¹¹

While these findings are insightful for the VHA to disseminate a harm reduction program, there remains a gap in assessing staff willingness to provide harm reduction services. Evidence on harm reduction services among veterans is limited and more research is needed to better understand the role of these services and acceptance among enrolled veterans and VHA staff. Specifically, more research is needed on health care practitioners’ (HCPs) perceptions of harm reduction use.

Mental health care practitioners frequently treat patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), making them an ideal initial cohort to assess willingness to provide harm reduction to this population. By analyzing mental HCPs’ perceptions, additional interventions could be identified, implemented, and evaluated to improve their willingness to provide harm reduction tools.

This project focused on mental health clinicians with prescribing privileges: physicians (allopathic and osteopathic physicians), nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and clinical pharmacist practitioners. Mental health prescribers were selected because they are uniquely positioned at the intersection of prevention and treatment in drug use. Furthermore, mental health prescribers at the VAMCs included in this study are usually the primary point of entry to SUD clinics. This mixed-methods study used an anonymous online survey and voluntary postsurvey discussions with mental health care prescribers to elaborate on their beliefs and attitudes, providing deeper insight into their responses regarding harm reduction.

Methods

This project was conducted by the Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) 5 academic detailing team. VISN 5 serves veterans from economically and demographically diverse areas in Maryland; Washington, DC; West Virginia; and portions of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky. VAMCs in Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC, serve a largely urban population while the 4 West Virginia facilities in Martinsburg, Huntington, Beckley, and Clarksburg, serve a largely rural population. West Virginia has been the epicenter of the opioid crisis and consistently has the highest drug overdose deaths per capita in the United States.¹² Among cities, Baltimore, Maryland, has the highest number of drug overdose deaths per capita with 174.1 per 100,000 people.^12,13

At the time of this project, the 6 VISN 5 VAMCs had established overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) programs. Although OEND programs have existed since 2013, VISN 5 SSPs and harm reduction services that provided fentanyl test strips were only available at the Martinsburg, Beckley, and Huntington VAMCs. All 6 VAMCs had substance use treatment programs with a variety of inpatient and outpatient mental health services. The Washington, DC and Baltimore VAMCs had opioid treatment programs that provided methadone maintenance.

The VISN 5 academic detailing team consists of 7 clinical pharmacists. These academic detailers plan annual systematic interventions to provide medical knowledge translation services on health-related campaigns. Academic detailers are trained in change management and motivational interviewing. They uniquely facilitate conversations with HCPs on various topics or campaigns, aiming for quality improvement and behavioral change through positive relationships and sharing resources.¹⁴ Academic detailing conversations and relationships with HCPs involve assessing and understanding HCP behaviors, including barriers and readiness to change to align with the goal of improving patient outcomes. Academic detailing has improved practice behaviors around providing OEND in VHA.¹⁵

To prepare for a harm reduction campaign, the academic detailers sought to gain insight from target VISN 5 mental health prescribers. Figure 1 outlines the project timeline, which started with emails inviting mental health prescribers to complete an anonymous online survey. Academic detailers from each site emailed mental health prescribers who completed the survey to determine interest in expanding on survey findings. Mental health prescribers who completed the survey could participate in a postsurvey discussion.

Surveys

Between January 29, 2024, and February 22, 2024, the academic detailers emailed facility mental health prescribers (N = 156) a link to an anonymous 15-question survey. The email informed recipients of the survey’s purpose: to gain a better understanding of prescriber perceptions of veterans with SUD and harm reduction programs and their willingness to provide harm reduction tools, to better determine interventions that could be implemented.

The survey collected prescriber demographic data and their perceptions of PWUD and harm reduction tools and education. Survey questions were extrapolated from validated surveys (eg, DDPPQ) and survey-based implicit association test.^16,17 The survey used multiple choice and 5-point Likert scale questions. Mental health prescribers were asked about their role at the VHA, years in practice, medical center affiliation, type of SUDs treated (eg, opioid, stimulant, alcohol, cannabis, or other), and whether they had previously met with academic detailers about harm reduction.

Respondents read statements about patients with or without SUD and provided Likert scale responses describing their regard, level of comfort, and preferences. The survey included Likert scale questions about respondents’ comfort in providing harm reduction education and supplies. Respondents also noted whether they believed harm reduction reduced substance use, harm reduction tools encourage people with SUD to continue using drugs, and whether HCPs can impact clinical change.

Postsurvey interviews with predetermined questions were conducted in-person or via video conference with ≥ 1 prescriber at each VAMC by an academic detailer. The postsurvey discussion offered an opportunity for respondents to further elaborate and describe previous experiences and current beliefs that may affect their attitudes toward people with SUD and their views on harm reduction. Participants received no compensation for survey completion or interviews.

Analysis

The Washington VAMC Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved this project as quality improvement with potential publication. No inferential statistics were calculated. Survey participant demographics were reported using frequencies and proportions reported for categorical variables. Notes from follow-up interviews were analyzed using the Prosci Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement (ADKAR) Model for Change Management.¹⁸ This framework is used by academic detailers to determine a prescriber’s stage of change, which helps select the appropriate resources to move the clinician along a change framework. Completed postsurvey interview sheets, including notes written by the academic detailer, were analyzed by the project lead (NJ) who reviewed each interview sheet and analysis with the academic detailer who led the discussion.

Results

Sixty-six respondents completed the online survey (42% response rate), and 7 mental health prescribers participated in a postsurvey discussion. Thirty-one participants (47%) were physicians and 17 (26%) were in practice for > 20 years. Response rates reflected the size of mental health staff at each VAMC at the time of the survey: 17 respondents (26%) worked at each of the Martinsburg and Baltimore VAMCs, with fewer at the other VAMCs (Table 1). Alcohol use disorder was the most commonly reported SUD treated (n = 62; 33%), followed by cannabis use disorder (n = 40; 21%), OUD (n = 38; 20%), and stimulant use disorder (n = 37; 20%).

Respondents felt comfortable and confident educating patients on ways to reduce harm related to substance use (91%; mean [SD], 4.24 [0.84]). Most prescribers surveyed (97%; mean [SD], 1.59 [0.68]) disagreed or strongly disagreed that harm reduction encourages patients with SUD to continue using drugs, and all prescribers surveyed disagreed that there is nothing they can do to encourage harm reduction. Survey results were mixed for personal comfort in working with people with SUD vs people without SUD (Figure 2). Respondents were most willing to provide naloxone (95%; mean [SD], 4.71 [0.78]), compared to fentanyl test strips (61%; mean [SD], 3.61 [1.41]) or syringes (39%; mean [SD], 3.18 [1.39]). Respondents were neutral or least willing to provide syringes (Figure 3).

Seven postsurvey interviews were completed between academic detailers and mental health clinicians across the 6 VAMCs. Respondents included 1 physician assistant, 1 nurse practitioner, 1 pharmacist, and 4 physicians. Notes were analyzed using the ADKAR Change Competency Model to organize clinician stages of change (Table 2).

Barriers identified by interviewees included lack of mobile services, lack of confidence and awareness of the availability of harm reduction at their respective medical center, lack of time to discuss harm reduction, negative sentiments toward providing SUD-related harm reduction, discomfort with harm reduction products, and lack of knowledge and time to learn about harm reduction services. Opportunities identified to drive change in practice included additional time allotted during patient appointments, educational discussions and presentations to increase knowledge of and comfort with harm reduction tools, a clear clinical patient care workflow and process for harm reduction services, and reinforcement strategies to recognize success.

Discussion

This project investigated mental health prescribers’ perceptions of harm reduction at VAMCs in West Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, DC. While previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of harm reduction tools, there is a lack of research on HCPs willingness to use these resources. This study suggests that while most respondents feel confident in and see the value of offering harm reduction resources to patients, a disparity exists between which resources HCPs are more likely to use and factors that would further enhance their ability to integrate harm reduction into practice. The follow-up interviews provided additional insight into the survey results.

Most respondents met the awareness and desire stage and moved to the knowledge, ability, or reinforcement ADKAR stage. It would be reasonable to extrapolate that most of the respondents felt comfortable with and were very likely to offer certain harm reduction tools. In the ADKAR interview analysis, the most common factors needed to drive change included having more time during patient appointments, additional education, clear processes for harm reduction services, and reinforcement strategies to sustain change. Respondents noted that harm reduction discussions took extra time in their already limited appointments with patients, which may have limited time for discussions surrounding all other mental health concerns. These discussions often necessitate in-depth conversations to accurately understand the patients’ needs. Given HCP time constraints, they may view harm reduction as lower in urgency and priority relative to other concerns. While most respondents were in the reinforcement phase, it is important to note the ADKAR model is fluid, and therefore an HCP could move forward or backward. This movement can be noted in the postsurvey interviews where, for example, prescriber 6 was determined to be in the reinforcement stage since they had already discussed harm reduction with patients. However, prescriber 6 also noted a barrier of unfamiliarity with local laws, which could shift them to the ADKAR knowledge stage.

Respondents noted that education through didactic sessions could lead to better incorporation of harm reduction into patient care. While harm reduction has evidence supporting its effectiveness, the respondents noted willingness to discuss harm reduction when treatment fails or the patient refuses treatment or referrals. Respondents expressed mixed opinions on use of harm reduction tools among patients with SUDs as some prescribers viewed harm reduction as part of a treatment plan and others viewed a return to drug use as a failure of treatment. Furthermore, respondents expressed hesitancy surrounding certain harm reduction tools, such as fentanyl test strips or syringes, and perceived these supplies as intended for medical use rather than harm reduction. HCPs may feel uncomfortable offering these supplies for drug use, despite their use for reducing risk.

Most responses were received from VAMCs with large mental health substance use programs. Respondents at larger, urban facilities (Washington, DC, and Baltimore, Maryland) expressed more hesitancy around using harm reduction tools despite having more harm reduction resources available compared to smaller or rural sites. These results align with previous studies that found no difference in prescribers providing medications for OUD in rural and urban VAMCs, showing urban sites, despite more resources, are not more willing to provide harm reduction or other addiction services.¹⁹ This evidence might indicate that urban sites may not use available resources (eg, methadone clinics) or that rural sites can provide just as robust medications for OUD care as urban sites.

Follow-up interview analysis indicated that HCPs lack knowledge of certain harm reduction tools. One-on-one peer discussions, like academic detailing, can facilitate discussions around a prescriber’s role in harm reduction, address gaps in knowledge by sharing what is available at the facilities for harm reduction, and suggest conversation points to help prescribers start harm reduction discussions with patients unwilling to begin treatment. Additionally, academic detailing can connect prescribers to available resources in the community to provide pragmatic approaches and suggestions. A clear and consistent treatment process may reduce barriers by reassuring prescribers they have support and by providing consistent directions so that prescribers do not waste time.

Reinforcement is important for sustaining change. VAMCs could consider positive feedback and other evidence-based reinforcement strategies (eg, social recognition, continuing education) to communicate that these changes are noticed and appreciated.²⁰ Late adopters may also be influenced by seeing positive feedback and results for peers. Systematic changes can be the catalyst for and sustain individual change.

Shifting perceptions and adopting change may be challenging, especially for SUD, which can be highly stigmatized. Promotion of successful change should be multifaceted and include both system and individual approaches. VHA systemic changes that could contribute to positive change include provision of time and access to SUD treatment training, a clear and sustainable treatment process, and reinforcement by recognizing success. In addition, facility leadership could provide support through dedicated time and resources during the workday for SUD treatment and harm reduction training. Support could empower HCPs and convey leadership support for harm reduction. This dedicated time could be used for didactic lecture sessions or individual meetings with academic detailers who can tailor discussions to the prescriber’s practice.

Strengths and Limitations

This survey included prescribers from a range of mental health care practice settings (eg, inpatient, outpatient clinic, rural, urban) and varied years of experience. This variety resulted in diverse perspectives and knowledge bases. Postsurvey interviews allowed academic detailers to gain deeper insight into answers in the survey, which can guide future interventions. Postsurvey interviews and application of the ADKAR model provided additional viewpoints on harm reduction.

A limitation of this project is the absence of an assessment of respondents’ harm reduction knowledge accuracy. Although respondents reported confidence in discussing harm reduction with patients, the survey did not assess whether their knowledge was accurate. Additionally, the survey did not ask about the availability of syringes and test strips at the prescribers’ VAMC, which could explain discrepancies in responses between naloxone and other forms of harm reduction (drug test strips and syringes were not available to all HCPs in the VISN). This lack of availability may have skewed responses. West Virginia SSPs, for example, were closed following legislative changes, which may contribute to stigma.²¹

Not all respondents were asked to do a follow-up interview, which limited the perspectives included in this study. Each site had ≥ 1 follow-up interview to limit the academic detailer’s workload. The initial survey included the phrase clean syringe, which can be stigmatizing and insinuate that PWUD are not clean. The preferred term would have been sterile syringe.²²

Conclusions

This survey of mental health prescribers found that most respondents are comfortable treating patients with SUD and confident in educating patients on harm reduction. Additionally, most respondents were more willing to provide naloxone vs fentanyl test strips or sterile syringes. A lack of time and awareness was the most frequently cited barrier to harm reduction services. As the VHA continues to expand access to harm reduction programs, which have proven to increase treatment rates and reduce disease, it will be imperative for HCPs, including mental health prescribers, to recognize the benefit of these programs for veterans with SUD. Future interventions should be designed and evaluated in collaboration with all HCPs and patients. This project determined ways to promote change for prescribers, but it will be important for further research to continue those conversations and incorporate patient perspectives.