PTSD

Trauma-focused evidence-based psychotherapies (TF-EBPs), including cognitive processing therapy (CPT) and prolonged exposure therapy (PE), are recommended treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in clinical practice guidelines.^1-3 To increase initiation of these treatments, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) used a large-scale dissemination and implementation effort to improve access to TF-EBP.^4,5 These efforts achieved modest success, increasing prevalence of TF-EBP from a handful of veterans in 2004 to an annual prevalence of 14.6% for CPT and 4.3% for PE in 2014.⁶

Throughout these efforts, qualitative studies have been used to better understand veterans’ perspectives on receiving TF-EBP care.^7-18 Barriers to initiation of and engagement in TF-EBP and PTSD care have been identified from these qualitative studies. One identified barrier was lack of knowledge—particularly lack of knowledge about what is meant by a PTSD diagnosis and available treatments.^7-10 Stigma (ie, automatic negative associations) toward mental health problems or seeking mental health care also has been identified as a barrier to initiation.^7,10-14 Perceptions of poor alignment between treatment and veteran goals, including lack of buy-in for the rationale, served as barriers to initiation and engagement.^8,15-18

Using prior qualitative work, numerous initiatives have been developed to reduce stigma, facilitate conversations about how treatment aligns with goals, and fill knowledge gaps, particularly through online resources and shared decision-making.^19,20 To better inform the state of veterans’ experiences with TF-EBP, a qualitative investigation was conducted involving veterans who recently initiated TF-EBP. Themes directly related to transitions to TF-EBP were identified; however, all veterans interviewed also described their experiences with TFEBP engagement and mental health care. Consistent with recommendations for qualitative methods, this study extends prior work on transitions to TF-EBP by describing themes with a distinct focus on the experience of engaging with TF-EBP and mental health care.^21,22

Methods

The experiences of veterans who were transitioning into TF-EBPs were collected in semistructured interviews and analyzed. The semistructured interview guide was developed and refined in consultation with both qualitative methods experts and PTSD treatment experts to ensure that 6 content domains were appropriately queried: PTSD treatment options, cultural sensitivity of treatment, PTSD treatment selection, transition criteria, beliefs about stabilization treatment, and treatment needs/preferences.

Participants were identified using the VA Corporate Data Warehouse and included post-9/11 veterans who had recently initiated CPT or PE for the first time between September 1, 2021, and September 1, 2022. More details of participant selection are available in Holder et al.²¹ From a population of 10,814 patients, stratified random sampling generated a recruitment pool of 200 veterans for further outreach. The strata were defined such that this recruitment pool had similar proportions of demographic characteristics (ie, gender, race, ethnicity) to the population of eligible veterans, equivalent distributions of time to CPT or PE initiation (ie, 33.3% < 1 year, 33.3% 1-3 years, and 33.3% > 3 years), and adequate variability in TF-EBP type (ie, 66.7% CPT, 33.3% PE). A manual chart review in the recruitment pool excluded 12 veterans who did not initiate CPT or PE, 1 veteran with evidence of current active psychosis and/or cognitive impairment that would likely preclude comprehension of study materials, and 1 who was deceased.

Eligible veterans from the recruitment pool were contacted in groups of 25. First, a recruitment letter with study information and instructions to opt-out of further contact was mailed or emailed to veterans. After 2 weeks, veterans who had not responded were contacted by phone up to 3 times. Veterans interested in participating were scheduled for a 1-time visit that included verbal consent and the qualitative interview. Metrics were established a priori to ensure an adequately diverse and inclusive sample. Specifically, a minimum number of racial and/or ethnic minority veterans (33%) and women veterans (20%) were sought. Equal distribution across the 3 categories of time from first mental health visit to CPT/PE initiation also was targeted. Throughout enrollment, recruitment efforts were adapted to meet these metrics in the emerging sample. While the goal was to generate a diverse and inclusive sample using these methods, the sample was not intended to be representative of the population.

Of the 186 eligible participants, 21 declined participation and 26 could not be reached. The targeted sample was reached after exhausting contact for 47 veterans and contacting 80 veterans for a final response rate of 40% among fully contacted veterans and 27% among veterans with any contact. The final sample included 30 veterans who received CPT or PE in VA facilities (Table).

After veterans provided verbal consent for study participation, sociodemographic information was verbally reported, and a 30- to 60-minute semistructured qualitative phone interview was recorded and transcribed. Veterans received $40 for participation. All procedures were approved by the University of California San Francisco Institutional Review Board.

Qualitative Data Analysis

Rapid analysis procedures were used to analyze qualitative data. This approach is suitable for focused, moderately structured qualitative analyses in health services research and facilitates rapid dissemination to stakeholders.²³ The qualitative analysts were 2 clinical psychologists with expertise in PTSD treatment (NH primary and RR secondary). Consistent with rapid analysis procedures, analysts prepared a templated summary (including relevant quotations) of each interview, organized by the prespecified content domains. Interviews were summarized independently, compared to ensure consistency, and discrepancies were resolved through review of the interview source materials. Individual summary templates were combined into a master analytic matrix to facilitate the identification of patterns and delineation of themes. Analysts routinely met to identify, discuss, and refine preliminary themes, revisiting source materials to reach consensus as needed.

Results

Fifteen themes were identified and organized into 2 distinct focus areas: themes directly related to the transition to TF-EBP (8 themes) and themes related to veterans’ experiences with TF-EBP and general mental health care with potential process-improvement implications (7 themes).²¹ Seven themes were identified related to experiences with TF-EBP engagement and VA mental health care. The 7 themes related to TF-EBP engagement and VA mental health care themes are summarized with exemplary quotations.

Veterans want a better understanding of psychotherapy and engaging with VA mental health. Veterans reported that they generally had a poor or “nebulous” understanding about the experience of psychotherapy. For example, veterans exhibited confusion about whether certain experiences were equivalent to participating in psychotherapy. They were sometimes unable to distinguish between interactions such as assessment, disability evaluations, peer support, and psychotherapy. One veteran described a conversation with a TFEBP therapist about prior treatment:

She [asked], have you ever been, or gone through a therapy to begin with? And I, I said, well I just chatted with somebody. And she said that’s not, that’s not therapy. So, I was like, oh, it’s not? That’s not what people do?

Veterans were surprised the VA offered a diverse range of psychotherapy interventions, rather than simply therapy. They did not realize there were different types of psychotherapy. As a result, veterans were not aware that some VA mental practitioners have specialty training and certification to provide treatment matched to specific diagnoses or needs. They thought that all clinicians could provide the same care. One veteran described their understanding:

I just figured all mental health people are mental health people. I didn’t have a better understanding of the system and all the different levels and how it plays out and specialties and things like that. Which, I guess, I should have because you have a primary care doctor, but then you have specialists in all these other different sectors that specialize in one particular area. I guess that should’ve been common sense, but it wasn’t.

Stigma was a barrier to seeking and engaging in mental health care. Veterans discovered they had to overcome stigma associated with seeking and engaging in mental health treatment. Military culture was often discussed as promoting stigma regarding mental health treatment. Specifically, veterans described that seeking treatment meant “either, I’m weak or I’m gonna be seen as weak.” In active-duty settings, the strategy for dealing with mental health symptoms was to “leave those feelings, you push ‘em aside,” an approach highly inconsistent with TF-EBP. In some cases, incorrect information about the VA and PTSD was presented as part of discharge from the military, leading to long-term skepticism of the VA and PTSD treatment. One veteran described his experience as part of a class on the VA compensation and pension assessment process for service-connected disabilities during his military discharge:

[A fellow discharging soldier asked] what about like PTSD, gettin’ rated for PTSD. I hear they take our weapons and stuff like we can’t own firearms and all that stuff. And [the instructor] was like, well, yes that’s a thing. He didn’t explain it like if you get compensated for PTSD you don’t lose your rights to carry a firearm or to have, to be able to go hunting.

Importantly, veterans often described how other identities (eg, race, ethnicity, gender, region of origin) interacted with military culture to enhance stigma. Hearing messaging from multiple sources reinforced beliefs that mental health treatment is inappropriate or is associated with weakness:

As a first-generation Italian, I was always taught keep your feelings to yourself. Never talk outside your family. Never bring up problems to other people and stuff like that. Same with the military. And then the old stigma working in [emergency medical services] and public safety, you’re weak if you get help.

The fundamentals of therapy, including rapport and flexibility, were important. Veterans valued nonspecific therapy factors, genuine empathy, building trust, being honest about treatment, personality, and rapport. These characteristics were almost universally described as particularly important:

I liked the fact that she made it personable and she cared. It wasn’t just like, here, we’re gonna start this. She explained it in the ways I could understand, not in medical terms, so to speak, but that’s what I liked about her. She really cared about what she did and helping me.

Flexibility was viewed as an asset, particularly when clinicians acknowledged veteran autonomy. A consistent example was when veterans were able to titrate trauma disclosure. One veteran described this flexible treatment experience: “She was right there in the room, she said, you know, at any time, you know, we could stop, we could debrief.”

Experiences of clinician flexibility and personalization of therapy were contrasted with experiences of overly rigid therapy. Overemphasis on protocols created barriers, often because treatment did not feel personalized. One veteran described how a clinician’s task-oriented approach interfered with their ability to engage in TF-EBP:

They listened, but it just didn’t seem like they were listening, because they really wanted to stay on task… So, I felt like if the person was more concerned, or more sympathetic to the things that was also going on in my life at that present time, I think I would’ve felt more comfortable talking about what was the PTSD part, too.

Veterans valued shared decision-making prior to TF-EBP initiation. Veterans typically described being involved in a shared decision-making process prior to initiating TF-EBP. During these sessions, clinicians discussed treatment options and provided veterans with a variety of materials describing treatments (eg, pamphlets, websites, videos, statistics). Most veterans appreciated being able to reflect on and discuss treatment options with their clinicians. Being given time in and out of session to review was viewed as valuable and increased confidence in treatment choice. One veteran described their experience:

I was given the information, you know, they gave me handouts, PDFs, whatever was available, and let me read over it. I didn’t have to choose anything right then and there, you know, they let me sleep on it. And I got back to them after some thought.

However, some veterans felt overwhelmed by being presented with too much information and did not believe they knew enough to make a final treatment decision. One veteran described being asked to contribute to the treatment decision:

I definitely asked [the clinician] to weigh in on maybe what he thought was best, because—I mean, I don’t know… I’m not necessarily sure I know what I think is best. I think we’re just lucky I’m here, so if you can give me a solid and help me out here by telling me just based on what I’ve said to you and the things that I’ve gone through, what do you think?

Veterans who perceived that their treatment preferences were respected had a positive outlook on TF-EBP. As part of the shared-decision making process, veterans typically described being given choices among PTSD treatments. One way that preferences were respected was through clinicians tailoring treatment descriptions to a veteran’s unique symptoms, experiences, and values. In these cases, clinicians observed specific concerns and clearly linked treatment principles to those concerns. For example, one veteran described their clinician’s recommendation for PE: “The hardest thing for me is to do the normal things like grocery store or getting on a train or anything like that. And so, he suggested that [PE] would be a good idea.”

In other cases, veterans wanted the highest quality of treatment rather than a match between treatment principles and the veteran’s presentation, goals, or strengths. These veterans wanted the best treatment available for PTSD and valued research support, recommendations from clinical practice guidelines, or clinician confidence in the effectiveness of the treatment. One veteran described this perspective:

I just wanted to be able to really tackle it in the best way possible and in the most like aggressive way possible. And it seemed like PE really was going to, they said that it’s a difficult type of therapy, but I really just wanted to kind of do the best that I could to eradicate some of the issues that I was having.

When veterans perceived a lack of respect for their preferences, they were hesitant about TF-EBP. For some veterans, a generic pitch for a TF-EBP was detrimental in the absence of the personal connection between the treatment and their own symptoms, goals, or strengths. These veterans did not question whether the treatment was effective in general but did question whether the treatment was best for them. One veteran described the contrast between their clinician’s perspective and their own.

I felt like they felt very comfortable, very confident in [CPT] being the program, because it was comfortable for them. Because they did it several times. And maybe they had a lot of success with other individuals... but they were very comfortable with that one, as a provider, more than: Is this the best fit for [me]?

Some veterans perceived little concern for their preferences and a lack of choice in available treatments, which tended to perpetuate negative perceptions of TFEBP. These veterans described their lack of choices with frustration. Alternatives to TFEBP were described by these veterans as so undesirable that they did not believe they had a real choice:

[CPT] was the only decision they had. There was nothing else for PTSD. They didn’t offer anything else. So, I mean it wasn’t a decision. It was either … take treatment or don’t take treatment at all… Actually, I need to correct myself. So, there were 2 options, group therapy or CPT. I forgot about that. I’m not a big group guy so I chose the CPT.

Another veteran was offered a choice between therapeutic approaches, but all were delivered via telehealth (consistent with the transition to virtual services during the COVID-19 pandemic). For this veteran, not only was the distinction between approaches unclear, but the choice between approaches was unimportant compared to the mode of delivery.

This happened during COVID-19 and VA stopped seeing anybody physically, face-to-face. So my only option for therapy was [telehealth]… There was like 3 of them, and I tried to figure out, you know, from the layperson’s perspective, like: I don’t know which one to go with.

Veterans wanted to be asked about their cultural identity. Veterans valued when clinicians asked questions about cultural identity as part of their mental health treatment and listened to their cultural context. Cultural identity factors extended beyond factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation to religion, military culture, and regionality. Veterans often described situations where they wished clinicians would ask the question or initiate conversations about culture. A veteran highlighted the importance of their faith but noted that it was a taboo topic. Their clinician did not say “we don’t go there,” but they “never dove into it either.” Another veteran expressed a desire for their clinician to ask questions about experiences in the National Guard and as an African American veteran:

If a provider was to say like: Oh, you know, it’s a stressful situation being a part of the military, being in the National Guard. You know, just asking questions about that. I think that would really go a long way… Being African American was difficult as well. And more so because of my region, I think… I felt like it would probably be an uncomfortable subject to speak on… I mean, it wasn’t anything that my providers necessarily did, it was more so just because it wasn’t brought up.

One common area of concern for veterans was a match between veteran and therapist demographics. When asked about how their cultural identity influenced treatment, several veterans described the relevance of therapist match. Much like questions about their own cultural identity, veterans valued being asked about identity preferences in clinicians (eg, gender or race matching), rather than having to bring up the preference themselves. One veteran described relief at this question being asked directly: “I was relieved when she had asked [whether I wanted a male or female clinician] primarily because I was going to ask that or bring that up somehow. But her asking that before me was a weight off my shoulders.”

Discussing cultural identity through treatment strengthened veterans’ engagement in therapy. Many veterans appreciated when analogies used in therapy were relevant to their cultural experiences and when clinicians understood their culture (eg, military culture, race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation). One veteran described how their clinician understood military culture and made connections between military culture and the rationale for TF-EBP, which strengthened the veteran’s buy-in for the treatment and alliance with the clinician:

At the beginning when she was explaining PTSD, and I remember she said that your brain needed to think this way when you were in the military because it was a way of protecting and surviving, so your brain was doing that in order for you to survive in whatever areas you were because there was danger. So, your brain had you thinking that way. But now, you’re not in those situations anymore. You’re not in danger. You’re not in the military, but your brain is still thinking you are, and that’s what PTSD generally does to you.

Specific elements of TF-EBP also provided opportunities to discuss and integrate important aspects of identity. This is accomplished in PE by assigning relevant in vivo exercises. In CPT, “connecting the dots” on how prior experiences influenced trauma-related stuck points achieved this element. One veteran described their experience with a clinician who was comfortable discussing the veteran’s sexual orientation and recognized the impacts of prior trauma on intimacy:

They’re very different, and there’s a lot of things that can be accepted in gay relationships that are not in straight ones. With all that said, I think [the PE therapist] did a fantastic job being not—like never once did she laugh or make an uncomfortable comment or say she didn’t wanna talk about something when like part of the reason I wanted to get into therapy is that my partner and I weren’t having sex unless I used alcohol.

Discussion

As part of a larger national qualitative investigation of the experiences of veterans who recently initiated TF-EBP, veterans discussed their experiences with therapy and mental health care that have important implications for continued process improvement.²¹ Three key areas for continued process improvement were identified: (1) providing information about the diverse range of mental health care services at the VA and the implications of this continuum of care; (2) consideration of veteran preferences in treatment decision-making, including the importance of perceived choice; and (3) incorporating cultural assessment and cultural responsiveness into case conceptualization and treatment.

One area of process improvement identified was increasing knowledge about different types of psychotherapy and the continuum of care available at the VA. Veterans in this study confused or conflated participating in psychotherapy with talking about mental health symptoms with a clinician (eg, assessment, disability evaluation). They were sometimes surprised that psychotherapy is an umbrella term referring to a variety of different modalities. The downstream impact of these misunderstandings was a perception of VA mental health care as nebulous. Veterans were surprised that all mental health practitioners were unable to provide the same care. Confusion may have been compounded by highly variable referral processes across VA.²⁴ To address this, clinicians have developed local educational resources and handouts for both veterans and referring clinicians from nonmental health and general mental health specialties.²⁵ Given the variability in referral processes both between and within VA medical centers, national dissemination of these educational materials may be more difficult compared to materials for TF-EBPs.²⁴ The VA started to use behavioral health interdisciplinary program (BHIP) teams, which are designed to be clinical homes for veterans connected with a central clinician who can explain and coordinate their mental health care as well as bring more consistency to the referral process.²⁶ The ongoing transition toward the BHIP model of mental health care at VA may provide the opportunity to consolidate and integrate knowledge about the VA approach to mental health care, potentially filling knowledge gaps.

A second area of process improvement focused on the shared decision-making process. Consistent with mental health initiatives, veterans generally believed they had received sufficient information about TF-EBP and engaged in shared decision-making with clinicians.^20,27 Veterans were given educational materials to review and had the opportunity to discuss these materials with clinicians. However, veterans described variability in the success of shared decision-making. Although veterans valued receiving accurate, comprehensible information to support treatment decisions, some preferred to defer to clinicians’ expertise regarding which treatment to pursue. While these veterans valued information, they also valued the expertise of clinicians in explaining why specific treatments would be beneficial. A key contributor to veterans satisfaction was assessing how veterans wanted to engage in the decision-making process and respecting those preferences.²⁸ Veterans approached shared decision-making differently, from making decisions independently after receiving information to relying solely on clinician recommendation. The process was most successful when clinicians articulated how their recommended treatment aligned with a veteran’s preferences, including recommendations based on specific values (eg, personalized match vs being the best). Another important consideration is ensuring veterans know they can receive a variety of different types of mental health services available in different modalities (eg, virtual vs in-person; group vs individual). When veterans did not perceive choice in treatment aspects important to them (typically despite having choices), they were less satisfied with their TF-EBP experience.

A final area of process improvement identified involves how therapists address important aspects of culture. Veterans often described mental health stigma coming from intersecting cultural identities and expressed appreciation when therapists helped them recognize the impact of these beliefs on treatment. Some veterans did not discuss important aspects of their identity with clinicians, including race/ethnicity, religion, and military culture. Veterans did not report negative interactions with clinicians or experiences suggesting it was inappropriate to discuss identity; however, they were reluctant to independently raise these identity factors. Strategies such as the ADDRESSING framework, a mnemonic acronym that describes a series of potentially relevant characteristics, can help clinicians comprehensively consider different aspects that may be relevant to veterans, modeling that discussion of relevant these characteristics is welcome in TF-EBP.²⁹ Veterans reported that making culturally relevant connections enhanced the TF-EBP experience, most commonly with military culture. These data support that TF-EBP delivery with attention to culture should be an integrated part of treatment, supporting engagement and therapeutic alliance.³⁰ The VA National Center for PTSD consultation program is a resource to support clinicians in assessing and incorporating relevant aspects of cultural identity.³¹ For example, the National Center for PTSD provides a guide for using case conceptualization to address patient reactions to race-based violence during PTSD treatment.³² Both manualized design and therapist certification training can reinforce that assessing and attending to case conceptualization (including identity factors) is an integral component of TF-EBP.^33,34

Limitations

While the current study has numerous strengths (eg, national veteran sampling, robust qualitative methods), results should be considered within the context of study limitations. First, veteran participants all received TF-EBP, and the perspectives of veterans who never initiate TF-EBP may differ. Despite the strong sampling approach, the study design is not intended to be generalizable to all veterans receiving TF-EBP for PTSD. Qualitative analysis yielded 15 themes, described in this study and prior research, consistent with recommendations.^21,22 This approach allows rich description of distinct focus areas that would not be possible in a single manuscript. Nonetheless, all veterans interviewed described their experiences in TF-EBP and general mental health care, the focus of the semistructured interview guide was on the experience of transitioning from other treatment to TF-EBP.

Conclusion

This study describes themes related to general mental health and TF-EBP process improvement as part of a larger study on transitions in PTSD care.^21,22 Veterans valued the fundamentals of therapy, including rapport and flexibility. Treatment-specific rapport (eg, pointing out treatment progress and effort in completing treatment components) and flexibility within the context of fidelity (ie, personalizing treatment while maintaining core treatment elements) may be most effective at engaging veterans in recommended PTSD treatments.^18,34 In addition to successes, themes suggest multiple opportunities for process improvement. Ongoing VA initiatives and priorities (ie, BHIP, shared decision-making, consultation services) aim to improve processes consistent with veteran recommendations. Future research is needed to evaluate the success of these and other programs to optimize access to and engagement in recommended PTSD treatments.

Trauma-focused evidence-based psychotherapies (TF-EBPs), including cognitive processing therapy (CPT) and prolonged exposure therapy (PE), are recommended treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in clinical practice guidelines.^1-3 To increase initiation of these treatments, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) used a large-scale dissemination and implementation effort to improve access to TF-EBP.^4,5 These efforts achieved modest success, increasing prevalence of TF-EBP from a handful of veterans in 2004 to an annual prevalence of 14.6% for CPT and 4.3% for PE in 2014.⁶

Throughout these efforts, qualitative studies have been used to better understand veterans’ perspectives on receiving TF-EBP care.^7-18 Barriers to initiation of and engagement in TF-EBP and PTSD care have been identified from these qualitative studies. One identified barrier was lack of knowledge—particularly lack of knowledge about what is meant by a PTSD diagnosis and available treatments.^7-10 Stigma (ie, automatic negative associations) toward mental health problems or seeking mental health care also has been identified as a barrier to initiation.^7,10-14 Perceptions of poor alignment between treatment and veteran goals, including lack of buy-in for the rationale, served as barriers to initiation and engagement.^8,15-18

Using prior qualitative work, numerous initiatives have been developed to reduce stigma, facilitate conversations about how treatment aligns with goals, and fill knowledge gaps, particularly through online resources and shared decision-making.^19,20 To better inform the state of veterans’ experiences with TF-EBP, a qualitative investigation was conducted involving veterans who recently initiated TF-EBP. Themes directly related to transitions to TF-EBP were identified; however, all veterans interviewed also described their experiences with TFEBP engagement and mental health care. Consistent with recommendations for qualitative methods, this study extends prior work on transitions to TF-EBP by describing themes with a distinct focus on the experience of engaging with TF-EBP and mental health care.^21,22

Methods

The experiences of veterans who were transitioning into TF-EBPs were collected in semistructured interviews and analyzed. The semistructured interview guide was developed and refined in consultation with both qualitative methods experts and PTSD treatment experts to ensure that 6 content domains were appropriately queried: PTSD treatment options, cultural sensitivity of treatment, PTSD treatment selection, transition criteria, beliefs about stabilization treatment, and treatment needs/preferences.

Participants were identified using the VA Corporate Data Warehouse and included post-9/11 veterans who had recently initiated CPT or PE for the first time between September 1, 2021, and September 1, 2022. More details of participant selection are available in Holder et al.²¹ From a population of 10,814 patients, stratified random sampling generated a recruitment pool of 200 veterans for further outreach. The strata were defined such that this recruitment pool had similar proportions of demographic characteristics (ie, gender, race, ethnicity) to the population of eligible veterans, equivalent distributions of time to CPT or PE initiation (ie, 33.3% < 1 year, 33.3% 1-3 years, and 33.3% > 3 years), and adequate variability in TF-EBP type (ie, 66.7% CPT, 33.3% PE). A manual chart review in the recruitment pool excluded 12 veterans who did not initiate CPT or PE, 1 veteran with evidence of current active psychosis and/or cognitive impairment that would likely preclude comprehension of study materials, and 1 who was deceased.

Eligible veterans from the recruitment pool were contacted in groups of 25. First, a recruitment letter with study information and instructions to opt-out of further contact was mailed or emailed to veterans. After 2 weeks, veterans who had not responded were contacted by phone up to 3 times. Veterans interested in participating were scheduled for a 1-time visit that included verbal consent and the qualitative interview. Metrics were established a priori to ensure an adequately diverse and inclusive sample. Specifically, a minimum number of racial and/or ethnic minority veterans (33%) and women veterans (20%) were sought. Equal distribution across the 3 categories of time from first mental health visit to CPT/PE initiation also was targeted. Throughout enrollment, recruitment efforts were adapted to meet these metrics in the emerging sample. While the goal was to generate a diverse and inclusive sample using these methods, the sample was not intended to be representative of the population.

Of the 186 eligible participants, 21 declined participation and 26 could not be reached. The targeted sample was reached after exhausting contact for 47 veterans and contacting 80 veterans for a final response rate of 40% among fully contacted veterans and 27% among veterans with any contact. The final sample included 30 veterans who received CPT or PE in VA facilities (Table).

After veterans provided verbal consent for study participation, sociodemographic information was verbally reported, and a 30- to 60-minute semistructured qualitative phone interview was recorded and transcribed. Veterans received $40 for participation. All procedures were approved by the University of California San Francisco Institutional Review Board.

Qualitative Data Analysis

Rapid analysis procedures were used to analyze qualitative data. This approach is suitable for focused, moderately structured qualitative analyses in health services research and facilitates rapid dissemination to stakeholders.²³ The qualitative analysts were 2 clinical psychologists with expertise in PTSD treatment (NH primary and RR secondary). Consistent with rapid analysis procedures, analysts prepared a templated summary (including relevant quotations) of each interview, organized by the prespecified content domains. Interviews were summarized independently, compared to ensure consistency, and discrepancies were resolved through review of the interview source materials. Individual summary templates were combined into a master analytic matrix to facilitate the identification of patterns and delineation of themes. Analysts routinely met to identify, discuss, and refine preliminary themes, revisiting source materials to reach consensus as needed.

Results

Fifteen themes were identified and organized into 2 distinct focus areas: themes directly related to the transition to TF-EBP (8 themes) and themes related to veterans’ experiences with TF-EBP and general mental health care with potential process-improvement implications (7 themes).²¹ Seven themes were identified related to experiences with TF-EBP engagement and VA mental health care. The 7 themes related to TF-EBP engagement and VA mental health care themes are summarized with exemplary quotations.

Veterans want a better understanding of psychotherapy and engaging with VA mental health. Veterans reported that they generally had a poor or “nebulous” understanding about the experience of psychotherapy. For example, veterans exhibited confusion about whether certain experiences were equivalent to participating in psychotherapy. They were sometimes unable to distinguish between interactions such as assessment, disability evaluations, peer support, and psychotherapy. One veteran described a conversation with a TFEBP therapist about prior treatment:

She [asked], have you ever been, or gone through a therapy to begin with? And I, I said, well I just chatted with somebody. And she said that’s not, that’s not therapy. So, I was like, oh, it’s not? That’s not what people do?

Veterans were surprised the VA offered a diverse range of psychotherapy interventions, rather than simply therapy. They did not realize there were different types of psychotherapy. As a result, veterans were not aware that some VA mental practitioners have specialty training and certification to provide treatment matched to specific diagnoses or needs. They thought that all clinicians could provide the same care. One veteran described their understanding:

I just figured all mental health people are mental health people. I didn’t have a better understanding of the system and all the different levels and how it plays out and specialties and things like that. Which, I guess, I should have because you have a primary care doctor, but then you have specialists in all these other different sectors that specialize in one particular area. I guess that should’ve been common sense, but it wasn’t.

Stigma was a barrier to seeking and engaging in mental health care. Veterans discovered they had to overcome stigma associated with seeking and engaging in mental health treatment. Military culture was often discussed as promoting stigma regarding mental health treatment. Specifically, veterans described that seeking treatment meant “either, I’m weak or I’m gonna be seen as weak.” In active-duty settings, the strategy for dealing with mental health symptoms was to “leave those feelings, you push ‘em aside,” an approach highly inconsistent with TF-EBP. In some cases, incorrect information about the VA and PTSD was presented as part of discharge from the military, leading to long-term skepticism of the VA and PTSD treatment. One veteran described his experience as part of a class on the VA compensation and pension assessment process for service-connected disabilities during his military discharge:

[A fellow discharging soldier asked] what about like PTSD, gettin’ rated for PTSD. I hear they take our weapons and stuff like we can’t own firearms and all that stuff. And [the instructor] was like, well, yes that’s a thing. He didn’t explain it like if you get compensated for PTSD you don’t lose your rights to carry a firearm or to have, to be able to go hunting.

Importantly, veterans often described how other identities (eg, race, ethnicity, gender, region of origin) interacted with military culture to enhance stigma. Hearing messaging from multiple sources reinforced beliefs that mental health treatment is inappropriate or is associated with weakness:

As a first-generation Italian, I was always taught keep your feelings to yourself. Never talk outside your family. Never bring up problems to other people and stuff like that. Same with the military. And then the old stigma working in [emergency medical services] and public safety, you’re weak if you get help.

The fundamentals of therapy, including rapport and flexibility, were important. Veterans valued nonspecific therapy factors, genuine empathy, building trust, being honest about treatment, personality, and rapport. These characteristics were almost universally described as particularly important:

I liked the fact that she made it personable and she cared. It wasn’t just like, here, we’re gonna start this. She explained it in the ways I could understand, not in medical terms, so to speak, but that’s what I liked about her. She really cared about what she did and helping me.

Flexibility was viewed as an asset, particularly when clinicians acknowledged veteran autonomy. A consistent example was when veterans were able to titrate trauma disclosure. One veteran described this flexible treatment experience: “She was right there in the room, she said, you know, at any time, you know, we could stop, we could debrief.”

Experiences of clinician flexibility and personalization of therapy were contrasted with experiences of overly rigid therapy. Overemphasis on protocols created barriers, often because treatment did not feel personalized. One veteran described how a clinician’s task-oriented approach interfered with their ability to engage in TF-EBP:

They listened, but it just didn’t seem like they were listening, because they really wanted to stay on task… So, I felt like if the person was more concerned, or more sympathetic to the things that was also going on in my life at that present time, I think I would’ve felt more comfortable talking about what was the PTSD part, too.

Veterans valued shared decision-making prior to TF-EBP initiation. Veterans typically described being involved in a shared decision-making process prior to initiating TF-EBP. During these sessions, clinicians discussed treatment options and provided veterans with a variety of materials describing treatments (eg, pamphlets, websites, videos, statistics). Most veterans appreciated being able to reflect on and discuss treatment options with their clinicians. Being given time in and out of session to review was viewed as valuable and increased confidence in treatment choice. One veteran described their experience:

I was given the information, you know, they gave me handouts, PDFs, whatever was available, and let me read over it. I didn’t have to choose anything right then and there, you know, they let me sleep on it. And I got back to them after some thought.

However, some veterans felt overwhelmed by being presented with too much information and did not believe they knew enough to make a final treatment decision. One veteran described being asked to contribute to the treatment decision:

I definitely asked [the clinician] to weigh in on maybe what he thought was best, because—I mean, I don’t know… I’m not necessarily sure I know what I think is best. I think we’re just lucky I’m here, so if you can give me a solid and help me out here by telling me just based on what I’ve said to you and the things that I’ve gone through, what do you think?

Veterans who perceived that their treatment preferences were respected had a positive outlook on TF-EBP. As part of the shared-decision making process, veterans typically described being given choices among PTSD treatments. One way that preferences were respected was through clinicians tailoring treatment descriptions to a veteran’s unique symptoms, experiences, and values. In these cases, clinicians observed specific concerns and clearly linked treatment principles to those concerns. For example, one veteran described their clinician’s recommendation for PE: “The hardest thing for me is to do the normal things like grocery store or getting on a train or anything like that. And so, he suggested that [PE] would be a good idea.”

In other cases, veterans wanted the highest quality of treatment rather than a match between treatment principles and the veteran’s presentation, goals, or strengths. These veterans wanted the best treatment available for PTSD and valued research support, recommendations from clinical practice guidelines, or clinician confidence in the effectiveness of the treatment. One veteran described this perspective:

I just wanted to be able to really tackle it in the best way possible and in the most like aggressive way possible. And it seemed like PE really was going to, they said that it’s a difficult type of therapy, but I really just wanted to kind of do the best that I could to eradicate some of the issues that I was having.

When veterans perceived a lack of respect for their preferences, they were hesitant about TF-EBP. For some veterans, a generic pitch for a TF-EBP was detrimental in the absence of the personal connection between the treatment and their own symptoms, goals, or strengths. These veterans did not question whether the treatment was effective in general but did question whether the treatment was best for them. One veteran described the contrast between their clinician’s perspective and their own.

I felt like they felt very comfortable, very confident in [CPT] being the program, because it was comfortable for them. Because they did it several times. And maybe they had a lot of success with other individuals... but they were very comfortable with that one, as a provider, more than: Is this the best fit for [me]?

Some veterans perceived little concern for their preferences and a lack of choice in available treatments, which tended to perpetuate negative perceptions of TFEBP. These veterans described their lack of choices with frustration. Alternatives to TFEBP were described by these veterans as so undesirable that they did not believe they had a real choice:

[CPT] was the only decision they had. There was nothing else for PTSD. They didn’t offer anything else. So, I mean it wasn’t a decision. It was either … take treatment or don’t take treatment at all… Actually, I need to correct myself. So, there were 2 options, group therapy or CPT. I forgot about that. I’m not a big group guy so I chose the CPT.

Another veteran was offered a choice between therapeutic approaches, but all were delivered via telehealth (consistent with the transition to virtual services during the COVID-19 pandemic). For this veteran, not only was the distinction between approaches unclear, but the choice between approaches was unimportant compared to the mode of delivery.

This happened during COVID-19 and VA stopped seeing anybody physically, face-to-face. So my only option for therapy was [telehealth]… There was like 3 of them, and I tried to figure out, you know, from the layperson’s perspective, like: I don’t know which one to go with.

Veterans wanted to be asked about their cultural identity. Veterans valued when clinicians asked questions about cultural identity as part of their mental health treatment and listened to their cultural context. Cultural identity factors extended beyond factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation to religion, military culture, and regionality. Veterans often described situations where they wished clinicians would ask the question or initiate conversations about culture. A veteran highlighted the importance of their faith but noted that it was a taboo topic. Their clinician did not say “we don’t go there,” but they “never dove into it either.” Another veteran expressed a desire for their clinician to ask questions about experiences in the National Guard and as an African American veteran:

If a provider was to say like: Oh, you know, it’s a stressful situation being a part of the military, being in the National Guard. You know, just asking questions about that. I think that would really go a long way… Being African American was difficult as well. And more so because of my region, I think… I felt like it would probably be an uncomfortable subject to speak on… I mean, it wasn’t anything that my providers necessarily did, it was more so just because it wasn’t brought up.

One common area of concern for veterans was a match between veteran and therapist demographics. When asked about how their cultural identity influenced treatment, several veterans described the relevance of therapist match. Much like questions about their own cultural identity, veterans valued being asked about identity preferences in clinicians (eg, gender or race matching), rather than having to bring up the preference themselves. One veteran described relief at this question being asked directly: “I was relieved when she had asked [whether I wanted a male or female clinician] primarily because I was going to ask that or bring that up somehow. But her asking that before me was a weight off my shoulders.”

Discussing cultural identity through treatment strengthened veterans’ engagement in therapy. Many veterans appreciated when analogies used in therapy were relevant to their cultural experiences and when clinicians understood their culture (eg, military culture, race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation). One veteran described how their clinician understood military culture and made connections between military culture and the rationale for TF-EBP, which strengthened the veteran’s buy-in for the treatment and alliance with the clinician:

At the beginning when she was explaining PTSD, and I remember she said that your brain needed to think this way when you were in the military because it was a way of protecting and surviving, so your brain was doing that in order for you to survive in whatever areas you were because there was danger. So, your brain had you thinking that way. But now, you’re not in those situations anymore. You’re not in danger. You’re not in the military, but your brain is still thinking you are, and that’s what PTSD generally does to you.

Specific elements of TF-EBP also provided opportunities to discuss and integrate important aspects of identity. This is accomplished in PE by assigning relevant in vivo exercises. In CPT, “connecting the dots” on how prior experiences influenced trauma-related stuck points achieved this element. One veteran described their experience with a clinician who was comfortable discussing the veteran’s sexual orientation and recognized the impacts of prior trauma on intimacy:

They’re very different, and there’s a lot of things that can be accepted in gay relationships that are not in straight ones. With all that said, I think [the PE therapist] did a fantastic job being not—like never once did she laugh or make an uncomfortable comment or say she didn’t wanna talk about something when like part of the reason I wanted to get into therapy is that my partner and I weren’t having sex unless I used alcohol.

Discussion

As part of a larger national qualitative investigation of the experiences of veterans who recently initiated TF-EBP, veterans discussed their experiences with therapy and mental health care that have important implications for continued process improvement.²¹ Three key areas for continued process improvement were identified: (1) providing information about the diverse range of mental health care services at the VA and the implications of this continuum of care; (2) consideration of veteran preferences in treatment decision-making, including the importance of perceived choice; and (3) incorporating cultural assessment and cultural responsiveness into case conceptualization and treatment.

One area of process improvement identified was increasing knowledge about different types of psychotherapy and the continuum of care available at the VA. Veterans in this study confused or conflated participating in psychotherapy with talking about mental health symptoms with a clinician (eg, assessment, disability evaluation). They were sometimes surprised that psychotherapy is an umbrella term referring to a variety of different modalities. The downstream impact of these misunderstandings was a perception of VA mental health care as nebulous. Veterans were surprised that all mental health practitioners were unable to provide the same care. Confusion may have been compounded by highly variable referral processes across VA.²⁴ To address this, clinicians have developed local educational resources and handouts for both veterans and referring clinicians from nonmental health and general mental health specialties.²⁵ Given the variability in referral processes both between and within VA medical centers, national dissemination of these educational materials may be more difficult compared to materials for TF-EBPs.²⁴ The VA started to use behavioral health interdisciplinary program (BHIP) teams, which are designed to be clinical homes for veterans connected with a central clinician who can explain and coordinate their mental health care as well as bring more consistency to the referral process.²⁶ The ongoing transition toward the BHIP model of mental health care at VA may provide the opportunity to consolidate and integrate knowledge about the VA approach to mental health care, potentially filling knowledge gaps.

A second area of process improvement focused on the shared decision-making process. Consistent with mental health initiatives, veterans generally believed they had received sufficient information about TF-EBP and engaged in shared decision-making with clinicians.^20,27 Veterans were given educational materials to review and had the opportunity to discuss these materials with clinicians. However, veterans described variability in the success of shared decision-making. Although veterans valued receiving accurate, comprehensible information to support treatment decisions, some preferred to defer to clinicians’ expertise regarding which treatment to pursue. While these veterans valued information, they also valued the expertise of clinicians in explaining why specific treatments would be beneficial. A key contributor to veterans satisfaction was assessing how veterans wanted to engage in the decision-making process and respecting those preferences.²⁸ Veterans approached shared decision-making differently, from making decisions independently after receiving information to relying solely on clinician recommendation. The process was most successful when clinicians articulated how their recommended treatment aligned with a veteran’s preferences, including recommendations based on specific values (eg, personalized match vs being the best). Another important consideration is ensuring veterans know they can receive a variety of different types of mental health services available in different modalities (eg, virtual vs in-person; group vs individual). When veterans did not perceive choice in treatment aspects important to them (typically despite having choices), they were less satisfied with their TF-EBP experience.

A final area of process improvement identified involves how therapists address important aspects of culture. Veterans often described mental health stigma coming from intersecting cultural identities and expressed appreciation when therapists helped them recognize the impact of these beliefs on treatment. Some veterans did not discuss important aspects of their identity with clinicians, including race/ethnicity, religion, and military culture. Veterans did not report negative interactions with clinicians or experiences suggesting it was inappropriate to discuss identity; however, they were reluctant to independently raise these identity factors. Strategies such as the ADDRESSING framework, a mnemonic acronym that describes a series of potentially relevant characteristics, can help clinicians comprehensively consider different aspects that may be relevant to veterans, modeling that discussion of relevant these characteristics is welcome in TF-EBP.²⁹ Veterans reported that making culturally relevant connections enhanced the TF-EBP experience, most commonly with military culture. These data support that TF-EBP delivery with attention to culture should be an integrated part of treatment, supporting engagement and therapeutic alliance.³⁰ The VA National Center for PTSD consultation program is a resource to support clinicians in assessing and incorporating relevant aspects of cultural identity.³¹ For example, the National Center for PTSD provides a guide for using case conceptualization to address patient reactions to race-based violence during PTSD treatment.³² Both manualized design and therapist certification training can reinforce that assessing and attending to case conceptualization (including identity factors) is an integral component of TF-EBP.^33,34

Limitations

While the current study has numerous strengths (eg, national veteran sampling, robust qualitative methods), results should be considered within the context of study limitations. First, veteran participants all received TF-EBP, and the perspectives of veterans who never initiate TF-EBP may differ. Despite the strong sampling approach, the study design is not intended to be generalizable to all veterans receiving TF-EBP for PTSD. Qualitative analysis yielded 15 themes, described in this study and prior research, consistent with recommendations.^21,22 This approach allows rich description of distinct focus areas that would not be possible in a single manuscript. Nonetheless, all veterans interviewed described their experiences in TF-EBP and general mental health care, the focus of the semistructured interview guide was on the experience of transitioning from other treatment to TF-EBP.

Conclusion

This study describes themes related to general mental health and TF-EBP process improvement as part of a larger study on transitions in PTSD care.^21,22 Veterans valued the fundamentals of therapy, including rapport and flexibility. Treatment-specific rapport (eg, pointing out treatment progress and effort in completing treatment components) and flexibility within the context of fidelity (ie, personalizing treatment while maintaining core treatment elements) may be most effective at engaging veterans in recommended PTSD treatments.^18,34 In addition to successes, themes suggest multiple opportunities for process improvement. Ongoing VA initiatives and priorities (ie, BHIP, shared decision-making, consultation services) aim to improve processes consistent with veteran recommendations. Future research is needed to evaluate the success of these and other programs to optimize access to and engagement in recommended PTSD treatments.

Trauma-focused evidence-based psychotherapies (TF-EBPs), including cognitive processing therapy (CPT) and prolonged exposure therapy (PE), are recommended treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in clinical practice guidelines.^1-3 To increase initiation of these treatments, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) used a large-scale dissemination and implementation effort to improve access to TF-EBP.^4,5 These efforts achieved modest success, increasing prevalence of TF-EBP from a handful of veterans in 2004 to an annual prevalence of 14.6% for CPT and 4.3% for PE in 2014.⁶

Throughout these efforts, qualitative studies have been used to better understand veterans’ perspectives on receiving TF-EBP care.^7-18 Barriers to initiation of and engagement in TF-EBP and PTSD care have been identified from these qualitative studies. One identified barrier was lack of knowledge—particularly lack of knowledge about what is meant by a PTSD diagnosis and available treatments.^7-10 Stigma (ie, automatic negative associations) toward mental health problems or seeking mental health care also has been identified as a barrier to initiation.^7,10-14 Perceptions of poor alignment between treatment and veteran goals, including lack of buy-in for the rationale, served as barriers to initiation and engagement.^8,15-18

Using prior qualitative work, numerous initiatives have been developed to reduce stigma, facilitate conversations about how treatment aligns with goals, and fill knowledge gaps, particularly through online resources and shared decision-making.^19,20 To better inform the state of veterans’ experiences with TF-EBP, a qualitative investigation was conducted involving veterans who recently initiated TF-EBP. Themes directly related to transitions to TF-EBP were identified; however, all veterans interviewed also described their experiences with TFEBP engagement and mental health care. Consistent with recommendations for qualitative methods, this study extends prior work on transitions to TF-EBP by describing themes with a distinct focus on the experience of engaging with TF-EBP and mental health care.^21,22

Methods

The experiences of veterans who were transitioning into TF-EBPs were collected in semistructured interviews and analyzed. The semistructured interview guide was developed and refined in consultation with both qualitative methods experts and PTSD treatment experts to ensure that 6 content domains were appropriately queried: PTSD treatment options, cultural sensitivity of treatment, PTSD treatment selection, transition criteria, beliefs about stabilization treatment, and treatment needs/preferences.

Participants were identified using the VA Corporate Data Warehouse and included post-9/11 veterans who had recently initiated CPT or PE for the first time between September 1, 2021, and September 1, 2022. More details of participant selection are available in Holder et al.²¹ From a population of 10,814 patients, stratified random sampling generated a recruitment pool of 200 veterans for further outreach. The strata were defined such that this recruitment pool had similar proportions of demographic characteristics (ie, gender, race, ethnicity) to the population of eligible veterans, equivalent distributions of time to CPT or PE initiation (ie, 33.3% < 1 year, 33.3% 1-3 years, and 33.3% > 3 years), and adequate variability in TF-EBP type (ie, 66.7% CPT, 33.3% PE). A manual chart review in the recruitment pool excluded 12 veterans who did not initiate CPT or PE, 1 veteran with evidence of current active psychosis and/or cognitive impairment that would likely preclude comprehension of study materials, and 1 who was deceased.

Eligible veterans from the recruitment pool were contacted in groups of 25. First, a recruitment letter with study information and instructions to opt-out of further contact was mailed or emailed to veterans. After 2 weeks, veterans who had not responded were contacted by phone up to 3 times. Veterans interested in participating were scheduled for a 1-time visit that included verbal consent and the qualitative interview. Metrics were established a priori to ensure an adequately diverse and inclusive sample. Specifically, a minimum number of racial and/or ethnic minority veterans (33%) and women veterans (20%) were sought. Equal distribution across the 3 categories of time from first mental health visit to CPT/PE initiation also was targeted. Throughout enrollment, recruitment efforts were adapted to meet these metrics in the emerging sample. While the goal was to generate a diverse and inclusive sample using these methods, the sample was not intended to be representative of the population.

Of the 186 eligible participants, 21 declined participation and 26 could not be reached. The targeted sample was reached after exhausting contact for 47 veterans and contacting 80 veterans for a final response rate of 40% among fully contacted veterans and 27% among veterans with any contact. The final sample included 30 veterans who received CPT or PE in VA facilities (Table).

After veterans provided verbal consent for study participation, sociodemographic information was verbally reported, and a 30- to 60-minute semistructured qualitative phone interview was recorded and transcribed. Veterans received $40 for participation. All procedures were approved by the University of California San Francisco Institutional Review Board.

Qualitative Data Analysis

Rapid analysis procedures were used to analyze qualitative data. This approach is suitable for focused, moderately structured qualitative analyses in health services research and facilitates rapid dissemination to stakeholders.²³ The qualitative analysts were 2 clinical psychologists with expertise in PTSD treatment (NH primary and RR secondary). Consistent with rapid analysis procedures, analysts prepared a templated summary (including relevant quotations) of each interview, organized by the prespecified content domains. Interviews were summarized independently, compared to ensure consistency, and discrepancies were resolved through review of the interview source materials. Individual summary templates were combined into a master analytic matrix to facilitate the identification of patterns and delineation of themes. Analysts routinely met to identify, discuss, and refine preliminary themes, revisiting source materials to reach consensus as needed.

Results

Fifteen themes were identified and organized into 2 distinct focus areas: themes directly related to the transition to TF-EBP (8 themes) and themes related to veterans’ experiences with TF-EBP and general mental health care with potential process-improvement implications (7 themes).²¹ Seven themes were identified related to experiences with TF-EBP engagement and VA mental health care. The 7 themes related to TF-EBP engagement and VA mental health care themes are summarized with exemplary quotations.

Veterans want a better understanding of psychotherapy and engaging with VA mental health. Veterans reported that they generally had a poor or “nebulous” understanding about the experience of psychotherapy. For example, veterans exhibited confusion about whether certain experiences were equivalent to participating in psychotherapy. They were sometimes unable to distinguish between interactions such as assessment, disability evaluations, peer support, and psychotherapy. One veteran described a conversation with a TFEBP therapist about prior treatment:

She [asked], have you ever been, or gone through a therapy to begin with? And I, I said, well I just chatted with somebody. And she said that’s not, that’s not therapy. So, I was like, oh, it’s not? That’s not what people do?

Veterans were surprised the VA offered a diverse range of psychotherapy interventions, rather than simply therapy. They did not realize there were different types of psychotherapy. As a result, veterans were not aware that some VA mental practitioners have specialty training and certification to provide treatment matched to specific diagnoses or needs. They thought that all clinicians could provide the same care. One veteran described their understanding:

I just figured all mental health people are mental health people. I didn’t have a better understanding of the system and all the different levels and how it plays out and specialties and things like that. Which, I guess, I should have because you have a primary care doctor, but then you have specialists in all these other different sectors that specialize in one particular area. I guess that should’ve been common sense, but it wasn’t.

Stigma was a barrier to seeking and engaging in mental health care. Veterans discovered they had to overcome stigma associated with seeking and engaging in mental health treatment. Military culture was often discussed as promoting stigma regarding mental health treatment. Specifically, veterans described that seeking treatment meant “either, I’m weak or I’m gonna be seen as weak.” In active-duty settings, the strategy for dealing with mental health symptoms was to “leave those feelings, you push ‘em aside,” an approach highly inconsistent with TF-EBP. In some cases, incorrect information about the VA and PTSD was presented as part of discharge from the military, leading to long-term skepticism of the VA and PTSD treatment. One veteran described his experience as part of a class on the VA compensation and pension assessment process for service-connected disabilities during his military discharge:

[A fellow discharging soldier asked] what about like PTSD, gettin’ rated for PTSD. I hear they take our weapons and stuff like we can’t own firearms and all that stuff. And [the instructor] was like, well, yes that’s a thing. He didn’t explain it like if you get compensated for PTSD you don’t lose your rights to carry a firearm or to have, to be able to go hunting.

Importantly, veterans often described how other identities (eg, race, ethnicity, gender, region of origin) interacted with military culture to enhance stigma. Hearing messaging from multiple sources reinforced beliefs that mental health treatment is inappropriate or is associated with weakness:

As a first-generation Italian, I was always taught keep your feelings to yourself. Never talk outside your family. Never bring up problems to other people and stuff like that. Same with the military. And then the old stigma working in [emergency medical services] and public safety, you’re weak if you get help.

The fundamentals of therapy, including rapport and flexibility, were important. Veterans valued nonspecific therapy factors, genuine empathy, building trust, being honest about treatment, personality, and rapport. These characteristics were almost universally described as particularly important:

I liked the fact that she made it personable and she cared. It wasn’t just like, here, we’re gonna start this. She explained it in the ways I could understand, not in medical terms, so to speak, but that’s what I liked about her. She really cared about what she did and helping me.

Flexibility was viewed as an asset, particularly when clinicians acknowledged veteran autonomy. A consistent example was when veterans were able to titrate trauma disclosure. One veteran described this flexible treatment experience: “She was right there in the room, she said, you know, at any time, you know, we could stop, we could debrief.”

Experiences of clinician flexibility and personalization of therapy were contrasted with experiences of overly rigid therapy. Overemphasis on protocols created barriers, often because treatment did not feel personalized. One veteran described how a clinician’s task-oriented approach interfered with their ability to engage in TF-EBP:

They listened, but it just didn’t seem like they were listening, because they really wanted to stay on task… So, I felt like if the person was more concerned, or more sympathetic to the things that was also going on in my life at that present time, I think I would’ve felt more comfortable talking about what was the PTSD part, too.

Veterans valued shared decision-making prior to TF-EBP initiation. Veterans typically described being involved in a shared decision-making process prior to initiating TF-EBP. During these sessions, clinicians discussed treatment options and provided veterans with a variety of materials describing treatments (eg, pamphlets, websites, videos, statistics). Most veterans appreciated being able to reflect on and discuss treatment options with their clinicians. Being given time in and out of session to review was viewed as valuable and increased confidence in treatment choice. One veteran described their experience:

I was given the information, you know, they gave me handouts, PDFs, whatever was available, and let me read over it. I didn’t have to choose anything right then and there, you know, they let me sleep on it. And I got back to them after some thought.

However, some veterans felt overwhelmed by being presented with too much information and did not believe they knew enough to make a final treatment decision. One veteran described being asked to contribute to the treatment decision:

I definitely asked [the clinician] to weigh in on maybe what he thought was best, because—I mean, I don’t know… I’m not necessarily sure I know what I think is best. I think we’re just lucky I’m here, so if you can give me a solid and help me out here by telling me just based on what I’ve said to you and the things that I’ve gone through, what do you think?

Veterans who perceived that their treatment preferences were respected had a positive outlook on TF-EBP. As part of the shared-decision making process, veterans typically described being given choices among PTSD treatments. One way that preferences were respected was through clinicians tailoring treatment descriptions to a veteran’s unique symptoms, experiences, and values. In these cases, clinicians observed specific concerns and clearly linked treatment principles to those concerns. For example, one veteran described their clinician’s recommendation for PE: “The hardest thing for me is to do the normal things like grocery store or getting on a train or anything like that. And so, he suggested that [PE] would be a good idea.”

In other cases, veterans wanted the highest quality of treatment rather than a match between treatment principles and the veteran’s presentation, goals, or strengths. These veterans wanted the best treatment available for PTSD and valued research support, recommendations from clinical practice guidelines, or clinician confidence in the effectiveness of the treatment. One veteran described this perspective:

I just wanted to be able to really tackle it in the best way possible and in the most like aggressive way possible. And it seemed like PE really was going to, they said that it’s a difficult type of therapy, but I really just wanted to kind of do the best that I could to eradicate some of the issues that I was having.

When veterans perceived a lack of respect for their preferences, they were hesitant about TF-EBP. For some veterans, a generic pitch for a TF-EBP was detrimental in the absence of the personal connection between the treatment and their own symptoms, goals, or strengths. These veterans did not question whether the treatment was effective in general but did question whether the treatment was best for them. One veteran described the contrast between their clinician’s perspective and their own.

I felt like they felt very comfortable, very confident in [CPT] being the program, because it was comfortable for them. Because they did it several times. And maybe they had a lot of success with other individuals... but they were very comfortable with that one, as a provider, more than: Is this the best fit for [me]?

Some veterans perceived little concern for their preferences and a lack of choice in available treatments, which tended to perpetuate negative perceptions of TFEBP. These veterans described their lack of choices with frustration. Alternatives to TFEBP were described by these veterans as so undesirable that they did not believe they had a real choice:

[CPT] was the only decision they had. There was nothing else for PTSD. They didn’t offer anything else. So, I mean it wasn’t a decision. It was either … take treatment or don’t take treatment at all… Actually, I need to correct myself. So, there were 2 options, group therapy or CPT. I forgot about that. I’m not a big group guy so I chose the CPT.

Another veteran was offered a choice between therapeutic approaches, but all were delivered via telehealth (consistent with the transition to virtual services during the COVID-19 pandemic). For this veteran, not only was the distinction between approaches unclear, but the choice between approaches was unimportant compared to the mode of delivery.

This happened during COVID-19 and VA stopped seeing anybody physically, face-to-face. So my only option for therapy was [telehealth]… There was like 3 of them, and I tried to figure out, you know, from the layperson’s perspective, like: I don’t know which one to go with.

Veterans wanted to be asked about their cultural identity. Veterans valued when clinicians asked questions about cultural identity as part of their mental health treatment and listened to their cultural context. Cultural identity factors extended beyond factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation to religion, military culture, and regionality. Veterans often described situations where they wished clinicians would ask the question or initiate conversations about culture. A veteran highlighted the importance of their faith but noted that it was a taboo topic. Their clinician did not say “we don’t go there,” but they “never dove into it either.” Another veteran expressed a desire for their clinician to ask questions about experiences in the National Guard and as an African American veteran:

If a provider was to say like: Oh, you know, it’s a stressful situation being a part of the military, being in the National Guard. You know, just asking questions about that. I think that would really go a long way… Being African American was difficult as well. And more so because of my region, I think… I felt like it would probably be an uncomfortable subject to speak on… I mean, it wasn’t anything that my providers necessarily did, it was more so just because it wasn’t brought up.

One common area of concern for veterans was a match between veteran and therapist demographics. When asked about how their cultural identity influenced treatment, several veterans described the relevance of therapist match. Much like questions about their own cultural identity, veterans valued being asked about identity preferences in clinicians (eg, gender or race matching), rather than having to bring up the preference themselves. One veteran described relief at this question being asked directly: “I was relieved when she had asked [whether I wanted a male or female clinician] primarily because I was going to ask that or bring that up somehow. But her asking that before me was a weight off my shoulders.”

Discussing cultural identity through treatment strengthened veterans’ engagement in therapy. Many veterans appreciated when analogies used in therapy were relevant to their cultural experiences and when clinicians understood their culture (eg, military culture, race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation). One veteran described how their clinician understood military culture and made connections between military culture and the rationale for TF-EBP, which strengthened the veteran’s buy-in for the treatment and alliance with the clinician:

At the beginning when she was explaining PTSD, and I remember she said that your brain needed to think this way when you were in the military because it was a way of protecting and surviving, so your brain was doing that in order for you to survive in whatever areas you were because there was danger. So, your brain had you thinking that way. But now, you’re not in those situations anymore. You’re not in danger. You’re not in the military, but your brain is still thinking you are, and that’s what PTSD generally does to you.

Specific elements of TF-EBP also provided opportunities to discuss and integrate important aspects of identity. This is accomplished in PE by assigning relevant in vivo exercises. In CPT, “connecting the dots” on how prior experiences influenced trauma-related stuck points achieved this element. One veteran described their experience with a clinician who was comfortable discussing the veteran’s sexual orientation and recognized the impacts of prior trauma on intimacy:

They’re very different, and there’s a lot of things that can be accepted in gay relationships that are not in straight ones. With all that said, I think [the PE therapist] did a fantastic job being not—like never once did she laugh or make an uncomfortable comment or say she didn’t wanna talk about something when like part of the reason I wanted to get into therapy is that my partner and I weren’t having sex unless I used alcohol.

Discussion

As part of a larger national qualitative investigation of the experiences of veterans who recently initiated TF-EBP, veterans discussed their experiences with therapy and mental health care that have important implications for continued process improvement.²¹ Three key areas for continued process improvement were identified: (1) providing information about the diverse range of mental health care services at the VA and the implications of this continuum of care; (2) consideration of veteran preferences in treatment decision-making, including the importance of perceived choice; and (3) incorporating cultural assessment and cultural responsiveness into case conceptualization and treatment.

One area of process improvement identified was increasing knowledge about different types of psychotherapy and the continuum of care available at the VA. Veterans in this study confused or conflated participating in psychotherapy with talking about mental health symptoms with a clinician (eg, assessment, disability evaluation). They were sometimes surprised that psychotherapy is an umbrella term referring to a variety of different modalities. The downstream impact of these misunderstandings was a perception of VA mental health care as nebulous. Veterans were surprised that all mental health practitioners were unable to provide the same care. Confusion may have been compounded by highly variable referral processes across VA.²⁴ To address this, clinicians have developed local educational resources and handouts for both veterans and referring clinicians from nonmental health and general mental health specialties.²⁵ Given the variability in referral processes both between and within VA medical centers, national dissemination of these educational materials may be more difficult compared to materials for TF-EBPs.²⁴ The VA started to use behavioral health interdisciplinary program (BHIP) teams, which are designed to be clinical homes for veterans connected with a central clinician who can explain and coordinate their mental health care as well as bring more consistency to the referral process.²⁶ The ongoing transition toward the BHIP model of mental health care at VA may provide the opportunity to consolidate and integrate knowledge about the VA approach to mental health care, potentially filling knowledge gaps.

A second area of process improvement focused on the shared decision-making process. Consistent with mental health initiatives, veterans generally believed they had received sufficient information about TF-EBP and engaged in shared decision-making with clinicians.^20,27 Veterans were given educational materials to review and had the opportunity to discuss these materials with clinicians. However, veterans described variability in the success of shared decision-making. Although veterans valued receiving accurate, comprehensible information to support treatment decisions, some preferred to defer to clinicians’ expertise regarding which treatment to pursue. While these veterans valued information, they also valued the expertise of clinicians in explaining why specific treatments would be beneficial. A key contributor to veterans satisfaction was assessing how veterans wanted to engage in the decision-making process and respecting those preferences.²⁸ Veterans approached shared decision-making differently, from making decisions independently after receiving information to relying solely on clinician recommendation. The process was most successful when clinicians articulated how their recommended treatment aligned with a veteran’s preferences, including recommendations based on specific values (eg, personalized match vs being the best). Another important consideration is ensuring veterans know they can receive a variety of different types of mental health services available in different modalities (eg, virtual vs in-person; group vs individual). When veterans did not perceive choice in treatment aspects important to them (typically despite having choices), they were less satisfied with their TF-EBP experience.

A final area of process improvement identified involves how therapists address important aspects of culture. Veterans often described mental health stigma coming from intersecting cultural identities and expressed appreciation when therapists helped them recognize the impact of these beliefs on treatment. Some veterans did not discuss important aspects of their identity with clinicians, including race/ethnicity, religion, and military culture. Veterans did not report negative interactions with clinicians or experiences suggesting it was inappropriate to discuss identity; however, they were reluctant to independently raise these identity factors. Strategies such as the ADDRESSING framework, a mnemonic acronym that describes a series of potentially relevant characteristics, can help clinicians comprehensively consider different aspects that may be relevant to veterans, modeling that discussion of relevant these characteristics is welcome in TF-EBP.²⁹ Veterans reported that making culturally relevant connections enhanced the TF-EBP experience, most commonly with military culture. These data support that TF-EBP delivery with attention to culture should be an integrated part of treatment, supporting engagement and therapeutic alliance.³⁰ The VA National Center for PTSD consultation program is a resource to support clinicians in assessing and incorporating relevant aspects of cultural identity.³¹ For example, the National Center for PTSD provides a guide for using case conceptualization to address patient reactions to race-based violence during PTSD treatment.³² Both manualized design and therapist certification training can reinforce that assessing and attending to case conceptualization (including identity factors) is an integral component of TF-EBP.^33,34

Limitations

While the current study has numerous strengths (eg, national veteran sampling, robust qualitative methods), results should be considered within the context of study limitations. First, veteran participants all received TF-EBP, and the perspectives of veterans who never initiate TF-EBP may differ. Despite the strong sampling approach, the study design is not intended to be generalizable to all veterans receiving TF-EBP for PTSD. Qualitative analysis yielded 15 themes, described in this study and prior research, consistent with recommendations.^21,22 This approach allows rich description of distinct focus areas that would not be possible in a single manuscript. Nonetheless, all veterans interviewed described their experiences in TF-EBP and general mental health care, the focus of the semistructured interview guide was on the experience of transitioning from other treatment to TF-EBP.

Conclusion

This study describes themes related to general mental health and TF-EBP process improvement as part of a larger study on transitions in PTSD care.^21,22 Veterans valued the fundamentals of therapy, including rapport and flexibility. Treatment-specific rapport (eg, pointing out treatment progress and effort in completing treatment components) and flexibility within the context of fidelity (ie, personalizing treatment while maintaining core treatment elements) may be most effective at engaging veterans in recommended PTSD treatments.^18,34 In addition to successes, themes suggest multiple opportunities for process improvement. Ongoing VA initiatives and priorities (ie, BHIP, shared decision-making, consultation services) aim to improve processes consistent with veteran recommendations. Future research is needed to evaluate the success of these and other programs to optimize access to and engagement in recommended PTSD treatments.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, > 1 in 10 veterans have been diagnosed with substance use disorder (SUD). Additionally, 7 out of every 100 veterans will have posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at some point in their life, per research from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). However, a common and perhaps unsuspected parallel is found in those statistics: loneliness.

Of the 4069 veterans who participated in the 2019-2020 National Health and Resilience in Veterans Survey, 56.9% reported they felt lonely sometimes or often, while 1 in 5 reported feeling lonely often.

An Epidemic

In his 2023 advisory, Former US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called it an epidemic noting that when he spoke with veterans during a cross-country listening tour, he heard how they felt “isolated, invisible, and insignificant.” About 1 in 2 adults in America experience loneliness, even before the COVID-19 pandemic isolation.

Loneliness can have individual and synergistic ill effects, including a greater risk of cardiovascular disease, dementia, stroke, depression, anxiety, and premature death. It also can both trigger and exacerbate substance use and PTSD.

A study using data from the RAND Health and Retirement Study Longitudinal File 2020 (N = 5259) found significant associations between loneliness and being unmarried/unpartnered, and greater depressive symptoms for both veterans and civilians, as well as significant negative associations between loneliness and greater life satisfaction and positive affect. Health conditions that limited an individual's ability to work was a “unique risk factor for loneliness among veterans.”

The National Health and Resilience in Veterans Study found that those aged ≤ 50 years were 3 times more likely to screen positive for PTSD compared to older veterans. In a survey of 409 veterans, many who engaged in problematic substance use during the COVID-19 pandemic reported that despite having social supports they still felt lonely. In regression analyses, higher levels of loneliness were associated with more negative impacts of the pandemic, greater substance use, and poorer physical and mental health functioning.

Addressing Loneliness

Researchers believe an answer to some mental health and substance abuse problems may lie in addressing loneliness. Positive psychology is providing promising results in the treatment of SUD. Bryant Stone, from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, emphasizes focusing on well-being and quality of life rather than solely on abstinence with “positive psychological interventions,” or activities and behavioral interventions that target positive variables to promote adaptive functioning.

Veterans can face tough challenges as they rejoin civilian life. How successfully they meet and conquer those challenges, especially if they include drug problems, may directly relate to their general feeling of well-being.

The PERMA model outlines 5 core elements to assess well-being: Positive emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment. A study based on that model found loneliness to be a “particularly significant factor” among key variables influencing the prevention and treatment of SUDs. The study of 156 veterans with self-reported mental health conditions found the ability to engage in social roles and activities was positively correlated with overall well-being and negatively correlated with degree of problems related to drug abuse. 

Rural Veterans

The estimated 4.4 million veterans living in rural communities may benefit most from interventions that tackle isolation. Compared with urban counterparts, they’re more likely to be older, have more complex medical issues, have a service-connected disability, and be unemployed. Those factors, compounded by geographical and social isolation, can have a substantial impact on well-being.

A study centered on the initial validation of a short (5-item) version of PERMA found that individuals who scored higher on the short form tended to report higher levels of optimism, resilience, and happiness. Thus, the short form may be particularly useful for rural veterans who do not always have easy access to health care.

VA has instituted a variety of programs to encourage and support social connection. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth interventions targeted social support and loneliness among veterans—albeit with mixed results. VA CONNECT, a 10-session group telehealth intervention that integrated peer support, did not show significant changes in loneliness, but did significantly reduce perceived stress. 

Another initiative, Compassionate Contact Corps, trained volunteers made weekly phone calls aimed at reducing loneliness and fostering social connection. Started in Columbus, Ohio, in 2020, > 80 sites had adopted the initiative by 2021, with 310 volunteers, 5320 visits, and 4757 hours spent with veterans.

In 2014, VA peer specialists developed and co-hosted Veterans Socials through community partnerships between VA, veteran-serving organizations, and veteran community leaders. As of 2025, 178 known Veterans Socials were spread across 26 states and territories.

The researchers say their case examples collectively demonstrate that Veterans Socials have the potential to serve as a vital platform for peer support, resource sharing, and health service use among veterans. Virtual Veterans Socials also provided hosts with a channel to reach potentially isolated veterans who might not otherwise access services while simultaneously offering veterans an opportunity for social connection.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, > 1 in 10 veterans have been diagnosed with substance use disorder (SUD). Additionally, 7 out of every 100 veterans will have posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at some point in their life, per research from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). However, a common and perhaps unsuspected parallel is found in those statistics: loneliness.

Of the 4069 veterans who participated in the 2019-2020 National Health and Resilience in Veterans Survey, 56.9% reported they felt lonely sometimes or often, while 1 in 5 reported feeling lonely often.

An Epidemic

In his 2023 advisory, Former US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called it an epidemic noting that when he spoke with veterans during a cross-country listening tour, he heard how they felt “isolated, invisible, and insignificant.” About 1 in 2 adults in America experience loneliness, even before the COVID-19 pandemic isolation.

Loneliness can have individual and synergistic ill effects, including a greater risk of cardiovascular disease, dementia, stroke, depression, anxiety, and premature death. It also can both trigger and exacerbate substance use and PTSD.

A study using data from the RAND Health and Retirement Study Longitudinal File 2020 (N = 5259) found significant associations between loneliness and being unmarried/unpartnered, and greater depressive symptoms for both veterans and civilians, as well as significant negative associations between loneliness and greater life satisfaction and positive affect. Health conditions that limited an individual's ability to work was a “unique risk factor for loneliness among veterans.”

The National Health and Resilience in Veterans Study found that those aged ≤ 50 years were 3 times more likely to screen positive for PTSD compared to older veterans. In a survey of 409 veterans, many who engaged in problematic substance use during the COVID-19 pandemic reported that despite having social supports they still felt lonely. In regression analyses, higher levels of loneliness were associated with more negative impacts of the pandemic, greater substance use, and poorer physical and mental health functioning.

Addressing Loneliness

Researchers believe an answer to some mental health and substance abuse problems may lie in addressing loneliness. Positive psychology is providing promising results in the treatment of SUD. Bryant Stone, from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, emphasizes focusing on well-being and quality of life rather than solely on abstinence with “positive psychological interventions,” or activities and behavioral interventions that target positive variables to promote adaptive functioning.

Veterans can face tough challenges as they rejoin civilian life. How successfully they meet and conquer those challenges, especially if they include drug problems, may directly relate to their general feeling of well-being.

The PERMA model outlines 5 core elements to assess well-being: Positive emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment. A study based on that model found loneliness to be a “particularly significant factor” among key variables influencing the prevention and treatment of SUDs. The study of 156 veterans with self-reported mental health conditions found the ability to engage in social roles and activities was positively correlated with overall well-being and negatively correlated with degree of problems related to drug abuse. 

Rural Veterans

The estimated 4.4 million veterans living in rural communities may benefit most from interventions that tackle isolation. Compared with urban counterparts, they’re more likely to be older, have more complex medical issues, have a service-connected disability, and be unemployed. Those factors, compounded by geographical and social isolation, can have a substantial impact on well-being.

A study centered on the initial validation of a short (5-item) version of PERMA found that individuals who scored higher on the short form tended to report higher levels of optimism, resilience, and happiness. Thus, the short form may be particularly useful for rural veterans who do not always have easy access to health care.

VA has instituted a variety of programs to encourage and support social connection. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth interventions targeted social support and loneliness among veterans—albeit with mixed results. VA CONNECT, a 10-session group telehealth intervention that integrated peer support, did not show significant changes in loneliness, but did significantly reduce perceived stress. 

Another initiative, Compassionate Contact Corps, trained volunteers made weekly phone calls aimed at reducing loneliness and fostering social connection. Started in Columbus, Ohio, in 2020, > 80 sites had adopted the initiative by 2021, with 310 volunteers, 5320 visits, and 4757 hours spent with veterans.

In 2014, VA peer specialists developed and co-hosted Veterans Socials through community partnerships between VA, veteran-serving organizations, and veteran community leaders. As of 2025, 178 known Veterans Socials were spread across 26 states and territories.

The researchers say their case examples collectively demonstrate that Veterans Socials have the potential to serve as a vital platform for peer support, resource sharing, and health service use among veterans. Virtual Veterans Socials also provided hosts with a channel to reach potentially isolated veterans who might not otherwise access services while simultaneously offering veterans an opportunity for social connection.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, > 1 in 10 veterans have been diagnosed with substance use disorder (SUD). Additionally, 7 out of every 100 veterans will have posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at some point in their life, per research from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). However, a common and perhaps unsuspected parallel is found in those statistics: loneliness.

Of the 4069 veterans who participated in the 2019-2020 National Health and Resilience in Veterans Survey, 56.9% reported they felt lonely sometimes or often, while 1 in 5 reported feeling lonely often.

An Epidemic

In his 2023 advisory, Former US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called it an epidemic noting that when he spoke with veterans during a cross-country listening tour, he heard how they felt “isolated, invisible, and insignificant.” About 1 in 2 adults in America experience loneliness, even before the COVID-19 pandemic isolation.

Loneliness can have individual and synergistic ill effects, including a greater risk of cardiovascular disease, dementia, stroke, depression, anxiety, and premature death. It also can both trigger and exacerbate substance use and PTSD.

A study using data from the RAND Health and Retirement Study Longitudinal File 2020 (N = 5259) found significant associations between loneliness and being unmarried/unpartnered, and greater depressive symptoms for both veterans and civilians, as well as significant negative associations between loneliness and greater life satisfaction and positive affect. Health conditions that limited an individual's ability to work was a “unique risk factor for loneliness among veterans.”

The National Health and Resilience in Veterans Study found that those aged ≤ 50 years were 3 times more likely to screen positive for PTSD compared to older veterans. In a survey of 409 veterans, many who engaged in problematic substance use during the COVID-19 pandemic reported that despite having social supports they still felt lonely. In regression analyses, higher levels of loneliness were associated with more negative impacts of the pandemic, greater substance use, and poorer physical and mental health functioning.

Addressing Loneliness

Researchers believe an answer to some mental health and substance abuse problems may lie in addressing loneliness. Positive psychology is providing promising results in the treatment of SUD. Bryant Stone, from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, emphasizes focusing on well-being and quality of life rather than solely on abstinence with “positive psychological interventions,” or activities and behavioral interventions that target positive variables to promote adaptive functioning.

Veterans can face tough challenges as they rejoin civilian life. How successfully they meet and conquer those challenges, especially if they include drug problems, may directly relate to their general feeling of well-being.

The PERMA model outlines 5 core elements to assess well-being: Positive emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment. A study based on that model found loneliness to be a “particularly significant factor” among key variables influencing the prevention and treatment of SUDs. The study of 156 veterans with self-reported mental health conditions found the ability to engage in social roles and activities was positively correlated with overall well-being and negatively correlated with degree of problems related to drug abuse. 

Rural Veterans

The estimated 4.4 million veterans living in rural communities may benefit most from interventions that tackle isolation. Compared with urban counterparts, they’re more likely to be older, have more complex medical issues, have a service-connected disability, and be unemployed. Those factors, compounded by geographical and social isolation, can have a substantial impact on well-being.

A study centered on the initial validation of a short (5-item) version of PERMA found that individuals who scored higher on the short form tended to report higher levels of optimism, resilience, and happiness. Thus, the short form may be particularly useful for rural veterans who do not always have easy access to health care.

VA has instituted a variety of programs to encourage and support social connection. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth interventions targeted social support and loneliness among veterans—albeit with mixed results. VA CONNECT, a 10-session group telehealth intervention that integrated peer support, did not show significant changes in loneliness, but did significantly reduce perceived stress. 

Another initiative, Compassionate Contact Corps, trained volunteers made weekly phone calls aimed at reducing loneliness and fostering social connection. Started in Columbus, Ohio, in 2020, > 80 sites had adopted the initiative by 2021, with 310 volunteers, 5320 visits, and 4757 hours spent with veterans.

In 2014, VA peer specialists developed and co-hosted Veterans Socials through community partnerships between VA, veteran-serving organizations, and veteran community leaders. As of 2025, 178 known Veterans Socials were spread across 26 states and territories.

The researchers say their case examples collectively demonstrate that Veterans Socials have the potential to serve as a vital platform for peer support, resource sharing, and health service use among veterans. Virtual Veterans Socials also provided hosts with a channel to reach potentially isolated veterans who might not otherwise access services while simultaneously offering veterans an opportunity for social connection.

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

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

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

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

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

Health Care Need

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

OUTCOMES

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

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

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

Future Directions

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health Care Need

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

OUTCOMES

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

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

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

Future Directions

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health Care Need

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

OUTCOMES

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

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

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

Future Directions

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is the most likely diagnosis considering this patient’s symptoms of anxiety, hypervigilance, recurring nightmares, agitation, flashbacks, and violent outbursts. His experience of being robbed at gunpoint outside his gym seems to have been the triggering event for his PTSD, which may have also been influenced by his history of multiple concussions incurred in a fight setting in which he is forced to defend himself. His avoidance of continued training and appearing at scheduled fights further support this diagnosis. His CT scan, although not diagnostic for PTSD directly, does show evidence of minor brain injury, with the remaining hematomas.

Anxiety disorder may account for the patient’s severe anxiety, agitation, and headaches, but his symptoms are new and started after the robbery, which indicates PTSD and not a long-standing anxiety disorder.

Schizophrenia is an unlikely diagnosis for this patient. Although he is within the typical age range of symptom onset, has had violent outbursts, and is prone to vast changes in mood that come on quickly, he is not psychotic and does not experience any of the hallmark symptoms of schizophrenia: delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech/behavior, at least two of which would need to be present to support a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Given this patient’s circumstances, post-traumatic epilepsy initially may be a potential diagnostic consideration. However, he is not experiencing seizures, but rather mood and behavioral disturbances, the onset of which occurred after a specific event. Additionally, posttraumatic epilepsy results from traumatic brain injury.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision, an update to the 2017 clinical treatment guidelines published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the diagnostic criteria for PTSD in an individual older than 6 years are:

1.    Exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury or sexual assault
2.    The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced via flashbacks, nightmares, and intrusive thoughts that cause strong emotional reactions and psychological distress
3.    Avoidance behaviors either in thoughts or conversations about the event or of people and places associated with the event
4.    At least two examples of negative alterations in cognition and mood
5.    At least two examples of hyperarousal
6.    Duration of symptoms > 1 month
7.    Significant distress or impairment in function because of these symptoms

Trauma-focused therapy is the gold standard of treatment for patients with PTSD. A recent review of current treatment strategies for PTSD found that cognitive processing therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, prolonged exposure therapy, and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, all with a strong trauma focus, are the most effective treatments for PTSD.

The use of pharmacology to treat PTSD is controversial and varies by guideline. The APA and US Department of Veterans Affairs both recommend the use of antidepressants, particularly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, as a first-line treatment of PTSD. This is particularly important for patients who have psychiatric comorbid conditions, such as depression, who may not be able to effectively engage in cognitive- behavioral therapy. However, use of benzodiazepines or hypnotics should be strictly avoided in these patients because these drugs increase intrusive and avoidance symptoms over time. Medication should be continued for 6 to 12 months to help prevent relapse. 

Heidi Moawad, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Education, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio.

Heidi Moawad, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is the most likely diagnosis considering this patient’s symptoms of anxiety, hypervigilance, recurring nightmares, agitation, flashbacks, and violent outbursts. His experience of being robbed at gunpoint outside his gym seems to have been the triggering event for his PTSD, which may have also been influenced by his history of multiple concussions incurred in a fight setting in which he is forced to defend himself. His avoidance of continued training and appearing at scheduled fights further support this diagnosis. His CT scan, although not diagnostic for PTSD directly, does show evidence of minor brain injury, with the remaining hematomas.

Anxiety disorder may account for the patient’s severe anxiety, agitation, and headaches, but his symptoms are new and started after the robbery, which indicates PTSD and not a long-standing anxiety disorder.

Schizophrenia is an unlikely diagnosis for this patient. Although he is within the typical age range of symptom onset, has had violent outbursts, and is prone to vast changes in mood that come on quickly, he is not psychotic and does not experience any of the hallmark symptoms of schizophrenia: delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech/behavior, at least two of which would need to be present to support a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Given this patient’s circumstances, post-traumatic epilepsy initially may be a potential diagnostic consideration. However, he is not experiencing seizures, but rather mood and behavioral disturbances, the onset of which occurred after a specific event. Additionally, posttraumatic epilepsy results from traumatic brain injury.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision, an update to the 2017 clinical treatment guidelines published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the diagnostic criteria for PTSD in an individual older than 6 years are:

1.    Exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury or sexual assault
2.    The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced via flashbacks, nightmares, and intrusive thoughts that cause strong emotional reactions and psychological distress
3.    Avoidance behaviors either in thoughts or conversations about the event or of people and places associated with the event
4.    At least two examples of negative alterations in cognition and mood
5.    At least two examples of hyperarousal
6.    Duration of symptoms > 1 month
7.    Significant distress or impairment in function because of these symptoms

Trauma-focused therapy is the gold standard of treatment for patients with PTSD. A recent review of current treatment strategies for PTSD found that cognitive processing therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, prolonged exposure therapy, and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, all with a strong trauma focus, are the most effective treatments for PTSD.

The use of pharmacology to treat PTSD is controversial and varies by guideline. The APA and US Department of Veterans Affairs both recommend the use of antidepressants, particularly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, as a first-line treatment of PTSD. This is particularly important for patients who have psychiatric comorbid conditions, such as depression, who may not be able to effectively engage in cognitive- behavioral therapy. However, use of benzodiazepines or hypnotics should be strictly avoided in these patients because these drugs increase intrusive and avoidance symptoms over time. Medication should be continued for 6 to 12 months to help prevent relapse. 

Heidi Moawad, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Education, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio.

Heidi Moawad, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is the most likely diagnosis considering this patient’s symptoms of anxiety, hypervigilance, recurring nightmares, agitation, flashbacks, and violent outbursts. His experience of being robbed at gunpoint outside his gym seems to have been the triggering event for his PTSD, which may have also been influenced by his history of multiple concussions incurred in a fight setting in which he is forced to defend himself. His avoidance of continued training and appearing at scheduled fights further support this diagnosis. His CT scan, although not diagnostic for PTSD directly, does show evidence of minor brain injury, with the remaining hematomas.

Anxiety disorder may account for the patient’s severe anxiety, agitation, and headaches, but his symptoms are new and started after the robbery, which indicates PTSD and not a long-standing anxiety disorder.

Schizophrenia is an unlikely diagnosis for this patient. Although he is within the typical age range of symptom onset, has had violent outbursts, and is prone to vast changes in mood that come on quickly, he is not psychotic and does not experience any of the hallmark symptoms of schizophrenia: delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech/behavior, at least two of which would need to be present to support a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Given this patient’s circumstances, post-traumatic epilepsy initially may be a potential diagnostic consideration. However, he is not experiencing seizures, but rather mood and behavioral disturbances, the onset of which occurred after a specific event. Additionally, posttraumatic epilepsy results from traumatic brain injury.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision, an update to the 2017 clinical treatment guidelines published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the diagnostic criteria for PTSD in an individual older than 6 years are:

1.    Exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury or sexual assault
2.    The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced via flashbacks, nightmares, and intrusive thoughts that cause strong emotional reactions and psychological distress
3.    Avoidance behaviors either in thoughts or conversations about the event or of people and places associated with the event
4.    At least two examples of negative alterations in cognition and mood
5.    At least two examples of hyperarousal
6.    Duration of symptoms > 1 month
7.    Significant distress or impairment in function because of these symptoms

Trauma-focused therapy is the gold standard of treatment for patients with PTSD. A recent review of current treatment strategies for PTSD found that cognitive processing therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, prolonged exposure therapy, and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, all with a strong trauma focus, are the most effective treatments for PTSD.

The use of pharmacology to treat PTSD is controversial and varies by guideline. The APA and US Department of Veterans Affairs both recommend the use of antidepressants, particularly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, as a first-line treatment of PTSD. This is particularly important for patients who have psychiatric comorbid conditions, such as depression, who may not be able to effectively engage in cognitive- behavioral therapy. However, use of benzodiazepines or hypnotics should be strictly avoided in these patients because these drugs increase intrusive and avoidance symptoms over time. Medication should be continued for 6 to 12 months to help prevent relapse. 

Heidi Moawad, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Education, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio.

Heidi Moawad, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

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

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

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

A drug that combines the atypical antipsychotic brexpiprazole and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor sertraline provides significantly greater relief of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms than sertraline plus placebo, results of a phase 3 trial showed.

The medication is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and if approved, will be the first pharmacologic option for PTSD in more than 20 years.

The trial met its primary endpoint of change in the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5) (CAPS-5) total score at week 10 and secondary patient-reported outcomes of PTSD symptoms, anxiety, and depression.

“And what is really cool, what’s really impactful is the combination worked better than sertraline plus placebo on a brief inventory of psychosocial functioning,” study investigator Lori L. Davis, a senior research psychiatrist, Birmingham Veterans Affairs Health Care System in Alabama, said in an interview.

“We can treat symptoms but that’s where the rubber meets the road, in terms of are they functioning better,” added Davis, who is also an adjunct professor of psychiatry, Heersink School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The findings were published online on December 18 in JAMA Psychiatry and reported in May 2024 as part of a trio of trials conducted by Otsuka Pharmaceutical and Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals, codevelopers of the drug.

 

Clinically Meaningful

The FDA accepted the companies’ supplemental new drug application in June with a decision on approval expected in early February 2025.

“This study provides promising results for a medication that may be an important new option for PTSD,” John Krystal, MD, director, Clinical Neuroscience Division, National Center for PTSD, US Department of Veterans Affairs, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “New PTSD treatments are a high priority.”

Currently, there are two FDA-approved medication treatments for PTSD — sertraline and paroxetine.

“They are helpful for many people, but patients are often left with residual symptoms or tolerability issues,” noted Krystal, who is also professor and chair of psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.

“New medications that might address the important ‘effectiveness gap’ in PTSD could help to reduce the remaining distress, disability, and suicide risk associated with PTSD.” 

The double-blind, phase 3 trial included 416 adults aged 18-65 years with a DSM-5 diagnosis of PTSD and symptoms for at least 6 months prior to screening. Patients underwent a 1-week placebo-run in period followed by randomization to daily oral brexpiprazole 2-3 mg plus sertraline 150 mg or daily sertraline 150 mg plus placebo for 11 weeks.

Participants’ mean age was 37.4 years, 74.5% were women, and mean CAPS-5 total score was 38.4, suggesting moderate to high severity PTSD, Davis said. The average time from the index traumatic event was 4 years and three fourths had no prior exposure to PTSD prescription medications.

At week 10, the mean change in CAPS-5 score from randomization was –19.2 points in the brexpiprazole plus sertraline group and –13.6 points in the sertraline plus placebo group (95% CI, –8.79 to –2.38; P < .001).

Asked whether the 5.59-point treatment difference is clinically meaningful, Davis said there is no widely agreed definition for change in CAPS-5 total score but that a within-group reduction of more than 10-13 points is most-often cited as being clinically meaningful.

The key secondary endpoint of least square mean change in the patient-reported Brief Inventory of Psychosocial Function total score from baseline to week 12 was –33.8 with the combination vs –21.8 with sertraline plus placebo (95% CI, –19.4 to –4.62; P = .002).

“That’s clinically meaningful for me as a provider and a clinician and a researcher when you’re getting the PTSD symptom change differences in parallel with the improvement in functional outcome,” she said. “I see that as the clinically meaningful gauge.”

In terms of safety, 3.9% of the participants in the brexpiprazole/sertraline group and 10.2% of those in the sertraline/placebo group discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

In both the combination and control groups, the only treatment-emergent adverse event with an incidence of more than 10% was nausea (12.2% vs 11.7%, respectively).

At the last visit, the mean change in body weight from baseline was an increase of 1.3 kg for brexpiprazole plus sertraline vs 0 kg for sertraline alone. Rates of fatigue (6.8% vs 4.1%) and somnolence (5.4% vs 2.6%) were also higher with brexpiprazole plus sertraline.

 

A Trio of Clinical Trials

The findings are part of a larger program reported by the drug makers that includes a flexible-dose brexpiprazole phase 2 trial that met the same CAPS-5 primary endpoint and a second phase 3 trial (072 study) that did not.

“We’ve looked at that data and the sertraline/placebo response was a lot higher, so it was not due to a lack of response with the combination but due to a more robust response with the active control,” Davis said. “But we want to point out for that 072 study, there was still important separation between the combination and sertraline plus placebo on the functional outcome.”

All three trials ran for 12 weeks, so longer-term efficacy and safety data are needed, she said. Other limitations of the published phase 3 study are the patient eligibility criteria, restrictions on concomitant therapy, and lack of non-US sites, which many limit generalizability, the authors noted.

“Specifically, the exclusion of patients with a current major depressive episode is both a strength (to show a specific effect on PTSD) and a limitation (given the high prevalence of comorbid depression in PTSD),” they added.

 

Kudos, Caveats

Reached for comment, Vincent F. Capaldi, II, MD, ScM, professor and chair, department of psychiatry, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences School of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland, said the exclusion of these patients is a limitation but that the study was well designed and conducted in a large sample across the United States.

“The findings suggest that brexpiprazole plus sertraline is a more effective treatment for PTSD than sertraline alone,” he said. “This finding is significant for our service members, who suffer from PTSD at higher rates than the general population.”

Additionally, the significant improvement in psychosocial functioning at week 12 “is important because PTSD is known to cause significant social and occupational disability, as well as quality-of-life issues,” he said.

Capaldi pointed out, however, that the study was conducted only at US sites and did not specifically target military/veteran persons, which may limit applicability to these unique populations.

“While subgroup analyses were generally consistent with the primary analysis, the study was not powered to detect differences between subgroups,” he added. “These subgroup analyses are quite important when considering military and veteran populations.”

Further research is needed to explore whether certain traumas are more responsive to combination treatment, the efficacy of augmenting existing sertraline therapy, and the specific mechanisms of brexpiprazole driving the improved outcomes, Capaldi said.

This study was funded by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, which was involved in the design, conduct, and data analysis. Davis reported receiving advisory board fees from Otsuka and Boehringer Ingelheim; lecture fees from Clinical Care Options; and grants from Alkermes, the Veterans Affairs, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Department of Defense, and Social Finance. Several coauthors are employees of Otsuka. Krystal reported serving as a consultant for Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Aptinyx, Biogen, IDEC, Bionomics, Boehringer Ingelheim International, Clearmind Medicine, Cybin IRL, Enveric Biosciences, Epiodyne, EpiVario, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Perception Neuroscience, Praxis Precision Medicines, Springcare, and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals. Krystal also reported serving as a scientific advisory board member for several companies and holding several patents.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A drug that combines the atypical antipsychotic brexpiprazole and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor sertraline provides significantly greater relief of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms than sertraline plus placebo, results of a phase 3 trial showed.

The medication is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and if approved, will be the first pharmacologic option for PTSD in more than 20 years.

The trial met its primary endpoint of change in the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5) (CAPS-5) total score at week 10 and secondary patient-reported outcomes of PTSD symptoms, anxiety, and depression.

“And what is really cool, what’s really impactful is the combination worked better than sertraline plus placebo on a brief inventory of psychosocial functioning,” study investigator Lori L. Davis, a senior research psychiatrist, Birmingham Veterans Affairs Health Care System in Alabama, said in an interview.

“We can treat symptoms but that’s where the rubber meets the road, in terms of are they functioning better,” added Davis, who is also an adjunct professor of psychiatry, Heersink School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The findings were published online on December 18 in JAMA Psychiatry and reported in May 2024 as part of a trio of trials conducted by Otsuka Pharmaceutical and Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals, codevelopers of the drug.

 

Clinically Meaningful

The FDA accepted the companies’ supplemental new drug application in June with a decision on approval expected in early February 2025.

“This study provides promising results for a medication that may be an important new option for PTSD,” John Krystal, MD, director, Clinical Neuroscience Division, National Center for PTSD, US Department of Veterans Affairs, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “New PTSD treatments are a high priority.”

Currently, there are two FDA-approved medication treatments for PTSD — sertraline and paroxetine.

“They are helpful for many people, but patients are often left with residual symptoms or tolerability issues,” noted Krystal, who is also professor and chair of psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.

“New medications that might address the important ‘effectiveness gap’ in PTSD could help to reduce the remaining distress, disability, and suicide risk associated with PTSD.” 

The double-blind, phase 3 trial included 416 adults aged 18-65 years with a DSM-5 diagnosis of PTSD and symptoms for at least 6 months prior to screening. Patients underwent a 1-week placebo-run in period followed by randomization to daily oral brexpiprazole 2-3 mg plus sertraline 150 mg or daily sertraline 150 mg plus placebo for 11 weeks.

Participants’ mean age was 37.4 years, 74.5% were women, and mean CAPS-5 total score was 38.4, suggesting moderate to high severity PTSD, Davis said. The average time from the index traumatic event was 4 years and three fourths had no prior exposure to PTSD prescription medications.

At week 10, the mean change in CAPS-5 score from randomization was –19.2 points in the brexpiprazole plus sertraline group and –13.6 points in the sertraline plus placebo group (95% CI, –8.79 to –2.38; P < .001).

Asked whether the 5.59-point treatment difference is clinically meaningful, Davis said there is no widely agreed definition for change in CAPS-5 total score but that a within-group reduction of more than 10-13 points is most-often cited as being clinically meaningful.

The key secondary endpoint of least square mean change in the patient-reported Brief Inventory of Psychosocial Function total score from baseline to week 12 was –33.8 with the combination vs –21.8 with sertraline plus placebo (95% CI, –19.4 to –4.62; P = .002).

“That’s clinically meaningful for me as a provider and a clinician and a researcher when you’re getting the PTSD symptom change differences in parallel with the improvement in functional outcome,” she said. “I see that as the clinically meaningful gauge.”

In terms of safety, 3.9% of the participants in the brexpiprazole/sertraline group and 10.2% of those in the sertraline/placebo group discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

In both the combination and control groups, the only treatment-emergent adverse event with an incidence of more than 10% was nausea (12.2% vs 11.7%, respectively).

At the last visit, the mean change in body weight from baseline was an increase of 1.3 kg for brexpiprazole plus sertraline vs 0 kg for sertraline alone. Rates of fatigue (6.8% vs 4.1%) and somnolence (5.4% vs 2.6%) were also higher with brexpiprazole plus sertraline.

 

A Trio of Clinical Trials

The findings are part of a larger program reported by the drug makers that includes a flexible-dose brexpiprazole phase 2 trial that met the same CAPS-5 primary endpoint and a second phase 3 trial (072 study) that did not.

“We’ve looked at that data and the sertraline/placebo response was a lot higher, so it was not due to a lack of response with the combination but due to a more robust response with the active control,” Davis said. “But we want to point out for that 072 study, there was still important separation between the combination and sertraline plus placebo on the functional outcome.”

All three trials ran for 12 weeks, so longer-term efficacy and safety data are needed, she said. Other limitations of the published phase 3 study are the patient eligibility criteria, restrictions on concomitant therapy, and lack of non-US sites, which many limit generalizability, the authors noted.

“Specifically, the exclusion of patients with a current major depressive episode is both a strength (to show a specific effect on PTSD) and a limitation (given the high prevalence of comorbid depression in PTSD),” they added.

 

Kudos, Caveats

Reached for comment, Vincent F. Capaldi, II, MD, ScM, professor and chair, department of psychiatry, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences School of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland, said the exclusion of these patients is a limitation but that the study was well designed and conducted in a large sample across the United States.

“The findings suggest that brexpiprazole plus sertraline is a more effective treatment for PTSD than sertraline alone,” he said. “This finding is significant for our service members, who suffer from PTSD at higher rates than the general population.”

Additionally, the significant improvement in psychosocial functioning at week 12 “is important because PTSD is known to cause significant social and occupational disability, as well as quality-of-life issues,” he said.

Capaldi pointed out, however, that the study was conducted only at US sites and did not specifically target military/veteran persons, which may limit applicability to these unique populations.

“While subgroup analyses were generally consistent with the primary analysis, the study was not powered to detect differences between subgroups,” he added. “These subgroup analyses are quite important when considering military and veteran populations.”

Further research is needed to explore whether certain traumas are more responsive to combination treatment, the efficacy of augmenting existing sertraline therapy, and the specific mechanisms of brexpiprazole driving the improved outcomes, Capaldi said.

This study was funded by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, which was involved in the design, conduct, and data analysis. Davis reported receiving advisory board fees from Otsuka and Boehringer Ingelheim; lecture fees from Clinical Care Options; and grants from Alkermes, the Veterans Affairs, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Department of Defense, and Social Finance. Several coauthors are employees of Otsuka. Krystal reported serving as a consultant for Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Aptinyx, Biogen, IDEC, Bionomics, Boehringer Ingelheim International, Clearmind Medicine, Cybin IRL, Enveric Biosciences, Epiodyne, EpiVario, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Perception Neuroscience, Praxis Precision Medicines, Springcare, and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals. Krystal also reported serving as a scientific advisory board member for several companies and holding several patents.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A drug that combines the atypical antipsychotic brexpiprazole and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor sertraline provides significantly greater relief of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms than sertraline plus placebo, results of a phase 3 trial showed.

The medication is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and if approved, will be the first pharmacologic option for PTSD in more than 20 years.

The trial met its primary endpoint of change in the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5) (CAPS-5) total score at week 10 and secondary patient-reported outcomes of PTSD symptoms, anxiety, and depression.

“And what is really cool, what’s really impactful is the combination worked better than sertraline plus placebo on a brief inventory of psychosocial functioning,” study investigator Lori L. Davis, a senior research psychiatrist, Birmingham Veterans Affairs Health Care System in Alabama, said in an interview.

“We can treat symptoms but that’s where the rubber meets the road, in terms of are they functioning better,” added Davis, who is also an adjunct professor of psychiatry, Heersink School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The findings were published online on December 18 in JAMA Psychiatry and reported in May 2024 as part of a trio of trials conducted by Otsuka Pharmaceutical and Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals, codevelopers of the drug.

 

Clinically Meaningful

The FDA accepted the companies’ supplemental new drug application in June with a decision on approval expected in early February 2025.

“This study provides promising results for a medication that may be an important new option for PTSD,” John Krystal, MD, director, Clinical Neuroscience Division, National Center for PTSD, US Department of Veterans Affairs, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “New PTSD treatments are a high priority.”

Currently, there are two FDA-approved medication treatments for PTSD — sertraline and paroxetine.

“They are helpful for many people, but patients are often left with residual symptoms or tolerability issues,” noted Krystal, who is also professor and chair of psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.

“New medications that might address the important ‘effectiveness gap’ in PTSD could help to reduce the remaining distress, disability, and suicide risk associated with PTSD.” 

The double-blind, phase 3 trial included 416 adults aged 18-65 years with a DSM-5 diagnosis of PTSD and symptoms for at least 6 months prior to screening. Patients underwent a 1-week placebo-run in period followed by randomization to daily oral brexpiprazole 2-3 mg plus sertraline 150 mg or daily sertraline 150 mg plus placebo for 11 weeks.

Participants’ mean age was 37.4 years, 74.5% were women, and mean CAPS-5 total score was 38.4, suggesting moderate to high severity PTSD, Davis said. The average time from the index traumatic event was 4 years and three fourths had no prior exposure to PTSD prescription medications.

At week 10, the mean change in CAPS-5 score from randomization was –19.2 points in the brexpiprazole plus sertraline group and –13.6 points in the sertraline plus placebo group (95% CI, –8.79 to –2.38; P < .001).

Asked whether the 5.59-point treatment difference is clinically meaningful, Davis said there is no widely agreed definition for change in CAPS-5 total score but that a within-group reduction of more than 10-13 points is most-often cited as being clinically meaningful.

The key secondary endpoint of least square mean change in the patient-reported Brief Inventory of Psychosocial Function total score from baseline to week 12 was –33.8 with the combination vs –21.8 with sertraline plus placebo (95% CI, –19.4 to –4.62; P = .002).

“That’s clinically meaningful for me as a provider and a clinician and a researcher when you’re getting the PTSD symptom change differences in parallel with the improvement in functional outcome,” she said. “I see that as the clinically meaningful gauge.”

In terms of safety, 3.9% of the participants in the brexpiprazole/sertraline group and 10.2% of those in the sertraline/placebo group discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

In both the combination and control groups, the only treatment-emergent adverse event with an incidence of more than 10% was nausea (12.2% vs 11.7%, respectively).

At the last visit, the mean change in body weight from baseline was an increase of 1.3 kg for brexpiprazole plus sertraline vs 0 kg for sertraline alone. Rates of fatigue (6.8% vs 4.1%) and somnolence (5.4% vs 2.6%) were also higher with brexpiprazole plus sertraline.

 

A Trio of Clinical Trials

The findings are part of a larger program reported by the drug makers that includes a flexible-dose brexpiprazole phase 2 trial that met the same CAPS-5 primary endpoint and a second phase 3 trial (072 study) that did not.

“We’ve looked at that data and the sertraline/placebo response was a lot higher, so it was not due to a lack of response with the combination but due to a more robust response with the active control,” Davis said. “But we want to point out for that 072 study, there was still important separation between the combination and sertraline plus placebo on the functional outcome.”

All three trials ran for 12 weeks, so longer-term efficacy and safety data are needed, she said. Other limitations of the published phase 3 study are the patient eligibility criteria, restrictions on concomitant therapy, and lack of non-US sites, which many limit generalizability, the authors noted.

“Specifically, the exclusion of patients with a current major depressive episode is both a strength (to show a specific effect on PTSD) and a limitation (given the high prevalence of comorbid depression in PTSD),” they added.

 

Kudos, Caveats

Reached for comment, Vincent F. Capaldi, II, MD, ScM, professor and chair, department of psychiatry, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences School of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland, said the exclusion of these patients is a limitation but that the study was well designed and conducted in a large sample across the United States.

“The findings suggest that brexpiprazole plus sertraline is a more effective treatment for PTSD than sertraline alone,” he said. “This finding is significant for our service members, who suffer from PTSD at higher rates than the general population.”

Additionally, the significant improvement in psychosocial functioning at week 12 “is important because PTSD is known to cause significant social and occupational disability, as well as quality-of-life issues,” he said.

Capaldi pointed out, however, that the study was conducted only at US sites and did not specifically target military/veteran persons, which may limit applicability to these unique populations.

“While subgroup analyses were generally consistent with the primary analysis, the study was not powered to detect differences between subgroups,” he added. “These subgroup analyses are quite important when considering military and veteran populations.”

Further research is needed to explore whether certain traumas are more responsive to combination treatment, the efficacy of augmenting existing sertraline therapy, and the specific mechanisms of brexpiprazole driving the improved outcomes, Capaldi said.

This study was funded by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, which was involved in the design, conduct, and data analysis. Davis reported receiving advisory board fees from Otsuka and Boehringer Ingelheim; lecture fees from Clinical Care Options; and grants from Alkermes, the Veterans Affairs, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Department of Defense, and Social Finance. Several coauthors are employees of Otsuka. Krystal reported serving as a consultant for Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Aptinyx, Biogen, IDEC, Bionomics, Boehringer Ingelheim International, Clearmind Medicine, Cybin IRL, Enveric Biosciences, Epiodyne, EpiVario, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Perception Neuroscience, Praxis Precision Medicines, Springcare, and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals. Krystal also reported serving as a scientific advisory board member for several companies and holding several patents.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first study funded by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for psychedelic-assisted therapy since the 1960s is currently enrolling veterans. Researchers are set to evaluate the potential of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol use disorder.   
 

The grant—about $1.5 million over 5 years—will fund a randomized, placebo-controlled trial at the Providence VA Medical Center in Rhode Island and the West Haven VA Medical Center in Connecticut by VA researchers affiliated with Brown University and Yale University. Pharmaceutical-grade MDMA will be used, and some participants will be randomly selected to receive an active placebo (lower dose of MDMA). MDMA is a psychedelic compound believed to increase emotional openness, reduce fear, and promote introspection during therapy. 
 

The study is part of the VA’s broader effort to gather definitive scientific evidence on the potential efficacy and safety of psychedelic compounds used in conjunction with psychotherapy to treat PTSD, depression, and related mental health conditions. Veterans service organizations like the American Legion and Disabled American Veterans in addition to mental health clinician groups have also called for expanded research into psychedelic compounds. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2024 also authorized the US Department of Defense to perform research on psychedelics within military populations. 
 

In September 2023, VA and other federal clinicians, scientists, and policy makers assessed the state of scientific evidence regarding psychedelic-assisted therapies. The working groups provided advice to VA leadership, including the recommendation for the VA to begin funding its own research into these areas of care.  
 

The guidance was based on previously published studies that have found encouraging results but included few or no veteran participants. For example, a confirmatory phase 3 study by the MAPP2 Study Collaborator Group involved 104 patients, of whom only 16 were veterans.  
 

However, the findings of that study underscored the potential of the treatment: MDMA significantly improved PTSD symptoms and functional impairment, compared with placebo with therapy over 18 weeks. Notably, 45 of 52 (86%) participants treated with MDMA achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 37 of 52 (71%) participants no longer met criteria for PTSD by the end of the study. Consistent with an earlier study, no new major safety issues were reported. Common treatment-emergent adverse effects were like those of previous research and consistent with expected effects of MDMA. MDMA did not appear to increase the risk of suicidal ideation, and no suicidal behavior was observed. 
 

The VA researchers has conducted a limited number of small studies on psychedelics in VA facilities using non-VA funding. “VA is on the cutting edge of clinical research for veteran health, including in the investigation of psychedelics for mental health,” said Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD.  
 

The FDA granted breakthrough therapy status for MDMA in the treatment of PTSD and psilocybin for the treatment of depression in 2017 and 2018, respectively, based on promising preliminary research evidence. However, in June 2024 an FDA panel voted against approving a MDMA therapy for PTSD, citing concerns about research practices, a lack of diversity in the trials, and a failure to provide data on adverse effects such as potential for abuse.  
 

In August, the FDA formally rejected the treatment and called for another phase 3 study. “The FDA’s decision is disgraceful,” said Heroic Hearts Project, a veterans organization that had lobbied for FDA approval citing the many veteran suicides in a statement. “This is the epitome of bureaucratic red tape—and the result is people will keep dying.” 
 

Meanwhile, VA Press Secretary Terrence Hayes said in a statement: “VA is committed to high-quality research that safely promotes the health of our nation’s Veterans … VA anticipates that additional insights on the efficacy and safety of these therapies will add to the broader body of knowledge on MDMA-assisted psychotherapy.”

The first study funded by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for psychedelic-assisted therapy since the 1960s is currently enrolling veterans. Researchers are set to evaluate the potential of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol use disorder.   
 

The grant—about $1.5 million over 5 years—will fund a randomized, placebo-controlled trial at the Providence VA Medical Center in Rhode Island and the West Haven VA Medical Center in Connecticut by VA researchers affiliated with Brown University and Yale University. Pharmaceutical-grade MDMA will be used, and some participants will be randomly selected to receive an active placebo (lower dose of MDMA). MDMA is a psychedelic compound believed to increase emotional openness, reduce fear, and promote introspection during therapy. 
 

The study is part of the VA’s broader effort to gather definitive scientific evidence on the potential efficacy and safety of psychedelic compounds used in conjunction with psychotherapy to treat PTSD, depression, and related mental health conditions. Veterans service organizations like the American Legion and Disabled American Veterans in addition to mental health clinician groups have also called for expanded research into psychedelic compounds. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2024 also authorized the US Department of Defense to perform research on psychedelics within military populations. 
 

In September 2023, VA and other federal clinicians, scientists, and policy makers assessed the state of scientific evidence regarding psychedelic-assisted therapies. The working groups provided advice to VA leadership, including the recommendation for the VA to begin funding its own research into these areas of care.  
 

The guidance was based on previously published studies that have found encouraging results but included few or no veteran participants. For example, a confirmatory phase 3 study by the MAPP2 Study Collaborator Group involved 104 patients, of whom only 16 were veterans.  
 

However, the findings of that study underscored the potential of the treatment: MDMA significantly improved PTSD symptoms and functional impairment, compared with placebo with therapy over 18 weeks. Notably, 45 of 52 (86%) participants treated with MDMA achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 37 of 52 (71%) participants no longer met criteria for PTSD by the end of the study. Consistent with an earlier study, no new major safety issues were reported. Common treatment-emergent adverse effects were like those of previous research and consistent with expected effects of MDMA. MDMA did not appear to increase the risk of suicidal ideation, and no suicidal behavior was observed. 
 

The VA researchers has conducted a limited number of small studies on psychedelics in VA facilities using non-VA funding. “VA is on the cutting edge of clinical research for veteran health, including in the investigation of psychedelics for mental health,” said Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD.  
 

The FDA granted breakthrough therapy status for MDMA in the treatment of PTSD and psilocybin for the treatment of depression in 2017 and 2018, respectively, based on promising preliminary research evidence. However, in June 2024 an FDA panel voted against approving a MDMA therapy for PTSD, citing concerns about research practices, a lack of diversity in the trials, and a failure to provide data on adverse effects such as potential for abuse.  
 

In August, the FDA formally rejected the treatment and called for another phase 3 study. “The FDA’s decision is disgraceful,” said Heroic Hearts Project, a veterans organization that had lobbied for FDA approval citing the many veteran suicides in a statement. “This is the epitome of bureaucratic red tape—and the result is people will keep dying.” 
 

Meanwhile, VA Press Secretary Terrence Hayes said in a statement: “VA is committed to high-quality research that safely promotes the health of our nation’s Veterans … VA anticipates that additional insights on the efficacy and safety of these therapies will add to the broader body of knowledge on MDMA-assisted psychotherapy.”

The first study funded by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for psychedelic-assisted therapy since the 1960s is currently enrolling veterans. Researchers are set to evaluate the potential of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol use disorder.   
 

The grant—about $1.5 million over 5 years—will fund a randomized, placebo-controlled trial at the Providence VA Medical Center in Rhode Island and the West Haven VA Medical Center in Connecticut by VA researchers affiliated with Brown University and Yale University. Pharmaceutical-grade MDMA will be used, and some participants will be randomly selected to receive an active placebo (lower dose of MDMA). MDMA is a psychedelic compound believed to increase emotional openness, reduce fear, and promote introspection during therapy. 
 

The study is part of the VA’s broader effort to gather definitive scientific evidence on the potential efficacy and safety of psychedelic compounds used in conjunction with psychotherapy to treat PTSD, depression, and related mental health conditions. Veterans service organizations like the American Legion and Disabled American Veterans in addition to mental health clinician groups have also called for expanded research into psychedelic compounds. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2024 also authorized the US Department of Defense to perform research on psychedelics within military populations. 
 

In September 2023, VA and other federal clinicians, scientists, and policy makers assessed the state of scientific evidence regarding psychedelic-assisted therapies. The working groups provided advice to VA leadership, including the recommendation for the VA to begin funding its own research into these areas of care.  
 

The guidance was based on previously published studies that have found encouraging results but included few or no veteran participants. For example, a confirmatory phase 3 study by the MAPP2 Study Collaborator Group involved 104 patients, of whom only 16 were veterans.  
 

However, the findings of that study underscored the potential of the treatment: MDMA significantly improved PTSD symptoms and functional impairment, compared with placebo with therapy over 18 weeks. Notably, 45 of 52 (86%) participants treated with MDMA achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 37 of 52 (71%) participants no longer met criteria for PTSD by the end of the study. Consistent with an earlier study, no new major safety issues were reported. Common treatment-emergent adverse effects were like those of previous research and consistent with expected effects of MDMA. MDMA did not appear to increase the risk of suicidal ideation, and no suicidal behavior was observed. 
 

The VA researchers has conducted a limited number of small studies on psychedelics in VA facilities using non-VA funding. “VA is on the cutting edge of clinical research for veteran health, including in the investigation of psychedelics for mental health,” said Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD.  
 

The FDA granted breakthrough therapy status for MDMA in the treatment of PTSD and psilocybin for the treatment of depression in 2017 and 2018, respectively, based on promising preliminary research evidence. However, in June 2024 an FDA panel voted against approving a MDMA therapy for PTSD, citing concerns about research practices, a lack of diversity in the trials, and a failure to provide data on adverse effects such as potential for abuse.  
 

In August, the FDA formally rejected the treatment and called for another phase 3 study. “The FDA’s decision is disgraceful,” said Heroic Hearts Project, a veterans organization that had lobbied for FDA approval citing the many veteran suicides in a statement. “This is the epitome of bureaucratic red tape—and the result is people will keep dying.” 
 

Meanwhile, VA Press Secretary Terrence Hayes said in a statement: “VA is committed to high-quality research that safely promotes the health of our nation’s Veterans … VA anticipates that additional insights on the efficacy and safety of these therapies will add to the broader body of knowledge on MDMA-assisted psychotherapy.”