PTSD

Heart rate variability (HRV), as assessed during a deep breathing test, may lead to improved diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, according to a study published in Frontiers in Psychiatry.

It is estimated that between 8% and 15% of clinically recognized pregnancies and up to 30% of all pregnancies result in miscarriage – a loss that can be devastating for everyone. There are limited data on the strength of the association between perinatal loss and subsequent common mental health disorders, such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD. The prevalence of PTSD among this group is still unknown, and one of the factors that contribute to the absence of data is that diagnostic evaluation is subjective.

To address this issue, researchers from Anhembi Morumbi University (UAM) in São José dos Campos, Brazil, along with teams in the United States and United Arab Emirates (UAE), investigated biomarkers for the severity of PTSD. The hope is that the research will enable psychiatrists to assess women who experience pregnancy loss more objectively. Study author Ovidiu Constantin Baltatu, MD, PhD, a professor at Brazil’s UAM and the UAE’s Khalifa University, spoke to this news organization about the study.

Under the guidance of Dr. Baltatu, psychologist Cláudia de Faria Cardoso carried out the research as part of her studies in biomedical engineering at UAM. Fifty-three women were recruited; the average age of the cohort was 33 years. All participants had a history of at least one perinatal loss. Pregnancy loss intervals ranged from less than 40 days to more than 6 months.

Participants completed a clinical interview and a questionnaire; PTSD symptoms were assessed on the basis of criteria in the DSM-5. The instrument used for the assessment was the Brazilian version of the Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-5). In addition, to evaluate general autonomic dysfunction, patients completed the Composite Autonomic Symptom Score 31 (COMPASS-31) questionnaire.

HRV was assessed during a deep breathing test using an HRV scanner system with wireless electrocardiography that enabled real-time data analysis and visualization. The investigators examined the following HRV measures: standard deviation (SD) of normal R-R wave intervals (SDNN), square root of the mean of the sum of the squares of differences between adjacent normal R wave intervals, and the number of all R-R intervals in which the change in consecutive normal sinus intervals exceeds 50 ms divided by the total number of R-R intervals measured.

Of the 53 participants, 25 had been diagnosed with pregnancy loss–induced PTSD. The results indicated a significant association between PCL-5 scores and HRV indices. The SDNN index effectively distinguished between patients with PTSD and those without.

To Dr. Baltatu, HRV indices reflect dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system (ANS), one of the major neural pathways activated by stress.

Although the deep breathing test has been around for a long time, it’s not widely used in current clinical practice, he said. According to him, maximum and minimum heart rates during breathing at six cycles per minute can typically be used to calculate the inspiratory-to-expiratory ratio, thus providing an indication of ANS function. “Our group introduced the study of HRV during deep breathing test, which is a step forward,” he said.

The methodology used by the team was well received by the participants. “With the deep breathing test, the women were able to look at a screen and see real-time graphics displaying the stress that they were experiencing after having suffered trauma. This visualization of objective measures was perceived as an improved care,” said Dr. Baltatu.

In general, HRV provides a more objective means of diagnosing PTSD. “Normally, PTSD is assessed through a questionnaire and an interview with psychologists,” said Dr. Baltatu. The subjectivity of the assessment is one of the main factors associated with the underdiagnosis of this condition, he explained.

It is important to remember that other factors, such as a lack of awareness about the problem, also hinder the diagnosis of PTSD in this population, Dr. Baltatu added. Women who have had a miscarriage often don’t think that their symptoms may result from PTSD. This fact highlights why it is so important that hospitals have a clinical psychologist on staff. In addition, Dr. Baltatu pointed out that a woman who experiences a pregnancy loss usually has negative memories of the hospital and is therefore reluctant to reach out for professional help. “In our study, all psychological care and assessments took place outside of a hospital setting, which the participants seemed to appreciate,” he emphasized.

Dr. Baltatu and his team are conducting follow-up research. The preliminary results indicate that the biomarkers identified in the study are promising in the assessment of patients’ clinical progress. This finding may reflect the fact that the HRV indices have proven useful not only in diagnosing but also in monitoring women in treatment, because they are able to identify which patients are responding better to treatment.

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

Heart rate variability (HRV), as assessed during a deep breathing test, may lead to improved diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, according to a study published in Frontiers in Psychiatry.

It is estimated that between 8% and 15% of clinically recognized pregnancies and up to 30% of all pregnancies result in miscarriage – a loss that can be devastating for everyone. There are limited data on the strength of the association between perinatal loss and subsequent common mental health disorders, such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD. The prevalence of PTSD among this group is still unknown, and one of the factors that contribute to the absence of data is that diagnostic evaluation is subjective.

To address this issue, researchers from Anhembi Morumbi University (UAM) in São José dos Campos, Brazil, along with teams in the United States and United Arab Emirates (UAE), investigated biomarkers for the severity of PTSD. The hope is that the research will enable psychiatrists to assess women who experience pregnancy loss more objectively. Study author Ovidiu Constantin Baltatu, MD, PhD, a professor at Brazil’s UAM and the UAE’s Khalifa University, spoke to this news organization about the study.

Under the guidance of Dr. Baltatu, psychologist Cláudia de Faria Cardoso carried out the research as part of her studies in biomedical engineering at UAM. Fifty-three women were recruited; the average age of the cohort was 33 years. All participants had a history of at least one perinatal loss. Pregnancy loss intervals ranged from less than 40 days to more than 6 months.

Participants completed a clinical interview and a questionnaire; PTSD symptoms were assessed on the basis of criteria in the DSM-5. The instrument used for the assessment was the Brazilian version of the Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-5). In addition, to evaluate general autonomic dysfunction, patients completed the Composite Autonomic Symptom Score 31 (COMPASS-31) questionnaire.

HRV was assessed during a deep breathing test using an HRV scanner system with wireless electrocardiography that enabled real-time data analysis and visualization. The investigators examined the following HRV measures: standard deviation (SD) of normal R-R wave intervals (SDNN), square root of the mean of the sum of the squares of differences between adjacent normal R wave intervals, and the number of all R-R intervals in which the change in consecutive normal sinus intervals exceeds 50 ms divided by the total number of R-R intervals measured.

Of the 53 participants, 25 had been diagnosed with pregnancy loss–induced PTSD. The results indicated a significant association between PCL-5 scores and HRV indices. The SDNN index effectively distinguished between patients with PTSD and those without.

To Dr. Baltatu, HRV indices reflect dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system (ANS), one of the major neural pathways activated by stress.

Although the deep breathing test has been around for a long time, it’s not widely used in current clinical practice, he said. According to him, maximum and minimum heart rates during breathing at six cycles per minute can typically be used to calculate the inspiratory-to-expiratory ratio, thus providing an indication of ANS function. “Our group introduced the study of HRV during deep breathing test, which is a step forward,” he said.

The methodology used by the team was well received by the participants. “With the deep breathing test, the women were able to look at a screen and see real-time graphics displaying the stress that they were experiencing after having suffered trauma. This visualization of objective measures was perceived as an improved care,” said Dr. Baltatu.

In general, HRV provides a more objective means of diagnosing PTSD. “Normally, PTSD is assessed through a questionnaire and an interview with psychologists,” said Dr. Baltatu. The subjectivity of the assessment is one of the main factors associated with the underdiagnosis of this condition, he explained.

It is important to remember that other factors, such as a lack of awareness about the problem, also hinder the diagnosis of PTSD in this population, Dr. Baltatu added. Women who have had a miscarriage often don’t think that their symptoms may result from PTSD. This fact highlights why it is so important that hospitals have a clinical psychologist on staff. In addition, Dr. Baltatu pointed out that a woman who experiences a pregnancy loss usually has negative memories of the hospital and is therefore reluctant to reach out for professional help. “In our study, all psychological care and assessments took place outside of a hospital setting, which the participants seemed to appreciate,” he emphasized.

Dr. Baltatu and his team are conducting follow-up research. The preliminary results indicate that the biomarkers identified in the study are promising in the assessment of patients’ clinical progress. This finding may reflect the fact that the HRV indices have proven useful not only in diagnosing but also in monitoring women in treatment, because they are able to identify which patients are responding better to treatment.

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

Heart rate variability (HRV), as assessed during a deep breathing test, may lead to improved diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, according to a study published in Frontiers in Psychiatry.

It is estimated that between 8% and 15% of clinically recognized pregnancies and up to 30% of all pregnancies result in miscarriage – a loss that can be devastating for everyone. There are limited data on the strength of the association between perinatal loss and subsequent common mental health disorders, such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD. The prevalence of PTSD among this group is still unknown, and one of the factors that contribute to the absence of data is that diagnostic evaluation is subjective.

To address this issue, researchers from Anhembi Morumbi University (UAM) in São José dos Campos, Brazil, along with teams in the United States and United Arab Emirates (UAE), investigated biomarkers for the severity of PTSD. The hope is that the research will enable psychiatrists to assess women who experience pregnancy loss more objectively. Study author Ovidiu Constantin Baltatu, MD, PhD, a professor at Brazil’s UAM and the UAE’s Khalifa University, spoke to this news organization about the study.

Under the guidance of Dr. Baltatu, psychologist Cláudia de Faria Cardoso carried out the research as part of her studies in biomedical engineering at UAM. Fifty-three women were recruited; the average age of the cohort was 33 years. All participants had a history of at least one perinatal loss. Pregnancy loss intervals ranged from less than 40 days to more than 6 months.

Participants completed a clinical interview and a questionnaire; PTSD symptoms were assessed on the basis of criteria in the DSM-5. The instrument used for the assessment was the Brazilian version of the Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-5). In addition, to evaluate general autonomic dysfunction, patients completed the Composite Autonomic Symptom Score 31 (COMPASS-31) questionnaire.

HRV was assessed during a deep breathing test using an HRV scanner system with wireless electrocardiography that enabled real-time data analysis and visualization. The investigators examined the following HRV measures: standard deviation (SD) of normal R-R wave intervals (SDNN), square root of the mean of the sum of the squares of differences between adjacent normal R wave intervals, and the number of all R-R intervals in which the change in consecutive normal sinus intervals exceeds 50 ms divided by the total number of R-R intervals measured.

Of the 53 participants, 25 had been diagnosed with pregnancy loss–induced PTSD. The results indicated a significant association between PCL-5 scores and HRV indices. The SDNN index effectively distinguished between patients with PTSD and those without.

To Dr. Baltatu, HRV indices reflect dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system (ANS), one of the major neural pathways activated by stress.

Although the deep breathing test has been around for a long time, it’s not widely used in current clinical practice, he said. According to him, maximum and minimum heart rates during breathing at six cycles per minute can typically be used to calculate the inspiratory-to-expiratory ratio, thus providing an indication of ANS function. “Our group introduced the study of HRV during deep breathing test, which is a step forward,” he said.

The methodology used by the team was well received by the participants. “With the deep breathing test, the women were able to look at a screen and see real-time graphics displaying the stress that they were experiencing after having suffered trauma. This visualization of objective measures was perceived as an improved care,” said Dr. Baltatu.

In general, HRV provides a more objective means of diagnosing PTSD. “Normally, PTSD is assessed through a questionnaire and an interview with psychologists,” said Dr. Baltatu. The subjectivity of the assessment is one of the main factors associated with the underdiagnosis of this condition, he explained.

It is important to remember that other factors, such as a lack of awareness about the problem, also hinder the diagnosis of PTSD in this population, Dr. Baltatu added. Women who have had a miscarriage often don’t think that their symptoms may result from PTSD. This fact highlights why it is so important that hospitals have a clinical psychologist on staff. In addition, Dr. Baltatu pointed out that a woman who experiences a pregnancy loss usually has negative memories of the hospital and is therefore reluctant to reach out for professional help. “In our study, all psychological care and assessments took place outside of a hospital setting, which the participants seemed to appreciate,” he emphasized.

Dr. Baltatu and his team are conducting follow-up research. The preliminary results indicate that the biomarkers identified in the study are promising in the assessment of patients’ clinical progress. This finding may reflect the fact that the HRV indices have proven useful not only in diagnosing but also in monitoring women in treatment, because they are able to identify which patients are responding better to treatment.

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

Physical exercise offers preventative and therapeutic benefits for a range of chronic health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, Alzheimer disease, and depression.^1,2 Exercise has been well studied for its antidepressant effects, its ability to reduce risk of aging-related dementia, and favorable effects on a range of cognitive functions.² Lesser evidence exists regarding the impact of exercise on other mental health concerns. Therefore, an accurate understanding of whether physical exercise may ameliorate other conditions is important.

A small meta-analysis by Rosenbaum and colleagues found that exercise interventions were superior to control conditions for symptom reduction in study participants with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).³ This meta-analysis included 4 randomized clinical trials representing 200 cases. The trial included a variety of physical activities (eg, yoga, aerobic, and strength-building exercises) and control conditions, and participants recruited from online, community, inpatient, and outpatient settings. The standardized mean difference (SMD) produced by the analysis indicated a small-to-medium effect (Hedges g, -0.35), with the authors reporting no evidence of publication bias, although an assessment of potential bias associated with individual trial design characteristics was not conducted. Of note, a meta-analysis by Watts and colleagues found that effect sizes for PTSD treatments tend to be smaller in veteran populations.⁴ Therefore, how much the mean effect size estimate in the study is applicable to veterans with PTSD is unknown.³

Veterans represent a unique subpopulation in which PTSD is common, although no meta-analysis yet published has synthesized the effects of exercise interventions from trials of veterans with PTSD.⁵ A recent systematic review by Whitworth and Ciccolo concluded that exercise may be associated with reduced risk of PTSD, a briefer course of PTSD symptoms, and/or reduced sleep- and depression-related difficulties.⁶ However, that review primarily included observational, cross-sectional, and qualitative works. No trials included in our meta-analysis were included in that review.⁶

Evidence-based psychotherapies like cognitive processing therapy and prolonged exposure have been shown to be effective for treating PTSD in veterans; however, these modalities are accompanied by high rates of dropout (eg, 40-60%), thereby limiting their clinical utility.⁷ The use of complementary and alternative approaches for treatment in the United States has increased in recent years, and exercise represents an important complementary treatment option.⁸ In a study by Baldwin and colleagues, nearly 50% of veterans reported using complementary or alternative approaches, and veterans with PTSD were among those likely to use such approaches.⁹ However, current studies of the effects of exercise interventions on PTSD symptom reduction are mostly small and varied, making determinations difficult regarding the potential utility of exercise for treating this condition in veterans.

Literature Search

No previous research has synthesized the literature on the effects of exercise on PTSD in the veteran population. The current meta-analysis aims to provide a synthesis of systematically selected studies on this topic to determine whether exercise-based interventions are effective at reducing veterans’ symptoms of PTSD. Our hypothesis was that, when used as a primary or adjuvant intervention for PTSD, physical exercise would be associated with a reduction of PTSD symptom scale scores. We planned a priori to produce separate estimates for single-arm and multi-arm trials. We also wanted to conduct a careful risk of bias assessment—or evaluation of study features that may have systematically influenced results—for included trials, not only to provide context for interpretation of results, but also to inform suggestions for research to advance this field of inquiry.¹⁰

Methods

This study was preregistered on PROSPERO and followed PRISMA guidelines for meta-analyses and systematic reviews.¹¹ Supplementary materials, such as the PRISMA checklist, study data, and funnel plots, are available online (doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5618437.v1). Conference abstracts were omitted due to a lack of necessary information. We decided early in the planning process to include both randomized and single-arm trials, expecting the number of completed studies in the area of exercise for PTSD symptom reduction in veterans, and particularly randomized trials of such, would be relatively small.

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) the study was a single- or multi-arm interventional trial; (2) participants were veterans; (3) participants had a current diagnosis of PTSD or exhibited subthreshold PTSD symptoms, as established by authors of the individual studies and supported by a structured clinical interview, semistructured interview, or elevated scores on PTSD symptom self-report measures; (4) the study included an intervention in which exercise (physical activity that is planned, structured, repetitive, and purposive in the sense that improvement or maintenance of physical fitness or health is an objective) was the primary component; (5) PTSD symptom severity was by a clinician-rated or self-report measure; and (6) the study was published in a peer-reviewed journal.¹² Studies were excluded if means, standard deviations, and sample sizes were not available or the full text of the study was not available in English.

Data Collection

Data were extracted from included studies using custom forms and included the following information based on PRISMA guidelines: (1) study design characteristics; (2) intervention details; and (3) PTSD outcome information.¹¹ PTSD symptom severity was the primary outcome of interest. Outcome data were included if they were derived from a measure of PTSD symptoms—equivalency across measures was assumed for meta-analyses. Potential study bias for each outcome was evaluated using the ROBINS-I and Cochrane Collaboration’s RoB 2 tools for single-arm and multi-arm trials, respectively.^13,14 These tools evaluate domains related to the design, conduct, and analysis of studies that are associated with bias (ie, systematic error in findings, such as under- or overestimation of results).¹⁰ Examples include how well authors performed and concealed randomization procedures, addressed missing data, and measured study outcomes.^13,14 The risk of bias (eg, low, moderate, serious) associated with each domain is rated and, based on the domain ratings, each study is then given an overall rating regarding how much risk influences bias.^13,14 Broadly, lower risk of bias corresponds to higher confidence in the validity of results.

Finally, 4 authors (associated with 2 single- and 2 multi-arm studies) were contacted and asked to provide further information. Data for 1 additional multi-arm study were obtained from these communications and included in the final study selection.¹⁵ These authors were also asked for information about any unpublished works of which they were aware, although no additional works were identified.

Statistical Analyses

Analyses were performed with R Studio R 3.6.0 software.¹⁶ An SMD (also known as Hedges g) was calculated for each study outcome: for single-arm trials, this was the SMD between pre- and postintervention scores, whereas for multi-arm trials, this was the SMD between postintervention outcome scores across groups. CIs for each SMD were calculated using a standard normal distribution. Combined SMDs were estimated separately for single- and multi-arm studies, using random-effects meta-analyses. In order to include multiple relevant outcomes from a single trial (ie, for studies using multiple PTSD symptom measures), robust variance estimation was used.¹⁷ Precision was used to weight SMDs.

Correlations between pre- and postintervention scores were not available for 1 single-arm study.¹⁸ A correlation coefficient of 0.8 was imputed to calculate the standard error of the of the SMDs for the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) and the PTSD Checklist (PCL), as this value is consistent with past findings regarding the test-retest reliability of these measures.^19-22 A sensitivity analysis, using several alternative correlational values, revealed that the choice of correlation coefficient did not impact the overall results of the meta-analysis.

I² was used to evaluate between-study heterogeneity. Values of I² > 25%, 50%, and 75% were selected to reflect low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively, in accordance with guidelines described by Higgins and colleagues.²³ Potential publication bias was assessed via funnel plot and Egger test.²⁴ Finally, although collection of depressive symptom scores was proposed as a secondary outcome in the study protocol, such data were available only for 1 multi-arm study. As a result, this outcome was not evaluated.

Results

Six studies with 101 total participants were included in the single-arm analyses (Table 1).^18,25-29 Participants consisted of veterans with chronic pain, post-9/11 veterans, female veterans of childbearing age, veterans with a history of trauma therapy, and other veterans. Types of exercise included moderate aerobic exercise and yoga. PTSD symptom measures included the CAPS and the PCL (PCL-5 or PCL-M versions). Reported financial sources for included studies included federal grant funding, nonprofit material support, outside organization support, use of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) resources, and no reported financial support.

With respect to individual studies, Shivakumar and colleagues found that completion of an aerobic exercise program was associated with reduced scores on 2 different PTSD symptom scales (PCL and CAPS) in 16 women veterans.¹⁸ A trauma-informed yoga intervention study with 18 participants by Cushing and colleagues demonstrated veteran participation to be associated with large reductions in PTSD, anxiety, and depression scale scores.²⁵ In a study with 34 veterans, Chopin and colleagues found that a trauma-informed yoga intervention was associated with a statistically significant reduction in PTSD symptoms, as did a study by Zaccari and colleagues with 17 veterans.^26,29 Justice and Brems also found some evidence that trauma-informed yoga interventions helped PTSD symptoms in a small sample of 4 veterans, although these results were not quantitatively analyzed.²⁷ In contrast, a small pilot study (n = 12) by Staples and colleagues testing a biweekly, 6-week yoga program did not show a significant effect on PTSD symptoms.²⁸

Three studies with 217 total veteran participants were included in the multi-arm analyses (Table 2).^15,30,31 As all multi-arm trials incorporated randomization, they will be referred to as randomized controlled trials (RCTs). On contact, Davis and colleagues provided veteran-specific results for their trial; as such, our data differ from those within the published article.¹⁵ Participants from all included studies were veterans currently experiencing symptoms of PTSD. Types of exercise included yoga and combined methods (eg, aerobic and strength training).^15,30,31 PTSD symptom measures included the CAPS or the PCL-5.^15,30,31 Reported financial sources for included studies included federal grant funding, as well as nonprofit support, private donations, and VA and Department of Defense resources.

Davis and colleagues conducted a recently concluded RCT with > 130 veteran participants and found that a novel manualized yoga program was superior to an attention control in reducing PTSD symptom scale scores for veterans.¹⁵ Goldstein and colleagues found that a program consisting of both aerobic and resistance exercises reduced PTSD symptoms to a greater extent than a waitlist control condition, with 47 veterans randomized in this trial.³⁰ Likewise, Hall and colleagues conducted a pilot RCT in which an intervention that integrated exercise and cognitive behavioral techniques was compared to a waitlist control condition.³¹ For the 48 veterans included in the analyses, the authors reported greater PTSD symptom reduction associated with integrated exercise than that of the control condition; however, the study was not powered to detect statistically significant differences between groups.

Bias Assessment

Results for the risk of bias assessments can be viewed in Tables 3 and 4. For single-arm studies, overall risk of bias was serious for all included trials. Serious risk of bias was found in 2 domains: confounding, due to a lack of accounting for potential preexisting baseline trends (eg, regression to the mean) that could have impacted study results; and measurement, due to the use of a self-report symptom measure (PCL) or CAPS with unblinded assessors. Multiple studies also showed moderate risk in the missing data domain due to participant dropout without appropriate analytic methods to address potential bias.

For RCTs, overall risk of bias ranged from some concerns to high risk. High risk of bias was found in 1 domain, measurement of outcome, due to use of a self-report symptom measure (PCL) with unblinded groups.³¹ The other 2 studies all had some concern of bias in at least 1 of the following domains: randomization, missing data, and measurement of outcome.

Pooled Standardized Mean Differences

Meta-analytic results can be viewed in Figure 2. The pooled SMD for the 6 single-arm studies was -0.60 (df = 4.41, 95% CI, -1.08 to -0.12, P = .03), indicating a statistically significant reduction in PTSD symptoms over the course of an exercise intervention. Combining SMDs for the 3 included RCTs revealed a pooled SMD of -0.40 (df = 1.57, 95% CI, -0.86 to 0.06, P = .06), indicating that exercise did not result in a statistically significant reduction in PTSD symptoms compared with control conditions.

Publication Bias and Heterogeneity

Visual inspection funnel plots and Egger test did not suggest the presence of publication bias for RCTs (t = 1.21, df = 2, P = .35) or single-arm studies (t = -0.36, df = 5, P = .73).

Single-arm studies displayed a high degree of heterogeneity (I² = 81.5%). Including sample size or exercise duration as variables in meta-regressions did not reduce heterogeneity (I² = 85.2% and I² = 83.8%, respectively). Performing a subgroup analysis only on studies using yoga as an intervention also did not reduce heterogeneity (I² = 79.2%). Due to the small number of studies, no further exploration of heterogeneity was conducted on single-arm studies. RCTs did not display any heterogeneity (I² = 0%).

Discussion

Our report represents an early synthesis of the first prospective studies of physical exercise interventions for PTSD in veterans. Results from meta-analyses of 6 single-arm studies (101 participants) and 3 RCTs (217 participants) provide early evidence that exercise may reduce PTSD symptoms in veterans. Yoga was the most common form of exercise used in single-arm studies, whereas RCTs used a wider range of interventions. The pooled SMD of -0.60 for single-arm longitudinal studies suggest a medium decrease in PTSD symptoms for veterans who engage in exercise interventions. Analysis of the RCTs supported this finding, with a pooled SMD of -0.40 reflecting a small-to-medium effect of exercise on PTSD symptoms over control conditions, although this result did not achieve statistical significance. Of note, while the nonsignificant finding for RCTs may have been due to insufficient power caused by the limited number of included studies, possibly exercise was not more efficacious than were the control conditions.

Although RCTs represented a variety of exercise types, PTSD symptom measures, and veteran subgroups, statistical results were not indicative of heterogeneity. However, only the largest and most comprehensive study of exercise for PTSD in veterans to date by Davis and colleagues had a statistically significant SMD.¹⁵ Of note, one of the other 2 RCTs displayed an SMD of a similar magnitude, but this study had a much smaller sample size and was underpowered to detect significance.³⁰ Additionally, risk of bias assessments for single-arm studies and RCTs revealed study characteristics that suggest possible inflation of absolute effect sizes for individual studies. Therefore, the pooled SMDs we report are interpretable but may exceed the true effect of exercise for PTSD symptom reduction in veterans.

Limitations

The present study has several important limitations. First, few studies were found that met the broad eligibility criteria and those that did often had a small sample size. Besides highlighting a gap in the extant research, the limited studies available for meta-analysis means that caution must be taken when interpreting results. Fortunately, this issue will likely resolve once additional studies investigating the impact of exercise on PTSD symptoms in veterans are available for synthesis.

Relatedly, the included study interventions varied considerably, both in the types of exercise used and the characteristics of the exercises (eg, frequency, duration, and intensity), which is relevant as different exercise modalities are associated with differential physical effects.³³ Including such a mixture of exercises may have given an incomplete picture of their potential therapeutic effects. Also, none of the RCTs compared exercise against first-line treatments for PTSD, such as prolonged exposure or cognitive processing therapy, which would have provided further insight into the role exercise could play in clinical settings.⁷

Another limitation is the elevated risk of bias found in most studies, particularly present in the longitudinal single-arm studies, all of which were rated at serious risk. For instance, no single-arm study controlled for preexisting baseline trends: without such (and lacking a comparison control group like in RCTs), it is possible that the observed effects were due to extraneous factors, rather than the exercise intervention. Although not as severe, the multi-arm RCTs also displayed at least moderate risk of bias. Therefore, SMDs may have been overestimated for each group of studies.

Finally, the results of the single-arm meta-analysis displayed high statistical heterogeneity, reducing the generalizability of the results. One possible cause of this heterogeneity may have been the yoga interventions, as a separate analysis removing the only nonyoga study did not reduce heterogeneity. This result was surprising, as the included yoga interventions seemed similar across studies. While the presence of high heterogeneity does require some caution when applying these results to outside interventions, the present study made use of random-effects meta-analysis, a technique that incorporates study heterogeneity into the statistical model, thereby strengthening the findings compared with that of a traditional fixed-effects approach.¹⁰

Future Steps

Several future steps are warranted to improve knowledge of exercise as a treatment for PTSD in veterans and in the general population. With current meta-analyses limited to small numbers of studies, additional studies of the efficacy of exercise for treating PTSD could help in several ways. A larger pool of studies would enable future meta-analyses to explore related questions, such as those regarding the impact of exercise on quality of life or depressive symptom reduction among veterans with PTSD. A greater number of studies also would enable meta-analysts to explore potentially critical moderators. For example, the duration, frequency, or type of exercise may moderate the effect of exercise on PTSD symptom reduction. Moderators related to patient or study design characteristics also should be explored in future studies.

Future work also should evaluate the impact that specific features of exercise regimens have on PTSD. Knowing whether the type or structure of exercise affects its clinical use would be invaluable in developing and implementing efficient exercise-based interventions. For example, if facilitated exercise was found to be significantly more effective at reducing PTSD symptoms than exercise completed independently, the development of exercise intervention programs in the VA and other facilities that commonly treat PTSD may be warranted. Additionally, it may be useful to identify specific mechanisms through which exercise reduces PTSD symptoms. For example, in addition to its beneficial biological effects, exercise also promotes psychological health through behavioral activation and alterations within reinforcement/reward systems, suggesting that exercise regularity may be more important than intensity.^34,35 Understanding which mechanisms contribute most to change will aid in the development of more efficient interventions.

Given that veterans are demonstrating considerable interest in complementary and alternative PTSD treatments, it is critical that researchers focus on high-quality randomized tests of these interventions. Therefore, in addition to greater quality of exercise intervention studies, future efforts should be focused on RCTs that are designed in such a way as to limit potential introduction of bias. For example, assessment data should be completed by blinded assessors using standardized measures, and analyses should account for missing data and unequal participant attrition between groups. Ideally, pre-intervention trends across multiple baseline datapoints also would be collected in single-arm studies to avoid confounding related to regression to the mean. It is also recommended that future meta-analyses use risk of bias assessments and consider how the results of such assessments may impact the interpretation of results.

Conclusions

Findings from both single-arm studies and RCTs suggest possible benefit of exercise on PTSD symptom reduction, although confirmation of findings is needed. No study found increased symptoms following exercise intervention. Thus, it is reasonable to consider physical exercise, such as yoga, as an adjunct, whole-health consistent treatment. HCPs working with veterans with past traumatic experiences should consider incorporating exercise into patient care. Enhanced educational efforts emphasizing the psychotherapeutic impact of exercise may also have value for the veteran population. Furthermore, the current risk of bias assessments highlights the need for additional high-quality RCTs evaluating the specific impact of exercise on PTSD symptom reduction in veterans. In particular, this field of inquiry would benefit from larger samples and design characteristics to reduce bias (eg, blinding when possible, use of CAPS vs only self-report symptom measures, reducing problematic attrition, corrections for missing data, etc).

Acknowledgments

This research is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the VA Eastern Kansas Healthcare System (Dwight D. Eisenhower VA Medical Center). It was also supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Academic Affiliations Advanced Fellowship Program in Mental Illness Research and Treatment, as well as the Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center. Since Dr. Reis and Dr. Gaddy are employees of the US Government and contributed to this manuscript as part of their official duties, the work is not subject to US copyright. This study was preregistered on PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; ID: CRD42020153419).

Physical exercise offers preventative and therapeutic benefits for a range of chronic health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, Alzheimer disease, and depression.^1,2 Exercise has been well studied for its antidepressant effects, its ability to reduce risk of aging-related dementia, and favorable effects on a range of cognitive functions.² Lesser evidence exists regarding the impact of exercise on other mental health concerns. Therefore, an accurate understanding of whether physical exercise may ameliorate other conditions is important.

A small meta-analysis by Rosenbaum and colleagues found that exercise interventions were superior to control conditions for symptom reduction in study participants with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).³ This meta-analysis included 4 randomized clinical trials representing 200 cases. The trial included a variety of physical activities (eg, yoga, aerobic, and strength-building exercises) and control conditions, and participants recruited from online, community, inpatient, and outpatient settings. The standardized mean difference (SMD) produced by the analysis indicated a small-to-medium effect (Hedges g, -0.35), with the authors reporting no evidence of publication bias, although an assessment of potential bias associated with individual trial design characteristics was not conducted. Of note, a meta-analysis by Watts and colleagues found that effect sizes for PTSD treatments tend to be smaller in veteran populations.⁴ Therefore, how much the mean effect size estimate in the study is applicable to veterans with PTSD is unknown.³

Veterans represent a unique subpopulation in which PTSD is common, although no meta-analysis yet published has synthesized the effects of exercise interventions from trials of veterans with PTSD.⁵ A recent systematic review by Whitworth and Ciccolo concluded that exercise may be associated with reduced risk of PTSD, a briefer course of PTSD symptoms, and/or reduced sleep- and depression-related difficulties.⁶ However, that review primarily included observational, cross-sectional, and qualitative works. No trials included in our meta-analysis were included in that review.⁶

Evidence-based psychotherapies like cognitive processing therapy and prolonged exposure have been shown to be effective for treating PTSD in veterans; however, these modalities are accompanied by high rates of dropout (eg, 40-60%), thereby limiting their clinical utility.⁷ The use of complementary and alternative approaches for treatment in the United States has increased in recent years, and exercise represents an important complementary treatment option.⁸ In a study by Baldwin and colleagues, nearly 50% of veterans reported using complementary or alternative approaches, and veterans with PTSD were among those likely to use such approaches.⁹ However, current studies of the effects of exercise interventions on PTSD symptom reduction are mostly small and varied, making determinations difficult regarding the potential utility of exercise for treating this condition in veterans.

Literature Search

No previous research has synthesized the literature on the effects of exercise on PTSD in the veteran population. The current meta-analysis aims to provide a synthesis of systematically selected studies on this topic to determine whether exercise-based interventions are effective at reducing veterans’ symptoms of PTSD. Our hypothesis was that, when used as a primary or adjuvant intervention for PTSD, physical exercise would be associated with a reduction of PTSD symptom scale scores. We planned a priori to produce separate estimates for single-arm and multi-arm trials. We also wanted to conduct a careful risk of bias assessment—or evaluation of study features that may have systematically influenced results—for included trials, not only to provide context for interpretation of results, but also to inform suggestions for research to advance this field of inquiry.¹⁰

Methods

This study was preregistered on PROSPERO and followed PRISMA guidelines for meta-analyses and systematic reviews.¹¹ Supplementary materials, such as the PRISMA checklist, study data, and funnel plots, are available online (doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5618437.v1). Conference abstracts were omitted due to a lack of necessary information. We decided early in the planning process to include both randomized and single-arm trials, expecting the number of completed studies in the area of exercise for PTSD symptom reduction in veterans, and particularly randomized trials of such, would be relatively small.

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) the study was a single- or multi-arm interventional trial; (2) participants were veterans; (3) participants had a current diagnosis of PTSD or exhibited subthreshold PTSD symptoms, as established by authors of the individual studies and supported by a structured clinical interview, semistructured interview, or elevated scores on PTSD symptom self-report measures; (4) the study included an intervention in which exercise (physical activity that is planned, structured, repetitive, and purposive in the sense that improvement or maintenance of physical fitness or health is an objective) was the primary component; (5) PTSD symptom severity was by a clinician-rated or self-report measure; and (6) the study was published in a peer-reviewed journal.¹² Studies were excluded if means, standard deviations, and sample sizes were not available or the full text of the study was not available in English.

Data Collection

Data were extracted from included studies using custom forms and included the following information based on PRISMA guidelines: (1) study design characteristics; (2) intervention details; and (3) PTSD outcome information.¹¹ PTSD symptom severity was the primary outcome of interest. Outcome data were included if they were derived from a measure of PTSD symptoms—equivalency across measures was assumed for meta-analyses. Potential study bias for each outcome was evaluated using the ROBINS-I and Cochrane Collaboration’s RoB 2 tools for single-arm and multi-arm trials, respectively.^13,14 These tools evaluate domains related to the design, conduct, and analysis of studies that are associated with bias (ie, systematic error in findings, such as under- or overestimation of results).¹⁰ Examples include how well authors performed and concealed randomization procedures, addressed missing data, and measured study outcomes.^13,14 The risk of bias (eg, low, moderate, serious) associated with each domain is rated and, based on the domain ratings, each study is then given an overall rating regarding how much risk influences bias.^13,14 Broadly, lower risk of bias corresponds to higher confidence in the validity of results.

Finally, 4 authors (associated with 2 single- and 2 multi-arm studies) were contacted and asked to provide further information. Data for 1 additional multi-arm study were obtained from these communications and included in the final study selection.¹⁵ These authors were also asked for information about any unpublished works of which they were aware, although no additional works were identified.

Statistical Analyses

Analyses were performed with R Studio R 3.6.0 software.¹⁶ An SMD (also known as Hedges g) was calculated for each study outcome: for single-arm trials, this was the SMD between pre- and postintervention scores, whereas for multi-arm trials, this was the SMD between postintervention outcome scores across groups. CIs for each SMD were calculated using a standard normal distribution. Combined SMDs were estimated separately for single- and multi-arm studies, using random-effects meta-analyses. In order to include multiple relevant outcomes from a single trial (ie, for studies using multiple PTSD symptom measures), robust variance estimation was used.¹⁷ Precision was used to weight SMDs.

Correlations between pre- and postintervention scores were not available for 1 single-arm study.¹⁸ A correlation coefficient of 0.8 was imputed to calculate the standard error of the of the SMDs for the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) and the PTSD Checklist (PCL), as this value is consistent with past findings regarding the test-retest reliability of these measures.^19-22 A sensitivity analysis, using several alternative correlational values, revealed that the choice of correlation coefficient did not impact the overall results of the meta-analysis.

I² was used to evaluate between-study heterogeneity. Values of I² > 25%, 50%, and 75% were selected to reflect low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively, in accordance with guidelines described by Higgins and colleagues.²³ Potential publication bias was assessed via funnel plot and Egger test.²⁴ Finally, although collection of depressive symptom scores was proposed as a secondary outcome in the study protocol, such data were available only for 1 multi-arm study. As a result, this outcome was not evaluated.

Results

Six studies with 101 total participants were included in the single-arm analyses (Table 1).^18,25-29 Participants consisted of veterans with chronic pain, post-9/11 veterans, female veterans of childbearing age, veterans with a history of trauma therapy, and other veterans. Types of exercise included moderate aerobic exercise and yoga. PTSD symptom measures included the CAPS and the PCL (PCL-5 or PCL-M versions). Reported financial sources for included studies included federal grant funding, nonprofit material support, outside organization support, use of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) resources, and no reported financial support.

With respect to individual studies, Shivakumar and colleagues found that completion of an aerobic exercise program was associated with reduced scores on 2 different PTSD symptom scales (PCL and CAPS) in 16 women veterans.¹⁸ A trauma-informed yoga intervention study with 18 participants by Cushing and colleagues demonstrated veteran participation to be associated with large reductions in PTSD, anxiety, and depression scale scores.²⁵ In a study with 34 veterans, Chopin and colleagues found that a trauma-informed yoga intervention was associated with a statistically significant reduction in PTSD symptoms, as did a study by Zaccari and colleagues with 17 veterans.^26,29 Justice and Brems also found some evidence that trauma-informed yoga interventions helped PTSD symptoms in a small sample of 4 veterans, although these results were not quantitatively analyzed.²⁷ In contrast, a small pilot study (n = 12) by Staples and colleagues testing a biweekly, 6-week yoga program did not show a significant effect on PTSD symptoms.²⁸

Three studies with 217 total veteran participants were included in the multi-arm analyses (Table 2).^15,30,31 As all multi-arm trials incorporated randomization, they will be referred to as randomized controlled trials (RCTs). On contact, Davis and colleagues provided veteran-specific results for their trial; as such, our data differ from those within the published article.¹⁵ Participants from all included studies were veterans currently experiencing symptoms of PTSD. Types of exercise included yoga and combined methods (eg, aerobic and strength training).^15,30,31 PTSD symptom measures included the CAPS or the PCL-5.^15,30,31 Reported financial sources for included studies included federal grant funding, as well as nonprofit support, private donations, and VA and Department of Defense resources.

Davis and colleagues conducted a recently concluded RCT with > 130 veteran participants and found that a novel manualized yoga program was superior to an attention control in reducing PTSD symptom scale scores for veterans.¹⁵ Goldstein and colleagues found that a program consisting of both aerobic and resistance exercises reduced PTSD symptoms to a greater extent than a waitlist control condition, with 47 veterans randomized in this trial.³⁰ Likewise, Hall and colleagues conducted a pilot RCT in which an intervention that integrated exercise and cognitive behavioral techniques was compared to a waitlist control condition.³¹ For the 48 veterans included in the analyses, the authors reported greater PTSD symptom reduction associated with integrated exercise than that of the control condition; however, the study was not powered to detect statistically significant differences between groups.

Bias Assessment

Results for the risk of bias assessments can be viewed in Tables 3 and 4. For single-arm studies, overall risk of bias was serious for all included trials. Serious risk of bias was found in 2 domains: confounding, due to a lack of accounting for potential preexisting baseline trends (eg, regression to the mean) that could have impacted study results; and measurement, due to the use of a self-report symptom measure (PCL) or CAPS with unblinded assessors. Multiple studies also showed moderate risk in the missing data domain due to participant dropout without appropriate analytic methods to address potential bias.

For RCTs, overall risk of bias ranged from some concerns to high risk. High risk of bias was found in 1 domain, measurement of outcome, due to use of a self-report symptom measure (PCL) with unblinded groups.³¹ The other 2 studies all had some concern of bias in at least 1 of the following domains: randomization, missing data, and measurement of outcome.

Pooled Standardized Mean Differences

Meta-analytic results can be viewed in Figure 2. The pooled SMD for the 6 single-arm studies was -0.60 (df = 4.41, 95% CI, -1.08 to -0.12, P = .03), indicating a statistically significant reduction in PTSD symptoms over the course of an exercise intervention. Combining SMDs for the 3 included RCTs revealed a pooled SMD of -0.40 (df = 1.57, 95% CI, -0.86 to 0.06, P = .06), indicating that exercise did not result in a statistically significant reduction in PTSD symptoms compared with control conditions.

Publication Bias and Heterogeneity

Visual inspection funnel plots and Egger test did not suggest the presence of publication bias for RCTs (t = 1.21, df = 2, P = .35) or single-arm studies (t = -0.36, df = 5, P = .73).

Single-arm studies displayed a high degree of heterogeneity (I² = 81.5%). Including sample size or exercise duration as variables in meta-regressions did not reduce heterogeneity (I² = 85.2% and I² = 83.8%, respectively). Performing a subgroup analysis only on studies using yoga as an intervention also did not reduce heterogeneity (I² = 79.2%). Due to the small number of studies, no further exploration of heterogeneity was conducted on single-arm studies. RCTs did not display any heterogeneity (I² = 0%).

Discussion

Our report represents an early synthesis of the first prospective studies of physical exercise interventions for PTSD in veterans. Results from meta-analyses of 6 single-arm studies (101 participants) and 3 RCTs (217 participants) provide early evidence that exercise may reduce PTSD symptoms in veterans. Yoga was the most common form of exercise used in single-arm studies, whereas RCTs used a wider range of interventions. The pooled SMD of -0.60 for single-arm longitudinal studies suggest a medium decrease in PTSD symptoms for veterans who engage in exercise interventions. Analysis of the RCTs supported this finding, with a pooled SMD of -0.40 reflecting a small-to-medium effect of exercise on PTSD symptoms over control conditions, although this result did not achieve statistical significance. Of note, while the nonsignificant finding for RCTs may have been due to insufficient power caused by the limited number of included studies, possibly exercise was not more efficacious than were the control conditions.

Although RCTs represented a variety of exercise types, PTSD symptom measures, and veteran subgroups, statistical results were not indicative of heterogeneity. However, only the largest and most comprehensive study of exercise for PTSD in veterans to date by Davis and colleagues had a statistically significant SMD.¹⁵ Of note, one of the other 2 RCTs displayed an SMD of a similar magnitude, but this study had a much smaller sample size and was underpowered to detect significance.³⁰ Additionally, risk of bias assessments for single-arm studies and RCTs revealed study characteristics that suggest possible inflation of absolute effect sizes for individual studies. Therefore, the pooled SMDs we report are interpretable but may exceed the true effect of exercise for PTSD symptom reduction in veterans.

Limitations

The present study has several important limitations. First, few studies were found that met the broad eligibility criteria and those that did often had a small sample size. Besides highlighting a gap in the extant research, the limited studies available for meta-analysis means that caution must be taken when interpreting results. Fortunately, this issue will likely resolve once additional studies investigating the impact of exercise on PTSD symptoms in veterans are available for synthesis.

Relatedly, the included study interventions varied considerably, both in the types of exercise used and the characteristics of the exercises (eg, frequency, duration, and intensity), which is relevant as different exercise modalities are associated with differential physical effects.³³ Including such a mixture of exercises may have given an incomplete picture of their potential therapeutic effects. Also, none of the RCTs compared exercise against first-line treatments for PTSD, such as prolonged exposure or cognitive processing therapy, which would have provided further insight into the role exercise could play in clinical settings.⁷

Another limitation is the elevated risk of bias found in most studies, particularly present in the longitudinal single-arm studies, all of which were rated at serious risk. For instance, no single-arm study controlled for preexisting baseline trends: without such (and lacking a comparison control group like in RCTs), it is possible that the observed effects were due to extraneous factors, rather than the exercise intervention. Although not as severe, the multi-arm RCTs also displayed at least moderate risk of bias. Therefore, SMDs may have been overestimated for each group of studies.

Finally, the results of the single-arm meta-analysis displayed high statistical heterogeneity, reducing the generalizability of the results. One possible cause of this heterogeneity may have been the yoga interventions, as a separate analysis removing the only nonyoga study did not reduce heterogeneity. This result was surprising, as the included yoga interventions seemed similar across studies. While the presence of high heterogeneity does require some caution when applying these results to outside interventions, the present study made use of random-effects meta-analysis, a technique that incorporates study heterogeneity into the statistical model, thereby strengthening the findings compared with that of a traditional fixed-effects approach.¹⁰

Future Steps

Several future steps are warranted to improve knowledge of exercise as a treatment for PTSD in veterans and in the general population. With current meta-analyses limited to small numbers of studies, additional studies of the efficacy of exercise for treating PTSD could help in several ways. A larger pool of studies would enable future meta-analyses to explore related questions, such as those regarding the impact of exercise on quality of life or depressive symptom reduction among veterans with PTSD. A greater number of studies also would enable meta-analysts to explore potentially critical moderators. For example, the duration, frequency, or type of exercise may moderate the effect of exercise on PTSD symptom reduction. Moderators related to patient or study design characteristics also should be explored in future studies.

Future work also should evaluate the impact that specific features of exercise regimens have on PTSD. Knowing whether the type or structure of exercise affects its clinical use would be invaluable in developing and implementing efficient exercise-based interventions. For example, if facilitated exercise was found to be significantly more effective at reducing PTSD symptoms than exercise completed independently, the development of exercise intervention programs in the VA and other facilities that commonly treat PTSD may be warranted. Additionally, it may be useful to identify specific mechanisms through which exercise reduces PTSD symptoms. For example, in addition to its beneficial biological effects, exercise also promotes psychological health through behavioral activation and alterations within reinforcement/reward systems, suggesting that exercise regularity may be more important than intensity.^34,35 Understanding which mechanisms contribute most to change will aid in the development of more efficient interventions.

Given that veterans are demonstrating considerable interest in complementary and alternative PTSD treatments, it is critical that researchers focus on high-quality randomized tests of these interventions. Therefore, in addition to greater quality of exercise intervention studies, future efforts should be focused on RCTs that are designed in such a way as to limit potential introduction of bias. For example, assessment data should be completed by blinded assessors using standardized measures, and analyses should account for missing data and unequal participant attrition between groups. Ideally, pre-intervention trends across multiple baseline datapoints also would be collected in single-arm studies to avoid confounding related to regression to the mean. It is also recommended that future meta-analyses use risk of bias assessments and consider how the results of such assessments may impact the interpretation of results.

Conclusions

Findings from both single-arm studies and RCTs suggest possible benefit of exercise on PTSD symptom reduction, although confirmation of findings is needed. No study found increased symptoms following exercise intervention. Thus, it is reasonable to consider physical exercise, such as yoga, as an adjunct, whole-health consistent treatment. HCPs working with veterans with past traumatic experiences should consider incorporating exercise into patient care. Enhanced educational efforts emphasizing the psychotherapeutic impact of exercise may also have value for the veteran population. Furthermore, the current risk of bias assessments highlights the need for additional high-quality RCTs evaluating the specific impact of exercise on PTSD symptom reduction in veterans. In particular, this field of inquiry would benefit from larger samples and design characteristics to reduce bias (eg, blinding when possible, use of CAPS vs only self-report symptom measures, reducing problematic attrition, corrections for missing data, etc).

Acknowledgments

This research is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the VA Eastern Kansas Healthcare System (Dwight D. Eisenhower VA Medical Center). It was also supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Academic Affiliations Advanced Fellowship Program in Mental Illness Research and Treatment, as well as the Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center. Since Dr. Reis and Dr. Gaddy are employees of the US Government and contributed to this manuscript as part of their official duties, the work is not subject to US copyright. This study was preregistered on PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; ID: CRD42020153419).

Physical exercise offers preventative and therapeutic benefits for a range of chronic health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, Alzheimer disease, and depression.^1,2 Exercise has been well studied for its antidepressant effects, its ability to reduce risk of aging-related dementia, and favorable effects on a range of cognitive functions.² Lesser evidence exists regarding the impact of exercise on other mental health concerns. Therefore, an accurate understanding of whether physical exercise may ameliorate other conditions is important.

A small meta-analysis by Rosenbaum and colleagues found that exercise interventions were superior to control conditions for symptom reduction in study participants with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).³ This meta-analysis included 4 randomized clinical trials representing 200 cases. The trial included a variety of physical activities (eg, yoga, aerobic, and strength-building exercises) and control conditions, and participants recruited from online, community, inpatient, and outpatient settings. The standardized mean difference (SMD) produced by the analysis indicated a small-to-medium effect (Hedges g, -0.35), with the authors reporting no evidence of publication bias, although an assessment of potential bias associated with individual trial design characteristics was not conducted. Of note, a meta-analysis by Watts and colleagues found that effect sizes for PTSD treatments tend to be smaller in veteran populations.⁴ Therefore, how much the mean effect size estimate in the study is applicable to veterans with PTSD is unknown.³

Veterans represent a unique subpopulation in which PTSD is common, although no meta-analysis yet published has synthesized the effects of exercise interventions from trials of veterans with PTSD.⁵ A recent systematic review by Whitworth and Ciccolo concluded that exercise may be associated with reduced risk of PTSD, a briefer course of PTSD symptoms, and/or reduced sleep- and depression-related difficulties.⁶ However, that review primarily included observational, cross-sectional, and qualitative works. No trials included in our meta-analysis were included in that review.⁶

Evidence-based psychotherapies like cognitive processing therapy and prolonged exposure have been shown to be effective for treating PTSD in veterans; however, these modalities are accompanied by high rates of dropout (eg, 40-60%), thereby limiting their clinical utility.⁷ The use of complementary and alternative approaches for treatment in the United States has increased in recent years, and exercise represents an important complementary treatment option.⁸ In a study by Baldwin and colleagues, nearly 50% of veterans reported using complementary or alternative approaches, and veterans with PTSD were among those likely to use such approaches.⁹ However, current studies of the effects of exercise interventions on PTSD symptom reduction are mostly small and varied, making determinations difficult regarding the potential utility of exercise for treating this condition in veterans.

Literature Search

No previous research has synthesized the literature on the effects of exercise on PTSD in the veteran population. The current meta-analysis aims to provide a synthesis of systematically selected studies on this topic to determine whether exercise-based interventions are effective at reducing veterans’ symptoms of PTSD. Our hypothesis was that, when used as a primary or adjuvant intervention for PTSD, physical exercise would be associated with a reduction of PTSD symptom scale scores. We planned a priori to produce separate estimates for single-arm and multi-arm trials. We also wanted to conduct a careful risk of bias assessment—or evaluation of study features that may have systematically influenced results—for included trials, not only to provide context for interpretation of results, but also to inform suggestions for research to advance this field of inquiry.¹⁰

Methods

This study was preregistered on PROSPERO and followed PRISMA guidelines for meta-analyses and systematic reviews.¹¹ Supplementary materials, such as the PRISMA checklist, study data, and funnel plots, are available online (doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5618437.v1). Conference abstracts were omitted due to a lack of necessary information. We decided early in the planning process to include both randomized and single-arm trials, expecting the number of completed studies in the area of exercise for PTSD symptom reduction in veterans, and particularly randomized trials of such, would be relatively small.

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) the study was a single- or multi-arm interventional trial; (2) participants were veterans; (3) participants had a current diagnosis of PTSD or exhibited subthreshold PTSD symptoms, as established by authors of the individual studies and supported by a structured clinical interview, semistructured interview, or elevated scores on PTSD symptom self-report measures; (4) the study included an intervention in which exercise (physical activity that is planned, structured, repetitive, and purposive in the sense that improvement or maintenance of physical fitness or health is an objective) was the primary component; (5) PTSD symptom severity was by a clinician-rated or self-report measure; and (6) the study was published in a peer-reviewed journal.¹² Studies were excluded if means, standard deviations, and sample sizes were not available or the full text of the study was not available in English.

Data Collection

Data were extracted from included studies using custom forms and included the following information based on PRISMA guidelines: (1) study design characteristics; (2) intervention details; and (3) PTSD outcome information.¹¹ PTSD symptom severity was the primary outcome of interest. Outcome data were included if they were derived from a measure of PTSD symptoms—equivalency across measures was assumed for meta-analyses. Potential study bias for each outcome was evaluated using the ROBINS-I and Cochrane Collaboration’s RoB 2 tools for single-arm and multi-arm trials, respectively.^13,14 These tools evaluate domains related to the design, conduct, and analysis of studies that are associated with bias (ie, systematic error in findings, such as under- or overestimation of results).¹⁰ Examples include how well authors performed and concealed randomization procedures, addressed missing data, and measured study outcomes.^13,14 The risk of bias (eg, low, moderate, serious) associated with each domain is rated and, based on the domain ratings, each study is then given an overall rating regarding how much risk influences bias.^13,14 Broadly, lower risk of bias corresponds to higher confidence in the validity of results.

Finally, 4 authors (associated with 2 single- and 2 multi-arm studies) were contacted and asked to provide further information. Data for 1 additional multi-arm study were obtained from these communications and included in the final study selection.¹⁵ These authors were also asked for information about any unpublished works of which they were aware, although no additional works were identified.

Statistical Analyses

Analyses were performed with R Studio R 3.6.0 software.¹⁶ An SMD (also known as Hedges g) was calculated for each study outcome: for single-arm trials, this was the SMD between pre- and postintervention scores, whereas for multi-arm trials, this was the SMD between postintervention outcome scores across groups. CIs for each SMD were calculated using a standard normal distribution. Combined SMDs were estimated separately for single- and multi-arm studies, using random-effects meta-analyses. In order to include multiple relevant outcomes from a single trial (ie, for studies using multiple PTSD symptom measures), robust variance estimation was used.¹⁷ Precision was used to weight SMDs.

Correlations between pre- and postintervention scores were not available for 1 single-arm study.¹⁸ A correlation coefficient of 0.8 was imputed to calculate the standard error of the of the SMDs for the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) and the PTSD Checklist (PCL), as this value is consistent with past findings regarding the test-retest reliability of these measures.^19-22 A sensitivity analysis, using several alternative correlational values, revealed that the choice of correlation coefficient did not impact the overall results of the meta-analysis.

I² was used to evaluate between-study heterogeneity. Values of I² > 25%, 50%, and 75% were selected to reflect low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively, in accordance with guidelines described by Higgins and colleagues.²³ Potential publication bias was assessed via funnel plot and Egger test.²⁴ Finally, although collection of depressive symptom scores was proposed as a secondary outcome in the study protocol, such data were available only for 1 multi-arm study. As a result, this outcome was not evaluated.

Results

Six studies with 101 total participants were included in the single-arm analyses (Table 1).^18,25-29 Participants consisted of veterans with chronic pain, post-9/11 veterans, female veterans of childbearing age, veterans with a history of trauma therapy, and other veterans. Types of exercise included moderate aerobic exercise and yoga. PTSD symptom measures included the CAPS and the PCL (PCL-5 or PCL-M versions). Reported financial sources for included studies included federal grant funding, nonprofit material support, outside organization support, use of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) resources, and no reported financial support.

With respect to individual studies, Shivakumar and colleagues found that completion of an aerobic exercise program was associated with reduced scores on 2 different PTSD symptom scales (PCL and CAPS) in 16 women veterans.¹⁸ A trauma-informed yoga intervention study with 18 participants by Cushing and colleagues demonstrated veteran participation to be associated with large reductions in PTSD, anxiety, and depression scale scores.²⁵ In a study with 34 veterans, Chopin and colleagues found that a trauma-informed yoga intervention was associated with a statistically significant reduction in PTSD symptoms, as did a study by Zaccari and colleagues with 17 veterans.^26,29 Justice and Brems also found some evidence that trauma-informed yoga interventions helped PTSD symptoms in a small sample of 4 veterans, although these results were not quantitatively analyzed.²⁷ In contrast, a small pilot study (n = 12) by Staples and colleagues testing a biweekly, 6-week yoga program did not show a significant effect on PTSD symptoms.²⁸

Three studies with 217 total veteran participants were included in the multi-arm analyses (Table 2).^15,30,31 As all multi-arm trials incorporated randomization, they will be referred to as randomized controlled trials (RCTs). On contact, Davis and colleagues provided veteran-specific results for their trial; as such, our data differ from those within the published article.¹⁵ Participants from all included studies were veterans currently experiencing symptoms of PTSD. Types of exercise included yoga and combined methods (eg, aerobic and strength training).^15,30,31 PTSD symptom measures included the CAPS or the PCL-5.^15,30,31 Reported financial sources for included studies included federal grant funding, as well as nonprofit support, private donations, and VA and Department of Defense resources.

Davis and colleagues conducted a recently concluded RCT with > 130 veteran participants and found that a novel manualized yoga program was superior to an attention control in reducing PTSD symptom scale scores for veterans.¹⁵ Goldstein and colleagues found that a program consisting of both aerobic and resistance exercises reduced PTSD symptoms to a greater extent than a waitlist control condition, with 47 veterans randomized in this trial.³⁰ Likewise, Hall and colleagues conducted a pilot RCT in which an intervention that integrated exercise and cognitive behavioral techniques was compared to a waitlist control condition.³¹ For the 48 veterans included in the analyses, the authors reported greater PTSD symptom reduction associated with integrated exercise than that of the control condition; however, the study was not powered to detect statistically significant differences between groups.

Bias Assessment

Results for the risk of bias assessments can be viewed in Tables 3 and 4. For single-arm studies, overall risk of bias was serious for all included trials. Serious risk of bias was found in 2 domains: confounding, due to a lack of accounting for potential preexisting baseline trends (eg, regression to the mean) that could have impacted study results; and measurement, due to the use of a self-report symptom measure (PCL) or CAPS with unblinded assessors. Multiple studies also showed moderate risk in the missing data domain due to participant dropout without appropriate analytic methods to address potential bias.

For RCTs, overall risk of bias ranged from some concerns to high risk. High risk of bias was found in 1 domain, measurement of outcome, due to use of a self-report symptom measure (PCL) with unblinded groups.³¹ The other 2 studies all had some concern of bias in at least 1 of the following domains: randomization, missing data, and measurement of outcome.

Pooled Standardized Mean Differences

Meta-analytic results can be viewed in Figure 2. The pooled SMD for the 6 single-arm studies was -0.60 (df = 4.41, 95% CI, -1.08 to -0.12, P = .03), indicating a statistically significant reduction in PTSD symptoms over the course of an exercise intervention. Combining SMDs for the 3 included RCTs revealed a pooled SMD of -0.40 (df = 1.57, 95% CI, -0.86 to 0.06, P = .06), indicating that exercise did not result in a statistically significant reduction in PTSD symptoms compared with control conditions.

Publication Bias and Heterogeneity

Visual inspection funnel plots and Egger test did not suggest the presence of publication bias for RCTs (t = 1.21, df = 2, P = .35) or single-arm studies (t = -0.36, df = 5, P = .73).

Single-arm studies displayed a high degree of heterogeneity (I² = 81.5%). Including sample size or exercise duration as variables in meta-regressions did not reduce heterogeneity (I² = 85.2% and I² = 83.8%, respectively). Performing a subgroup analysis only on studies using yoga as an intervention also did not reduce heterogeneity (I² = 79.2%). Due to the small number of studies, no further exploration of heterogeneity was conducted on single-arm studies. RCTs did not display any heterogeneity (I² = 0%).

Discussion

Our report represents an early synthesis of the first prospective studies of physical exercise interventions for PTSD in veterans. Results from meta-analyses of 6 single-arm studies (101 participants) and 3 RCTs (217 participants) provide early evidence that exercise may reduce PTSD symptoms in veterans. Yoga was the most common form of exercise used in single-arm studies, whereas RCTs used a wider range of interventions. The pooled SMD of -0.60 for single-arm longitudinal studies suggest a medium decrease in PTSD symptoms for veterans who engage in exercise interventions. Analysis of the RCTs supported this finding, with a pooled SMD of -0.40 reflecting a small-to-medium effect of exercise on PTSD symptoms over control conditions, although this result did not achieve statistical significance. Of note, while the nonsignificant finding for RCTs may have been due to insufficient power caused by the limited number of included studies, possibly exercise was not more efficacious than were the control conditions.

Although RCTs represented a variety of exercise types, PTSD symptom measures, and veteran subgroups, statistical results were not indicative of heterogeneity. However, only the largest and most comprehensive study of exercise for PTSD in veterans to date by Davis and colleagues had a statistically significant SMD.¹⁵ Of note, one of the other 2 RCTs displayed an SMD of a similar magnitude, but this study had a much smaller sample size and was underpowered to detect significance.³⁰ Additionally, risk of bias assessments for single-arm studies and RCTs revealed study characteristics that suggest possible inflation of absolute effect sizes for individual studies. Therefore, the pooled SMDs we report are interpretable but may exceed the true effect of exercise for PTSD symptom reduction in veterans.

Limitations

The present study has several important limitations. First, few studies were found that met the broad eligibility criteria and those that did often had a small sample size. Besides highlighting a gap in the extant research, the limited studies available for meta-analysis means that caution must be taken when interpreting results. Fortunately, this issue will likely resolve once additional studies investigating the impact of exercise on PTSD symptoms in veterans are available for synthesis.

Relatedly, the included study interventions varied considerably, both in the types of exercise used and the characteristics of the exercises (eg, frequency, duration, and intensity), which is relevant as different exercise modalities are associated with differential physical effects.³³ Including such a mixture of exercises may have given an incomplete picture of their potential therapeutic effects. Also, none of the RCTs compared exercise against first-line treatments for PTSD, such as prolonged exposure or cognitive processing therapy, which would have provided further insight into the role exercise could play in clinical settings.⁷

Another limitation is the elevated risk of bias found in most studies, particularly present in the longitudinal single-arm studies, all of which were rated at serious risk. For instance, no single-arm study controlled for preexisting baseline trends: without such (and lacking a comparison control group like in RCTs), it is possible that the observed effects were due to extraneous factors, rather than the exercise intervention. Although not as severe, the multi-arm RCTs also displayed at least moderate risk of bias. Therefore, SMDs may have been overestimated for each group of studies.

Finally, the results of the single-arm meta-analysis displayed high statistical heterogeneity, reducing the generalizability of the results. One possible cause of this heterogeneity may have been the yoga interventions, as a separate analysis removing the only nonyoga study did not reduce heterogeneity. This result was surprising, as the included yoga interventions seemed similar across studies. While the presence of high heterogeneity does require some caution when applying these results to outside interventions, the present study made use of random-effects meta-analysis, a technique that incorporates study heterogeneity into the statistical model, thereby strengthening the findings compared with that of a traditional fixed-effects approach.¹⁰

Future Steps

Several future steps are warranted to improve knowledge of exercise as a treatment for PTSD in veterans and in the general population. With current meta-analyses limited to small numbers of studies, additional studies of the efficacy of exercise for treating PTSD could help in several ways. A larger pool of studies would enable future meta-analyses to explore related questions, such as those regarding the impact of exercise on quality of life or depressive symptom reduction among veterans with PTSD. A greater number of studies also would enable meta-analysts to explore potentially critical moderators. For example, the duration, frequency, or type of exercise may moderate the effect of exercise on PTSD symptom reduction. Moderators related to patient or study design characteristics also should be explored in future studies.

Future work also should evaluate the impact that specific features of exercise regimens have on PTSD. Knowing whether the type or structure of exercise affects its clinical use would be invaluable in developing and implementing efficient exercise-based interventions. For example, if facilitated exercise was found to be significantly more effective at reducing PTSD symptoms than exercise completed independently, the development of exercise intervention programs in the VA and other facilities that commonly treat PTSD may be warranted. Additionally, it may be useful to identify specific mechanisms through which exercise reduces PTSD symptoms. For example, in addition to its beneficial biological effects, exercise also promotes psychological health through behavioral activation and alterations within reinforcement/reward systems, suggesting that exercise regularity may be more important than intensity.^34,35 Understanding which mechanisms contribute most to change will aid in the development of more efficient interventions.

Given that veterans are demonstrating considerable interest in complementary and alternative PTSD treatments, it is critical that researchers focus on high-quality randomized tests of these interventions. Therefore, in addition to greater quality of exercise intervention studies, future efforts should be focused on RCTs that are designed in such a way as to limit potential introduction of bias. For example, assessment data should be completed by blinded assessors using standardized measures, and analyses should account for missing data and unequal participant attrition between groups. Ideally, pre-intervention trends across multiple baseline datapoints also would be collected in single-arm studies to avoid confounding related to regression to the mean. It is also recommended that future meta-analyses use risk of bias assessments and consider how the results of such assessments may impact the interpretation of results.

Conclusions

Findings from both single-arm studies and RCTs suggest possible benefit of exercise on PTSD symptom reduction, although confirmation of findings is needed. No study found increased symptoms following exercise intervention. Thus, it is reasonable to consider physical exercise, such as yoga, as an adjunct, whole-health consistent treatment. HCPs working with veterans with past traumatic experiences should consider incorporating exercise into patient care. Enhanced educational efforts emphasizing the psychotherapeutic impact of exercise may also have value for the veteran population. Furthermore, the current risk of bias assessments highlights the need for additional high-quality RCTs evaluating the specific impact of exercise on PTSD symptom reduction in veterans. In particular, this field of inquiry would benefit from larger samples and design characteristics to reduce bias (eg, blinding when possible, use of CAPS vs only self-report symptom measures, reducing problematic attrition, corrections for missing data, etc).

Acknowledgments

This research is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the VA Eastern Kansas Healthcare System (Dwight D. Eisenhower VA Medical Center). It was also supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Academic Affiliations Advanced Fellowship Program in Mental Illness Research and Treatment, as well as the Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center. Since Dr. Reis and Dr. Gaddy are employees of the US Government and contributed to this manuscript as part of their official duties, the work is not subject to US copyright. This study was preregistered on PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; ID: CRD42020153419).

Evidence-based cognitive-behavioral therapies for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may employ cognitive restructuring. This psychotherapeutic technique entails recognizing and correcting maladaptive, inaccurate thoughts that perpetuate illness.¹ For example, a clinician helps a patient recognize that the negative thought “Nobody loves me” following a romantic breakup is an overgeneralization. The patient is taught to self-correct this to “While my ex-girlfriend doesn’t love me, others do. It only feels like nobody loves me.”²

We introduce the acronym I STEP to help clinicians recognize several common distorted thoughts in PTSD. These tend to occur within stereotyped themes in PTSD,³ as outlined and illustrated below. Recognizing distorted thoughts in these patients will help clinicians understand and address psychological distress following trauma.

Intimacy/In-touch. Intimacy involves comfort in relationships, including but not limited to sexual intimacy. This requires being in touch emotionally with self and others. In trauma involving loss, fear of further loss may impair intimacy with others. Difficulty with self-intimacy impairs commitment to life’s goals and prompts unhelpful avoidance behaviors, such as difficulty being alone or self-injurious use of drugs or alcohol. Comfort in spending some portion of time alone with one’s thoughts and emotions is a life skill necessary to attain optimum function. Patients who are unable to tolerate their own emotions without constant company might have excessive anxiety when social supports are otherwise occupied. Such patients might seek excessive and repeated reassurance rather than learning to tolerate their own emotions and thoughts. They would then find it difficult to engage successfully in solo activities.

Safety. After trauma, patients may view themselves and others as unsafe, and may overestimate risk. For example, a pedestrian who is struck by a vehicle may believe that crossing a street will again result in getting hit by a car without appreciating that people frequently cross streets without injury or that crossing cautiously is an essential life skill. Parents who have suffered from trauma may unduly believe that their children are in danger when engaging in an activity generally considered to be safe. This may create challenges in parenting and impede their children’s ability to develop a sense of independence.

Trust. Trauma victims may unfairly blame themselves, leading them to mistrust their own judgment. Such patients may have difficulty making decisions confidently and independently, such as choosing a job or a romantic partner. When traumatized by another person or people, it can be difficult to maintain positive views of others or to accept others’ positive behaviors as genuine. For example, a common reaction following rape may be a generalized mistrust of all men.

Esteem. Patients’ self-esteem may suffer following trauma due to irrational self-blame or believing the “just world hypothesis”—the idea that bad things only happen to bad people. For example, a patient who suffers an assault by an acquaintance might think “I must be stupid if I couldn’t figure out that my friend was dangerous.”

Power. Traumatic events usually occur outside of one’s control. Survivors of trauma may lose confidence in their ability to control any aspect of their lives. Conversely, they may attempt to gain control of all of life’s circumstances, including those that are beyond anyone’s control. Control can be applied to emotions, behaviors, or events. A driver struck by a vehicle may think “I can’t control other drivers, so I have no power to control my safety while driving,” and hence give up driving. While there are things that are beyond our control, this extreme thought ignores things that we can control, such as wearing seatbelts or having the vehicle’s brakes regularly serviced.

Evidence-based cognitive-behavioral therapies for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may employ cognitive restructuring. This psychotherapeutic technique entails recognizing and correcting maladaptive, inaccurate thoughts that perpetuate illness.¹ For example, a clinician helps a patient recognize that the negative thought “Nobody loves me” following a romantic breakup is an overgeneralization. The patient is taught to self-correct this to “While my ex-girlfriend doesn’t love me, others do. It only feels like nobody loves me.”²

We introduce the acronym I STEP to help clinicians recognize several common distorted thoughts in PTSD. These tend to occur within stereotyped themes in PTSD,³ as outlined and illustrated below. Recognizing distorted thoughts in these patients will help clinicians understand and address psychological distress following trauma.

Intimacy/In-touch. Intimacy involves comfort in relationships, including but not limited to sexual intimacy. This requires being in touch emotionally with self and others. In trauma involving loss, fear of further loss may impair intimacy with others. Difficulty with self-intimacy impairs commitment to life’s goals and prompts unhelpful avoidance behaviors, such as difficulty being alone or self-injurious use of drugs or alcohol. Comfort in spending some portion of time alone with one’s thoughts and emotions is a life skill necessary to attain optimum function. Patients who are unable to tolerate their own emotions without constant company might have excessive anxiety when social supports are otherwise occupied. Such patients might seek excessive and repeated reassurance rather than learning to tolerate their own emotions and thoughts. They would then find it difficult to engage successfully in solo activities.

Safety. After trauma, patients may view themselves and others as unsafe, and may overestimate risk. For example, a pedestrian who is struck by a vehicle may believe that crossing a street will again result in getting hit by a car without appreciating that people frequently cross streets without injury or that crossing cautiously is an essential life skill. Parents who have suffered from trauma may unduly believe that their children are in danger when engaging in an activity generally considered to be safe. This may create challenges in parenting and impede their children’s ability to develop a sense of independence.

Trust. Trauma victims may unfairly blame themselves, leading them to mistrust their own judgment. Such patients may have difficulty making decisions confidently and independently, such as choosing a job or a romantic partner. When traumatized by another person or people, it can be difficult to maintain positive views of others or to accept others’ positive behaviors as genuine. For example, a common reaction following rape may be a generalized mistrust of all men.

Esteem. Patients’ self-esteem may suffer following trauma due to irrational self-blame or believing the “just world hypothesis”—the idea that bad things only happen to bad people. For example, a patient who suffers an assault by an acquaintance might think “I must be stupid if I couldn’t figure out that my friend was dangerous.”

Power. Traumatic events usually occur outside of one’s control. Survivors of trauma may lose confidence in their ability to control any aspect of their lives. Conversely, they may attempt to gain control of all of life’s circumstances, including those that are beyond anyone’s control. Control can be applied to emotions, behaviors, or events. A driver struck by a vehicle may think “I can’t control other drivers, so I have no power to control my safety while driving,” and hence give up driving. While there are things that are beyond our control, this extreme thought ignores things that we can control, such as wearing seatbelts or having the vehicle’s brakes regularly serviced.

Evidence-based cognitive-behavioral therapies for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may employ cognitive restructuring. This psychotherapeutic technique entails recognizing and correcting maladaptive, inaccurate thoughts that perpetuate illness.¹ For example, a clinician helps a patient recognize that the negative thought “Nobody loves me” following a romantic breakup is an overgeneralization. The patient is taught to self-correct this to “While my ex-girlfriend doesn’t love me, others do. It only feels like nobody loves me.”²

We introduce the acronym I STEP to help clinicians recognize several common distorted thoughts in PTSD. These tend to occur within stereotyped themes in PTSD,³ as outlined and illustrated below. Recognizing distorted thoughts in these patients will help clinicians understand and address psychological distress following trauma.

Intimacy/In-touch. Intimacy involves comfort in relationships, including but not limited to sexual intimacy. This requires being in touch emotionally with self and others. In trauma involving loss, fear of further loss may impair intimacy with others. Difficulty with self-intimacy impairs commitment to life’s goals and prompts unhelpful avoidance behaviors, such as difficulty being alone or self-injurious use of drugs or alcohol. Comfort in spending some portion of time alone with one’s thoughts and emotions is a life skill necessary to attain optimum function. Patients who are unable to tolerate their own emotions without constant company might have excessive anxiety when social supports are otherwise occupied. Such patients might seek excessive and repeated reassurance rather than learning to tolerate their own emotions and thoughts. They would then find it difficult to engage successfully in solo activities.

Safety. After trauma, patients may view themselves and others as unsafe, and may overestimate risk. For example, a pedestrian who is struck by a vehicle may believe that crossing a street will again result in getting hit by a car without appreciating that people frequently cross streets without injury or that crossing cautiously is an essential life skill. Parents who have suffered from trauma may unduly believe that their children are in danger when engaging in an activity generally considered to be safe. This may create challenges in parenting and impede their children’s ability to develop a sense of independence.

Trust. Trauma victims may unfairly blame themselves, leading them to mistrust their own judgment. Such patients may have difficulty making decisions confidently and independently, such as choosing a job or a romantic partner. When traumatized by another person or people, it can be difficult to maintain positive views of others or to accept others’ positive behaviors as genuine. For example, a common reaction following rape may be a generalized mistrust of all men.

Esteem. Patients’ self-esteem may suffer following trauma due to irrational self-blame or believing the “just world hypothesis”—the idea that bad things only happen to bad people. For example, a patient who suffers an assault by an acquaintance might think “I must be stupid if I couldn’t figure out that my friend was dangerous.”

Power. Traumatic events usually occur outside of one’s control. Survivors of trauma may lose confidence in their ability to control any aspect of their lives. Conversely, they may attempt to gain control of all of life’s circumstances, including those that are beyond anyone’s control. Control can be applied to emotions, behaviors, or events. A driver struck by a vehicle may think “I can’t control other drivers, so I have no power to control my safety while driving,” and hence give up driving. While there are things that are beyond our control, this extreme thought ignores things that we can control, such as wearing seatbelts or having the vehicle’s brakes regularly serviced.

Psychedelics, including psilocybin and MDMA, are promising for a variety of psychiatric disorders, but there are few data showing how these drugs interact with traditional psychiatric medications, new research shows.

“Despite prolific psychedelic research and public interest, I was surprised to see little clinical research on how psilocybin and common psychiatric treatments interact,” study investigator Aryan Sarparast, MD, department of psychiatry, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, told this news organization.

The review was published online March 7, 2022, in Psychopharmacology.
 

Need for RCTs

The Food and Drug Administration recently granted breakthrough therapy designation to psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy for major depression and treatment-resistant depression and to MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD.

The investigators assessed the volume of available research on interactions between psychedelics and traditional psychiatric medications, such as antidepressants.

They found 40 studies dating back to 1958, including 26 randomized controlled trials, 11 case reports, and 3 epidemiologic studies.

Only one randomized clinical trial evaluated the interaction between psilocybin and the most common psychiatric treatment, SSRIs, said Dr. Sarparast.

However, this study is “reassuring and overlaps with our hypothesis that there is a low risk of psilocybin and most psychiatric drugs causing harm when combined,” he noted.

Yet all of the clinical trials exclusively included young healthy adults, who were often recruited from university campuses. “We don’t have data on what happens when a depressed person on an SSRI takes psilocybin,” said Dr. Sarparast.

He added that he is concerned that the lack of evidence on drug-drug interactions will lead some providers to require patients to be tapered off existing traditional psychiatric medications before initiation of psilocybin therapy.

This may force vulnerable patients to choose between their existing therapy and psilocybin.

In addition, patients who opt for the “DIY method” of tapering risk mental health relapse and medication withdrawal effects. “That’s a very, very tough place to be,” Dr. Sarparast said.

Ideally, Dr. Sarparast would like to see a study in which depressed patients who have been receiving long-term antidepressant treatment are randomly assigned to received low, medium, and high doses of psilocybin. “This would clarify a lot of question marks.”
 

Evidence gap

In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, said: “The point in this article is very well taken. Indeed, more research is needed” on potential interactions between psychedelics and traditional psychiatric medications.

“Before we embark on completing research and development for psychedelics – or, for that matter, any psychoactive substance – we should endeavor to identify what the potential safety and toxicity concerns are when they are coprescribed with other prescribed medications, over-the-counter medications, and other substances (e.g., marijuana) that people take,” Dr. McIntyre said.

A case in point – a 2017 study conducted by McIntyre and colleagues revealed “significant drug-drug interactions with cannabis, which never receives that much attention.”

Also weighing in, Albert Garcia-Romeu, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, confirmed that there is “an evidence gap” on psilocybin’s and other psychedelic drugs’ interactions with other medications.

“This has not been formally studied for a number of reasons, but mainly because psilocybin has primarily been considered a drug of abuse. Psilocybin has only recently started to be looked at as a potential medication, and as such, research on drug-drug interactions is still limited, but growing,” Dr. Garcia-Romeu told this news organization.

He noted that studies are underway to better understand potential interactions between psilocybin and other medications.

“This will allow us to better understand how psilocybin should be used medically and what types of interactions could occur with other drugs or medications,” Dr. Garcia-Romeu added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Sarparast, Dr. McIntyre, and Dr. Garcia-Romeu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Psychedelics, including psilocybin and MDMA, are promising for a variety of psychiatric disorders, but there are few data showing how these drugs interact with traditional psychiatric medications, new research shows.

“Despite prolific psychedelic research and public interest, I was surprised to see little clinical research on how psilocybin and common psychiatric treatments interact,” study investigator Aryan Sarparast, MD, department of psychiatry, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, told this news organization.

The review was published online March 7, 2022, in Psychopharmacology.
 

Need for RCTs

The Food and Drug Administration recently granted breakthrough therapy designation to psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy for major depression and treatment-resistant depression and to MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD.

The investigators assessed the volume of available research on interactions between psychedelics and traditional psychiatric medications, such as antidepressants.

They found 40 studies dating back to 1958, including 26 randomized controlled trials, 11 case reports, and 3 epidemiologic studies.

Only one randomized clinical trial evaluated the interaction between psilocybin and the most common psychiatric treatment, SSRIs, said Dr. Sarparast.

However, this study is “reassuring and overlaps with our hypothesis that there is a low risk of psilocybin and most psychiatric drugs causing harm when combined,” he noted.

Yet all of the clinical trials exclusively included young healthy adults, who were often recruited from university campuses. “We don’t have data on what happens when a depressed person on an SSRI takes psilocybin,” said Dr. Sarparast.

He added that he is concerned that the lack of evidence on drug-drug interactions will lead some providers to require patients to be tapered off existing traditional psychiatric medications before initiation of psilocybin therapy.

This may force vulnerable patients to choose between their existing therapy and psilocybin.

In addition, patients who opt for the “DIY method” of tapering risk mental health relapse and medication withdrawal effects. “That’s a very, very tough place to be,” Dr. Sarparast said.

Ideally, Dr. Sarparast would like to see a study in which depressed patients who have been receiving long-term antidepressant treatment are randomly assigned to received low, medium, and high doses of psilocybin. “This would clarify a lot of question marks.”
 

Evidence gap

In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, said: “The point in this article is very well taken. Indeed, more research is needed” on potential interactions between psychedelics and traditional psychiatric medications.

“Before we embark on completing research and development for psychedelics – or, for that matter, any psychoactive substance – we should endeavor to identify what the potential safety and toxicity concerns are when they are coprescribed with other prescribed medications, over-the-counter medications, and other substances (e.g., marijuana) that people take,” Dr. McIntyre said.

A case in point – a 2017 study conducted by McIntyre and colleagues revealed “significant drug-drug interactions with cannabis, which never receives that much attention.”

Also weighing in, Albert Garcia-Romeu, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, confirmed that there is “an evidence gap” on psilocybin’s and other psychedelic drugs’ interactions with other medications.

“This has not been formally studied for a number of reasons, but mainly because psilocybin has primarily been considered a drug of abuse. Psilocybin has only recently started to be looked at as a potential medication, and as such, research on drug-drug interactions is still limited, but growing,” Dr. Garcia-Romeu told this news organization.

He noted that studies are underway to better understand potential interactions between psilocybin and other medications.

“This will allow us to better understand how psilocybin should be used medically and what types of interactions could occur with other drugs or medications,” Dr. Garcia-Romeu added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Sarparast, Dr. McIntyre, and Dr. Garcia-Romeu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Psychedelics, including psilocybin and MDMA, are promising for a variety of psychiatric disorders, but there are few data showing how these drugs interact with traditional psychiatric medications, new research shows.

“Despite prolific psychedelic research and public interest, I was surprised to see little clinical research on how psilocybin and common psychiatric treatments interact,” study investigator Aryan Sarparast, MD, department of psychiatry, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, told this news organization.

The review was published online March 7, 2022, in Psychopharmacology.
 

Need for RCTs

The Food and Drug Administration recently granted breakthrough therapy designation to psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy for major depression and treatment-resistant depression and to MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD.

The investigators assessed the volume of available research on interactions between psychedelics and traditional psychiatric medications, such as antidepressants.

They found 40 studies dating back to 1958, including 26 randomized controlled trials, 11 case reports, and 3 epidemiologic studies.

Only one randomized clinical trial evaluated the interaction between psilocybin and the most common psychiatric treatment, SSRIs, said Dr. Sarparast.

However, this study is “reassuring and overlaps with our hypothesis that there is a low risk of psilocybin and most psychiatric drugs causing harm when combined,” he noted.

Yet all of the clinical trials exclusively included young healthy adults, who were often recruited from university campuses. “We don’t have data on what happens when a depressed person on an SSRI takes psilocybin,” said Dr. Sarparast.

He added that he is concerned that the lack of evidence on drug-drug interactions will lead some providers to require patients to be tapered off existing traditional psychiatric medications before initiation of psilocybin therapy.

This may force vulnerable patients to choose between their existing therapy and psilocybin.

In addition, patients who opt for the “DIY method” of tapering risk mental health relapse and medication withdrawal effects. “That’s a very, very tough place to be,” Dr. Sarparast said.

Ideally, Dr. Sarparast would like to see a study in which depressed patients who have been receiving long-term antidepressant treatment are randomly assigned to received low, medium, and high doses of psilocybin. “This would clarify a lot of question marks.”
 

Evidence gap

In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, said: “The point in this article is very well taken. Indeed, more research is needed” on potential interactions between psychedelics and traditional psychiatric medications.

“Before we embark on completing research and development for psychedelics – or, for that matter, any psychoactive substance – we should endeavor to identify what the potential safety and toxicity concerns are when they are coprescribed with other prescribed medications, over-the-counter medications, and other substances (e.g., marijuana) that people take,” Dr. McIntyre said.

A case in point – a 2017 study conducted by McIntyre and colleagues revealed “significant drug-drug interactions with cannabis, which never receives that much attention.”

Also weighing in, Albert Garcia-Romeu, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, confirmed that there is “an evidence gap” on psilocybin’s and other psychedelic drugs’ interactions with other medications.

“This has not been formally studied for a number of reasons, but mainly because psilocybin has primarily been considered a drug of abuse. Psilocybin has only recently started to be looked at as a potential medication, and as such, research on drug-drug interactions is still limited, but growing,” Dr. Garcia-Romeu told this news organization.

He noted that studies are underway to better understand potential interactions between psilocybin and other medications.

“This will allow us to better understand how psilocybin should be used medically and what types of interactions could occur with other drugs or medications,” Dr. Garcia-Romeu added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Sarparast, Dr. McIntyre, and Dr. Garcia-Romeu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

DENVER – Deficits in executive function (EF) are linked to with development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms and exacerbation of such symptoms over time, new research suggests.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first to show that executive-function deficits maintain PTSD symptoms following trauma exposure,” investigators noted in research presented at the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA) Anxiety & Depression conference.

Courtesy Auburn University

The results are important in “developing precision medicine–based approaches for alleviating [posttraumatic stress] symptoms, and improving well-established PTSD treatments for those with relative deficits in executive function,” study investigator Joseph R. Bardeen, PhD, associate professor at Auburn (Ala.) University, told meeting attendees.

The findings were published in the Journal of Anxiety Disorders.
 

Cognitive impairment

In earlier research, deficits in EF were associated with an increased vulnerability for PTSD symptoms. However, less is known about the role of these deficits, which can impair higher-level cognitive ability, in sustaining PTSD symptoms.

To investigate, the authors conducted a longitudinal study that included 98 participants aged 18-65 years who had been identified via phone screening as experiencing clinically significant PTSD symptoms.

Participants completed self-report measures for PTSD symptoms, as well as measures for EF deficits at baseline and 6-month (n = 92) and 12-month (n = 91) follow-up sessions.

A path analysis showed a significant relationship between baseline PTSD symptoms and EF deficits at 6 months (P < .001). Baseline PTSD symptoms were associated with 12-month PTSD symptoms (P < .04).

EF deficits at 6 months were also associated with 12-month PTSD symptoms (P = .02).

Importantly, no associations were observed between baseline or 6-month PTSD symptoms and EF deficits at 12 months. However, EF deficits at 6 months drove the relationship between PTSD symptoms at baseline and at 1 year (indirect effect = .061).

“What this suggests is that executive-function deficits are a mechanism that maintains patients’ symptoms over the course of 1 year,” Dr. Bardeen said.

“And you don’t see the reverse,” he added. “You don’t see that PTSD symptoms at [6 months] mediate the relationship between [baseline] and 6 month executive-function deficits.”
 

Surprising finding

The findings suggest deficits in executive functioning have a stronger role in maintaining PTSD symptoms than these symptoms have in maintaining EF deficits, Dr. Bardeen told this news organization.

“I had originally hypothesized a bidirectional relationship in which PTSD symptoms influenced future executive-function deficits and executive-function deficits influenced future PTSD symptoms,” he said.

“So, it was a surprise that, when accounting for both variables in the same model, executive-function deficits predicted future PTSD symptoms, but PTSD symptoms did not significantly predict future EF deficits,” he added.

Dr. Bardeen noted this suggests that EF deficits “may be a particularly important maintenance factor.”  

In addition, he recommended the use of neuropsychological assessments prior to treatment to identify individuals with EF deficits and distinguish those deficits from PTSD symptoms.

“There is certainly overlap between executive-function deficits and PTSD symptoms,” Dr. Bardeen said. “For example, several of the symptoms of PTSD, such as concentration difficulties, may be indicators of executive-function deficits.”

He noted assessments such as the Delis Kaplan Executive Function System, and Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5, when used as part of a larger assessment battery, can help differentiate between the EF deficits and PTSD.

“This would take several hours to administer, but in cases in which serious cognitive impairment is suspected, a comprehensive assessment is the way to go,” Dr. Bardeen said.

The standard approaches of prolonged exposure therapy and cognitive processing therapy can be effective in patients without EF deficits, while some modifications may benefit those with these deficits, he added.

“For example, it’s important to provide a more directive and structured environment in which the practitioner repeats key points frequently, uses concrete language, simplifies worksheets, and provides written summaries and reminder cards,” he said.
 

Further findings

In additional research presented at the meeting, Elsa Mattson, a PhD student from Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and colleagues reported findings further distinguishing the role of EF in PTSD.

In that study of 149 patients with chronic PTSD, those with low performing working memory, but not high working memory, had higher pre- as well as posttreatment PTSD symptom severity and depressive symptoms.

“Clinicians should consider that impairments in executive function may play a role in reduced treatment response, potentially impairing a client’s ability to learn new information in treatment,” the investigators wrote.

“Understanding how executive function processes change over the course of treatment, particularly in relation to processing the trauma memories, is an important next step,” they added.

The first study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

DENVER – Deficits in executive function (EF) are linked to with development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms and exacerbation of such symptoms over time, new research suggests.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first to show that executive-function deficits maintain PTSD symptoms following trauma exposure,” investigators noted in research presented at the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA) Anxiety & Depression conference.

Courtesy Auburn University

The results are important in “developing precision medicine–based approaches for alleviating [posttraumatic stress] symptoms, and improving well-established PTSD treatments for those with relative deficits in executive function,” study investigator Joseph R. Bardeen, PhD, associate professor at Auburn (Ala.) University, told meeting attendees.

The findings were published in the Journal of Anxiety Disorders.
 

Cognitive impairment

In earlier research, deficits in EF were associated with an increased vulnerability for PTSD symptoms. However, less is known about the role of these deficits, which can impair higher-level cognitive ability, in sustaining PTSD symptoms.

To investigate, the authors conducted a longitudinal study that included 98 participants aged 18-65 years who had been identified via phone screening as experiencing clinically significant PTSD symptoms.

Participants completed self-report measures for PTSD symptoms, as well as measures for EF deficits at baseline and 6-month (n = 92) and 12-month (n = 91) follow-up sessions.

A path analysis showed a significant relationship between baseline PTSD symptoms and EF deficits at 6 months (P < .001). Baseline PTSD symptoms were associated with 12-month PTSD symptoms (P < .04).

EF deficits at 6 months were also associated with 12-month PTSD symptoms (P = .02).

Importantly, no associations were observed between baseline or 6-month PTSD symptoms and EF deficits at 12 months. However, EF deficits at 6 months drove the relationship between PTSD symptoms at baseline and at 1 year (indirect effect = .061).

“What this suggests is that executive-function deficits are a mechanism that maintains patients’ symptoms over the course of 1 year,” Dr. Bardeen said.

“And you don’t see the reverse,” he added. “You don’t see that PTSD symptoms at [6 months] mediate the relationship between [baseline] and 6 month executive-function deficits.”
 

Surprising finding

The findings suggest deficits in executive functioning have a stronger role in maintaining PTSD symptoms than these symptoms have in maintaining EF deficits, Dr. Bardeen told this news organization.

“I had originally hypothesized a bidirectional relationship in which PTSD symptoms influenced future executive-function deficits and executive-function deficits influenced future PTSD symptoms,” he said.

“So, it was a surprise that, when accounting for both variables in the same model, executive-function deficits predicted future PTSD symptoms, but PTSD symptoms did not significantly predict future EF deficits,” he added.

Dr. Bardeen noted this suggests that EF deficits “may be a particularly important maintenance factor.”  

In addition, he recommended the use of neuropsychological assessments prior to treatment to identify individuals with EF deficits and distinguish those deficits from PTSD symptoms.

“There is certainly overlap between executive-function deficits and PTSD symptoms,” Dr. Bardeen said. “For example, several of the symptoms of PTSD, such as concentration difficulties, may be indicators of executive-function deficits.”

He noted assessments such as the Delis Kaplan Executive Function System, and Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5, when used as part of a larger assessment battery, can help differentiate between the EF deficits and PTSD.

“This would take several hours to administer, but in cases in which serious cognitive impairment is suspected, a comprehensive assessment is the way to go,” Dr. Bardeen said.

The standard approaches of prolonged exposure therapy and cognitive processing therapy can be effective in patients without EF deficits, while some modifications may benefit those with these deficits, he added.

“For example, it’s important to provide a more directive and structured environment in which the practitioner repeats key points frequently, uses concrete language, simplifies worksheets, and provides written summaries and reminder cards,” he said.
 

Further findings

In additional research presented at the meeting, Elsa Mattson, a PhD student from Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and colleagues reported findings further distinguishing the role of EF in PTSD.

In that study of 149 patients with chronic PTSD, those with low performing working memory, but not high working memory, had higher pre- as well as posttreatment PTSD symptom severity and depressive symptoms.

“Clinicians should consider that impairments in executive function may play a role in reduced treatment response, potentially impairing a client’s ability to learn new information in treatment,” the investigators wrote.

“Understanding how executive function processes change over the course of treatment, particularly in relation to processing the trauma memories, is an important next step,” they added.

The first study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

DENVER – Deficits in executive function (EF) are linked to with development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms and exacerbation of such symptoms over time, new research suggests.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first to show that executive-function deficits maintain PTSD symptoms following trauma exposure,” investigators noted in research presented at the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA) Anxiety & Depression conference.

Courtesy Auburn University

The results are important in “developing precision medicine–based approaches for alleviating [posttraumatic stress] symptoms, and improving well-established PTSD treatments for those with relative deficits in executive function,” study investigator Joseph R. Bardeen, PhD, associate professor at Auburn (Ala.) University, told meeting attendees.

The findings were published in the Journal of Anxiety Disorders.
 

Cognitive impairment

In earlier research, deficits in EF were associated with an increased vulnerability for PTSD symptoms. However, less is known about the role of these deficits, which can impair higher-level cognitive ability, in sustaining PTSD symptoms.

To investigate, the authors conducted a longitudinal study that included 98 participants aged 18-65 years who had been identified via phone screening as experiencing clinically significant PTSD symptoms.

Participants completed self-report measures for PTSD symptoms, as well as measures for EF deficits at baseline and 6-month (n = 92) and 12-month (n = 91) follow-up sessions.

A path analysis showed a significant relationship between baseline PTSD symptoms and EF deficits at 6 months (P < .001). Baseline PTSD symptoms were associated with 12-month PTSD symptoms (P < .04).

EF deficits at 6 months were also associated with 12-month PTSD symptoms (P = .02).

Importantly, no associations were observed between baseline or 6-month PTSD symptoms and EF deficits at 12 months. However, EF deficits at 6 months drove the relationship between PTSD symptoms at baseline and at 1 year (indirect effect = .061).

“What this suggests is that executive-function deficits are a mechanism that maintains patients’ symptoms over the course of 1 year,” Dr. Bardeen said.

“And you don’t see the reverse,” he added. “You don’t see that PTSD symptoms at [6 months] mediate the relationship between [baseline] and 6 month executive-function deficits.”
 

Surprising finding

The findings suggest deficits in executive functioning have a stronger role in maintaining PTSD symptoms than these symptoms have in maintaining EF deficits, Dr. Bardeen told this news organization.

“I had originally hypothesized a bidirectional relationship in which PTSD symptoms influenced future executive-function deficits and executive-function deficits influenced future PTSD symptoms,” he said.

“So, it was a surprise that, when accounting for both variables in the same model, executive-function deficits predicted future PTSD symptoms, but PTSD symptoms did not significantly predict future EF deficits,” he added.

Dr. Bardeen noted this suggests that EF deficits “may be a particularly important maintenance factor.”  

In addition, he recommended the use of neuropsychological assessments prior to treatment to identify individuals with EF deficits and distinguish those deficits from PTSD symptoms.

“There is certainly overlap between executive-function deficits and PTSD symptoms,” Dr. Bardeen said. “For example, several of the symptoms of PTSD, such as concentration difficulties, may be indicators of executive-function deficits.”

He noted assessments such as the Delis Kaplan Executive Function System, and Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5, when used as part of a larger assessment battery, can help differentiate between the EF deficits and PTSD.

“This would take several hours to administer, but in cases in which serious cognitive impairment is suspected, a comprehensive assessment is the way to go,” Dr. Bardeen said.

The standard approaches of prolonged exposure therapy and cognitive processing therapy can be effective in patients without EF deficits, while some modifications may benefit those with these deficits, he added.

“For example, it’s important to provide a more directive and structured environment in which the practitioner repeats key points frequently, uses concrete language, simplifies worksheets, and provides written summaries and reminder cards,” he said.
 

Further findings

In additional research presented at the meeting, Elsa Mattson, a PhD student from Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and colleagues reported findings further distinguishing the role of EF in PTSD.

In that study of 149 patients with chronic PTSD, those with low performing working memory, but not high working memory, had higher pre- as well as posttreatment PTSD symptom severity and depressive symptoms.

“Clinicians should consider that impairments in executive function may play a role in reduced treatment response, potentially impairing a client’s ability to learn new information in treatment,” the investigators wrote.

“Understanding how executive function processes change over the course of treatment, particularly in relation to processing the trauma memories, is an important next step,” they added.

The first study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Research suggests that physicians have suicidal thoughts at about twice the rate of the general population (7.2% vs. 4%). Now, as they bear the weight of a multiyear pandemic alongside the perpetual struggle to maintain some semblance of work-life balance, their resiliency has been stretched to the brink.

In 2022, the Medscape Physician Suicide Report surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties who were candid about their experiences with suicidal thoughts, how they support their besieged colleagues, and their go-to coping strategies.

Overall, 21% of physicians reported having feelings of depression. Of those, 24% had clinical depression and 64% had colloquial depression. Physicians who felt sad or blue decreased slightly, compared with the 2021 report, but the number of physicians experiencing severe depression rose 4%.

One in 10 physicians said they have thought about or attempted suicide. However, the number of physicians with suicidal thoughts dropped to 9%, down substantially from the 22% who reported similar feelings in 2020.

Still, there was a slight uptick in women physicians contemplating suicide, likely linked to their larger share of childcare and family responsibilities.

Washington University School of Medicine

“They have needed to pull double duty even more than usual, and that may have increased their sense of burnout and vulnerability to suicidal thoughts,” said Andrea Giedinghagen, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis, and coauthor of “Physician Suicide: A Call to Action
 

Fighting the stigma of seeking mental health help

Although the number of physicians attempting, but not completing suicide, has remained steady at 1% for several years, the recent passage of the Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act by Congress aims to drive that figure even lower. Dr. Breen, an ED physician at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, died by suicide in April 2020. Overwhelmed by the onslaught of COVID patients, Dr. Breen was reluctant to seek mental health services for fear of being ostracized.

“Many physicians don’t seek mental health care due to fear of negative consequences in the workplace, including retribution, exclusion, loss of license, or even their job,” Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, told this news organization. “This was the experience of Dr. Lorna Breen. She was convinced that if she talked to a professional, she would lose her medical license. Perhaps if Dr. Breen was equipped with the accurate information – there is no mental health reporting requirement in her state’s medical license application – it might have saved her life.”

This same stigma was reflected in the survey, with one physician saying: “I’m afraid that if I spoke to a therapist, I’d have to report receiving psychiatric treatment to credentialing or licensing boards.” Roughly 40% of survey respondents, regardless of age, chose not to disclose their suicidal thoughts to anyone, not even a family member or suicide hotline. And just a tiny portion of physicians (10% of men and 13% of women) said that a colleague had discussed their suicidal thoughts with them.

“There is a longstanding culture of silence around physician mental health in the medical community,” said Dr. Price. “The strategies within the Act are critical to fixing this culture and making it acceptable and normalized for physicians to seek mental health care,” and for it to “become a fundamental and ongoing element of being a practicing physician.”

As part of the legislation, the Department of Health & Human Services must award grants to hospitals, medical associations, and other entities to facilitate mental health programs for providers. They must also establish policy recommendations and conduct campaigns to improve providers’ mental and behavioral health, encourage providers to seek mental health support and assistance, remove barriers to such treatment, and identify best practices to prevent suicide and promote resiliency
 

Addressing barriers to mental health

The new bill is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Price said health organizations must do more to address the six key structural barriers that are “discouraging physicians from seeking [mental health] help,” such as the inclusion of “intrusive mental health questions on medical board, hospital credentialing, and malpractice insurance applications.”

In addition, employers should allow physicians to seek out-of-network mental health services, if necessary, and not cause further humiliation by requiring them to be treated by colleagues within their hospital system. A similar proposal has recently been introduced and is gaining traction in Utah, following the suicide of ED physician Scott Jolley, MD, in 2021 after he was admitted for psychiatric care where he worked.

Diminishing the stigma surrounding physicians’ mental health encourages a more open dialogue, so if a colleague reaches out – listen. “Start by thanking the colleague for sharing the information: ‘I’m sure that wasn’t easy but I appreciate that you respect me enough to share this. Let’s talk more,’ ” said Michael F. Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn . “Then ask what you can do to help, which cuts down on the sense of isolation that colleague may feel.”

According to the survey, many physicians have developed strategies to support their happiness and mental health. Although fewer than 10% said reducing work hours or transitioning to a part-time schedule was most effective, the majority of physicians relied on spending time with family and friends (68%) – a choice that has considerable benefits.

“Close and intimate relationships are the single most protective factor for our mental health,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer for UC Davis Health and professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Isolation and loneliness are very important stressors, and we know that about 25% of the population reports being lonely.”

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

Research suggests that physicians have suicidal thoughts at about twice the rate of the general population (7.2% vs. 4%). Now, as they bear the weight of a multiyear pandemic alongside the perpetual struggle to maintain some semblance of work-life balance, their resiliency has been stretched to the brink.

In 2022, the Medscape Physician Suicide Report surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties who were candid about their experiences with suicidal thoughts, how they support their besieged colleagues, and their go-to coping strategies.

Overall, 21% of physicians reported having feelings of depression. Of those, 24% had clinical depression and 64% had colloquial depression. Physicians who felt sad or blue decreased slightly, compared with the 2021 report, but the number of physicians experiencing severe depression rose 4%.

One in 10 physicians said they have thought about or attempted suicide. However, the number of physicians with suicidal thoughts dropped to 9%, down substantially from the 22% who reported similar feelings in 2020.

Still, there was a slight uptick in women physicians contemplating suicide, likely linked to their larger share of childcare and family responsibilities.

Washington University School of Medicine

“They have needed to pull double duty even more than usual, and that may have increased their sense of burnout and vulnerability to suicidal thoughts,” said Andrea Giedinghagen, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis, and coauthor of “Physician Suicide: A Call to Action
 

Fighting the stigma of seeking mental health help

Although the number of physicians attempting, but not completing suicide, has remained steady at 1% for several years, the recent passage of the Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act by Congress aims to drive that figure even lower. Dr. Breen, an ED physician at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, died by suicide in April 2020. Overwhelmed by the onslaught of COVID patients, Dr. Breen was reluctant to seek mental health services for fear of being ostracized.

“Many physicians don’t seek mental health care due to fear of negative consequences in the workplace, including retribution, exclusion, loss of license, or even their job,” Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, told this news organization. “This was the experience of Dr. Lorna Breen. She was convinced that if she talked to a professional, she would lose her medical license. Perhaps if Dr. Breen was equipped with the accurate information – there is no mental health reporting requirement in her state’s medical license application – it might have saved her life.”

This same stigma was reflected in the survey, with one physician saying: “I’m afraid that if I spoke to a therapist, I’d have to report receiving psychiatric treatment to credentialing or licensing boards.” Roughly 40% of survey respondents, regardless of age, chose not to disclose their suicidal thoughts to anyone, not even a family member or suicide hotline. And just a tiny portion of physicians (10% of men and 13% of women) said that a colleague had discussed their suicidal thoughts with them.

“There is a longstanding culture of silence around physician mental health in the medical community,” said Dr. Price. “The strategies within the Act are critical to fixing this culture and making it acceptable and normalized for physicians to seek mental health care,” and for it to “become a fundamental and ongoing element of being a practicing physician.”

As part of the legislation, the Department of Health & Human Services must award grants to hospitals, medical associations, and other entities to facilitate mental health programs for providers. They must also establish policy recommendations and conduct campaigns to improve providers’ mental and behavioral health, encourage providers to seek mental health support and assistance, remove barriers to such treatment, and identify best practices to prevent suicide and promote resiliency
 

Addressing barriers to mental health

The new bill is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Price said health organizations must do more to address the six key structural barriers that are “discouraging physicians from seeking [mental health] help,” such as the inclusion of “intrusive mental health questions on medical board, hospital credentialing, and malpractice insurance applications.”

In addition, employers should allow physicians to seek out-of-network mental health services, if necessary, and not cause further humiliation by requiring them to be treated by colleagues within their hospital system. A similar proposal has recently been introduced and is gaining traction in Utah, following the suicide of ED physician Scott Jolley, MD, in 2021 after he was admitted for psychiatric care where he worked.

Diminishing the stigma surrounding physicians’ mental health encourages a more open dialogue, so if a colleague reaches out – listen. “Start by thanking the colleague for sharing the information: ‘I’m sure that wasn’t easy but I appreciate that you respect me enough to share this. Let’s talk more,’ ” said Michael F. Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn . “Then ask what you can do to help, which cuts down on the sense of isolation that colleague may feel.”

According to the survey, many physicians have developed strategies to support their happiness and mental health. Although fewer than 10% said reducing work hours or transitioning to a part-time schedule was most effective, the majority of physicians relied on spending time with family and friends (68%) – a choice that has considerable benefits.

“Close and intimate relationships are the single most protective factor for our mental health,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer for UC Davis Health and professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Isolation and loneliness are very important stressors, and we know that about 25% of the population reports being lonely.”

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

Research suggests that physicians have suicidal thoughts at about twice the rate of the general population (7.2% vs. 4%). Now, as they bear the weight of a multiyear pandemic alongside the perpetual struggle to maintain some semblance of work-life balance, their resiliency has been stretched to the brink.

In 2022, the Medscape Physician Suicide Report surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties who were candid about their experiences with suicidal thoughts, how they support their besieged colleagues, and their go-to coping strategies.

Overall, 21% of physicians reported having feelings of depression. Of those, 24% had clinical depression and 64% had colloquial depression. Physicians who felt sad or blue decreased slightly, compared with the 2021 report, but the number of physicians experiencing severe depression rose 4%.

One in 10 physicians said they have thought about or attempted suicide. However, the number of physicians with suicidal thoughts dropped to 9%, down substantially from the 22% who reported similar feelings in 2020.

Still, there was a slight uptick in women physicians contemplating suicide, likely linked to their larger share of childcare and family responsibilities.

Washington University School of Medicine

“They have needed to pull double duty even more than usual, and that may have increased their sense of burnout and vulnerability to suicidal thoughts,” said Andrea Giedinghagen, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis, and coauthor of “Physician Suicide: A Call to Action
 

Fighting the stigma of seeking mental health help

Although the number of physicians attempting, but not completing suicide, has remained steady at 1% for several years, the recent passage of the Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act by Congress aims to drive that figure even lower. Dr. Breen, an ED physician at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, died by suicide in April 2020. Overwhelmed by the onslaught of COVID patients, Dr. Breen was reluctant to seek mental health services for fear of being ostracized.

“Many physicians don’t seek mental health care due to fear of negative consequences in the workplace, including retribution, exclusion, loss of license, or even their job,” Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, told this news organization. “This was the experience of Dr. Lorna Breen. She was convinced that if she talked to a professional, she would lose her medical license. Perhaps if Dr. Breen was equipped with the accurate information – there is no mental health reporting requirement in her state’s medical license application – it might have saved her life.”

This same stigma was reflected in the survey, with one physician saying: “I’m afraid that if I spoke to a therapist, I’d have to report receiving psychiatric treatment to credentialing or licensing boards.” Roughly 40% of survey respondents, regardless of age, chose not to disclose their suicidal thoughts to anyone, not even a family member or suicide hotline. And just a tiny portion of physicians (10% of men and 13% of women) said that a colleague had discussed their suicidal thoughts with them.

“There is a longstanding culture of silence around physician mental health in the medical community,” said Dr. Price. “The strategies within the Act are critical to fixing this culture and making it acceptable and normalized for physicians to seek mental health care,” and for it to “become a fundamental and ongoing element of being a practicing physician.”

As part of the legislation, the Department of Health & Human Services must award grants to hospitals, medical associations, and other entities to facilitate mental health programs for providers. They must also establish policy recommendations and conduct campaigns to improve providers’ mental and behavioral health, encourage providers to seek mental health support and assistance, remove barriers to such treatment, and identify best practices to prevent suicide and promote resiliency
 

Addressing barriers to mental health

The new bill is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Price said health organizations must do more to address the six key structural barriers that are “discouraging physicians from seeking [mental health] help,” such as the inclusion of “intrusive mental health questions on medical board, hospital credentialing, and malpractice insurance applications.”

In addition, employers should allow physicians to seek out-of-network mental health services, if necessary, and not cause further humiliation by requiring them to be treated by colleagues within their hospital system. A similar proposal has recently been introduced and is gaining traction in Utah, following the suicide of ED physician Scott Jolley, MD, in 2021 after he was admitted for psychiatric care where he worked.

Diminishing the stigma surrounding physicians’ mental health encourages a more open dialogue, so if a colleague reaches out – listen. “Start by thanking the colleague for sharing the information: ‘I’m sure that wasn’t easy but I appreciate that you respect me enough to share this. Let’s talk more,’ ” said Michael F. Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn . “Then ask what you can do to help, which cuts down on the sense of isolation that colleague may feel.”

According to the survey, many physicians have developed strategies to support their happiness and mental health. Although fewer than 10% said reducing work hours or transitioning to a part-time schedule was most effective, the majority of physicians relied on spending time with family and friends (68%) – a choice that has considerable benefits.

“Close and intimate relationships are the single most protective factor for our mental health,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer for UC Davis Health and professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Isolation and loneliness are very important stressors, and we know that about 25% of the population reports being lonely.”

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

LAS VEGAS – While frontline health care workers may have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the entire workforce has experienced some level of anxiety, stress, loss, grief, and trauma, according to Jon A. Levenson, MD.

“There are those who will need mental health treatment, so creating an easy way to reach out for help and facilitate linkage with care is critically important,” Dr. Levenson, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “The vast majority of our workforce will thrive with proper support. But what can each of us do to take care of ourselves?”

Step one is to recognize common stress reactions as well as signs of distress. He offered the oxygen mask metaphor, the idea that before we can take care of and support anyone else, we must first take care of ourselves. “When people are stressed, they don’t always think about the oxygen mask metaphor,” Dr. Levenson said. Step two is to practice and model self-care by adopting principles often discussed in acceptance and commitment therapy: to focus on what you can control, not on what you can’t control.

“We can’t control the amount of toilet paper at the grocery store, how long the pandemic will last, or how others have reacted,” Dr. Levenson said. “We also can’t control other people’s motives, predict what will happen, or the actions of others, including whether they will follow social distancing guidelines or not.”

How about what we can control? One is a positive attitude, “which can sustain people during times of intense stress,” he said. “Other things that we can do include turn off the news and find fun and enriching activities to do at home, whether it be playing a game with family or reaching out to friends through an iPad or a smartphone. You can also follow [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] recommendations, control your own social distancing, and limit social media activity, which can be stressful. We can also control our kindness and grace.” He added that resilience does not mean “snapping back” to how you were before the pandemic, but rather “learning to integrate the adverse experiences into who you are and growing with them, which is sometimes known as posttraumatic growth.”

Dr. Levenson encouraged health care workers to use their coping resources, connect to others, and cultivate their values and purpose in life as they navigate these challenging times. “You also want to promote realistic optimism; find a way to stay positive,” he said. “We emphasize to our staff that while you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control – your positive relationships – and remind yourself of your values and sources of gratitude. Figure out, and reflect on, what you care about, and then care about it. Remind yourself in a deliberate, purposeful way what anchors you to your job, which in the health care setting tends to be a desire to care for others, to assist those in need, and to work in teams. We also encourage staff to refrain from judgment. Guilt is a normal and near-universal response to this stressor, but there are many ways to contribute without a judgmental or guilty tone.”

Other tips for self-support are to remind yourself that it is not selfish to take breaks. “The needs of your patients are not more important than your own needs,” Dr. Levenson said. “Working nonstop can put you at higher risk for stress, exhaustion, and illness. You may need to give yourself more time to step back and recover from workplace challenges or extended coverage for peers; this is important. We remind our staff that your work may feel more emotionally draining than usual because everything is more intense overall during the COVID-19 pandemic. This reminder helps staff normalize what they already may be experiencing, and in turn, to further support each other.”

Soothing activities to relieve stress include meditation, prayer, deep and slow breathing, relaxation exercises, yoga, mindfulness, stretching, staying hydrated, eating healthfully, exercise, and getting sufficient sleep. Other stress management tips include avoiding excessive alcohol intake, reaching out to others, asking for assistance, and delegating when possible. “We want to promote psychological flexibility: the ability to stay in contact with the present moment,” he said. “We encourage our peers to be aware of unpleasant thoughts and feelings, and to try to redirect negative thought patterns to a proactive problem-solving approach; this includes choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values.”

Dr. Levenson reported having no disclosures related to his presentation.

LAS VEGAS – While frontline health care workers may have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the entire workforce has experienced some level of anxiety, stress, loss, grief, and trauma, according to Jon A. Levenson, MD.

“There are those who will need mental health treatment, so creating an easy way to reach out for help and facilitate linkage with care is critically important,” Dr. Levenson, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “The vast majority of our workforce will thrive with proper support. But what can each of us do to take care of ourselves?”

Step one is to recognize common stress reactions as well as signs of distress. He offered the oxygen mask metaphor, the idea that before we can take care of and support anyone else, we must first take care of ourselves. “When people are stressed, they don’t always think about the oxygen mask metaphor,” Dr. Levenson said. Step two is to practice and model self-care by adopting principles often discussed in acceptance and commitment therapy: to focus on what you can control, not on what you can’t control.

“We can’t control the amount of toilet paper at the grocery store, how long the pandemic will last, or how others have reacted,” Dr. Levenson said. “We also can’t control other people’s motives, predict what will happen, or the actions of others, including whether they will follow social distancing guidelines or not.”

How about what we can control? One is a positive attitude, “which can sustain people during times of intense stress,” he said. “Other things that we can do include turn off the news and find fun and enriching activities to do at home, whether it be playing a game with family or reaching out to friends through an iPad or a smartphone. You can also follow [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] recommendations, control your own social distancing, and limit social media activity, which can be stressful. We can also control our kindness and grace.” He added that resilience does not mean “snapping back” to how you were before the pandemic, but rather “learning to integrate the adverse experiences into who you are and growing with them, which is sometimes known as posttraumatic growth.”

Dr. Levenson encouraged health care workers to use their coping resources, connect to others, and cultivate their values and purpose in life as they navigate these challenging times. “You also want to promote realistic optimism; find a way to stay positive,” he said. “We emphasize to our staff that while you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control – your positive relationships – and remind yourself of your values and sources of gratitude. Figure out, and reflect on, what you care about, and then care about it. Remind yourself in a deliberate, purposeful way what anchors you to your job, which in the health care setting tends to be a desire to care for others, to assist those in need, and to work in teams. We also encourage staff to refrain from judgment. Guilt is a normal and near-universal response to this stressor, but there are many ways to contribute without a judgmental or guilty tone.”

Other tips for self-support are to remind yourself that it is not selfish to take breaks. “The needs of your patients are not more important than your own needs,” Dr. Levenson said. “Working nonstop can put you at higher risk for stress, exhaustion, and illness. You may need to give yourself more time to step back and recover from workplace challenges or extended coverage for peers; this is important. We remind our staff that your work may feel more emotionally draining than usual because everything is more intense overall during the COVID-19 pandemic. This reminder helps staff normalize what they already may be experiencing, and in turn, to further support each other.”

Soothing activities to relieve stress include meditation, prayer, deep and slow breathing, relaxation exercises, yoga, mindfulness, stretching, staying hydrated, eating healthfully, exercise, and getting sufficient sleep. Other stress management tips include avoiding excessive alcohol intake, reaching out to others, asking for assistance, and delegating when possible. “We want to promote psychological flexibility: the ability to stay in contact with the present moment,” he said. “We encourage our peers to be aware of unpleasant thoughts and feelings, and to try to redirect negative thought patterns to a proactive problem-solving approach; this includes choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values.”

Dr. Levenson reported having no disclosures related to his presentation.

LAS VEGAS – While frontline health care workers may have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the entire workforce has experienced some level of anxiety, stress, loss, grief, and trauma, according to Jon A. Levenson, MD.

“There are those who will need mental health treatment, so creating an easy way to reach out for help and facilitate linkage with care is critically important,” Dr. Levenson, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “The vast majority of our workforce will thrive with proper support. But what can each of us do to take care of ourselves?”

Step one is to recognize common stress reactions as well as signs of distress. He offered the oxygen mask metaphor, the idea that before we can take care of and support anyone else, we must first take care of ourselves. “When people are stressed, they don’t always think about the oxygen mask metaphor,” Dr. Levenson said. Step two is to practice and model self-care by adopting principles often discussed in acceptance and commitment therapy: to focus on what you can control, not on what you can’t control.

“We can’t control the amount of toilet paper at the grocery store, how long the pandemic will last, or how others have reacted,” Dr. Levenson said. “We also can’t control other people’s motives, predict what will happen, or the actions of others, including whether they will follow social distancing guidelines or not.”

How about what we can control? One is a positive attitude, “which can sustain people during times of intense stress,” he said. “Other things that we can do include turn off the news and find fun and enriching activities to do at home, whether it be playing a game with family or reaching out to friends through an iPad or a smartphone. You can also follow [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] recommendations, control your own social distancing, and limit social media activity, which can be stressful. We can also control our kindness and grace.” He added that resilience does not mean “snapping back” to how you were before the pandemic, but rather “learning to integrate the adverse experiences into who you are and growing with them, which is sometimes known as posttraumatic growth.”

Dr. Levenson encouraged health care workers to use their coping resources, connect to others, and cultivate their values and purpose in life as they navigate these challenging times. “You also want to promote realistic optimism; find a way to stay positive,” he said. “We emphasize to our staff that while you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control – your positive relationships – and remind yourself of your values and sources of gratitude. Figure out, and reflect on, what you care about, and then care about it. Remind yourself in a deliberate, purposeful way what anchors you to your job, which in the health care setting tends to be a desire to care for others, to assist those in need, and to work in teams. We also encourage staff to refrain from judgment. Guilt is a normal and near-universal response to this stressor, but there are many ways to contribute without a judgmental or guilty tone.”

Other tips for self-support are to remind yourself that it is not selfish to take breaks. “The needs of your patients are not more important than your own needs,” Dr. Levenson said. “Working nonstop can put you at higher risk for stress, exhaustion, and illness. You may need to give yourself more time to step back and recover from workplace challenges or extended coverage for peers; this is important. We remind our staff that your work may feel more emotionally draining than usual because everything is more intense overall during the COVID-19 pandemic. This reminder helps staff normalize what they already may be experiencing, and in turn, to further support each other.”

Soothing activities to relieve stress include meditation, prayer, deep and slow breathing, relaxation exercises, yoga, mindfulness, stretching, staying hydrated, eating healthfully, exercise, and getting sufficient sleep. Other stress management tips include avoiding excessive alcohol intake, reaching out to others, asking for assistance, and delegating when possible. “We want to promote psychological flexibility: the ability to stay in contact with the present moment,” he said. “We encourage our peers to be aware of unpleasant thoughts and feelings, and to try to redirect negative thought patterns to a proactive problem-solving approach; this includes choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values.”

Dr. Levenson reported having no disclosures related to his presentation.

LAS VEGAS – Long after the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic subsides, the psychological sequelae and behavioral effects of persistent distress will likely persist for health care workers, according to Jon A. Levenson, MD.

“We can learn from previous pandemics and epidemics, which will be important for us going forward from COVID-19,” Dr. Levenson, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.

During the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic in 2005, 68% of health care workers reported significant job-related stress, including increased workload, changing work duties, redeployment, shortage of medical supplies, concerns about insufficient personal protective equipment (PPE), lack of safety at work, absence of effective treatment protocols, inconsistent organizational support and information and misinformation from hospital management, and witnessing intense pain, isolation, and loss on a daily basis with few opportunities to take breaks (Psychiatr Serv. 2020 Oct 6. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000274).

Personal concerns associated with psychopathological symptoms included spreading infection to family members; feeling responsibility for family members’ social isolation; self-isolating to avoid infecting family, which can lead to increased loneliness and sadness. “For those who were working remotely, this level of work is hard and challenging,” Dr. Levenson said. “For those who are parents, the 24-hour childcare responsibilities exist on top of work. They often found they can’t unwind with friends.”

Across SARS, MERS, Ebola, and swine flu, a wide range of prevalence in symptoms of distress, stress, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and substance use emerged, he continued. During COVID-19, at least three studies reported significant percentages of distress, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD among health care workers (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[3]:e203976, Front Psychol. 2020 Dec 8;11:608986., and Gen Hosp Psychiatry. Sep-Oct 2020;66:1-8).

“Who is at most-increased risk?” Dr. Levenson asked. “Women; those who are younger and have fewer years of work experience; those working on the front lines such as nurses and advanced practice professionals; and people with preexisting vulnerabilities to psychiatric disorders including anxiety, depression, obsessional symptoms, substance use, suicidal behavior, and impulse control disorders are likely to be especially vulnerable to stress-related symptoms.”

At CUIMC, there were certain “tipping points,” to the vulnerability of health care worker well-being in the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, he said, including the loss of an emergency medicine physician colleague from death by suicide. “On the national level there were so many other issues going on such as health care disparities of the COVID-19 infection itself, the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, other issues of racial injustice, a tense political climate with an upcoming election at the time, and other factors related to the natural climate concerns,” he said. This prompted several faculty members in the CUIMC department of psychiatry including Claude Ann Mellins, PhD, Laurel S. Mayer, MD, and Lourival Baptista-Neto, MD, to partner with ColumbiaDoctors and New York-Presbyterian Hospital and develop a model of care for health care workers known as CopeColumbia, a virtual program intended to address staff burnout and fatigue, with an emphasis on prevention and promotion of resilience.* It launched in March of 2020 and consists of 1:1 peer support, a peer support group program, town halls/webinars, and an active web site.

The 1:1 peer support sessions typically last 20-30 minutes and provide easy access for all distressed hospital and medical center staff. “We have a phone line staffed by Columbia psychiatrists and psychologists so that a distressed staff member can reach support directly,” he said. The format of these sessions includes a brief discussion of challenges and brainstorming around potential coping strategies. “This is not a psychotherapy session,” Dr. Levenson said. “Each session can be individualized to further assess the type of distress or to implement rating scales such as the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale to assess for signs and symptoms consistent with GAD. There are options to schedule a second or third peer support session, or a prompt referral within Columbia psychiatry when indicated.”

A typical peer support group meeting lasts about 30 minutes and comprises individual divisions or departments. Some goals of the peer groups are to discuss unique challenges of the work environment and to encourage the members of the group to come up with solutions; to promote team support and coping; to teach resilience-enhancing strategies from empirically based treatments such as CBT, “and to end each meeting with expressions of gratitude and of thanks within the group,” he said.

According to Dr. Levenson, sample questions CopeColumbia faculty use to facilitate coping, include “which coping skills are working for you?”; “Are you able to be present?”; “Have you honored loss with any specific ways or traditions?”; “Do you have any work buddies who support you and vice versa?”; “Can your work community build off each other’s individual strengths to help both the individual and the work group cope optimally?”; and “How can your work team help facilitate each other to best support each other?”

Other aspects of the CopeColumbia program include town halls/grand rounds that range from 30 to 60 minutes in length. “It may be a virtual presentation from a mental health professional on specific aspects of coping such as relaxation techniques,” he said. “The focus is how to manage stress, anxiety, trauma, loss, and grief. It also includes an active Q&A to engage staff participants. The advantage of this format is that you can reach many staff in an entire department.” The program also has an active web site for staff with both internal and external support links including mindfulness, meditation, exercise, parenting suggestions/caregiving, and other resources to promote well-being and resilience for staff and family.

To date, certain themes emerged from the 1:1 and peer support group sessions, including expressions of difficulty adapting to “such a new reality,” compared with the pre-COVID era. “Staff would often express anticipatory anxiety and uncertainty, such as is there going to be another surge of COVID-19 cases, and will there be a change in policies?” Dr. Levenson said. “There was a lot of expression of stress and frustration related to politicizing the virus and public containment strategies, both on a local and national level.”

Staff also mentioned the loss of usual coping strategies because of prolonged social isolation, especially for those doing remote work, and the loss of usual support resources that have helped them in the past. “They also reported delayed trauma and grief reactions, including symptoms of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress,” he said. “Health care workers with children mentioned high levels of stress related to childcare, increased workload, and what seems like an impossible work-life balance.” Many reported exhaustion and irritability, “which could affect and cause tension within the work group and challenges to effective team cohesion,” he said. “There were also stressors related to the impact of racial injustices and the [presidential] election that could exacerbate the impact of COVID-19.”

Dr. Levenson hopes that CopeColumbia serves as a model for other health care systems looking for ways to support the mental well-being of their employees. “We want to promote the message that emotional health should have the same priority level as physical health,” he said. “The term that I like to use is total health. Addressing the well-being of health care workers is critical for a healthy workforce and for delivering high-quality patient care.”

He reported having no relevant financial disclosures related to his presentation.

Correction, 2/28/22: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Lourival Baptista-Neto's name.

LAS VEGAS – Long after the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic subsides, the psychological sequelae and behavioral effects of persistent distress will likely persist for health care workers, according to Jon A. Levenson, MD.

“We can learn from previous pandemics and epidemics, which will be important for us going forward from COVID-19,” Dr. Levenson, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.

During the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic in 2005, 68% of health care workers reported significant job-related stress, including increased workload, changing work duties, redeployment, shortage of medical supplies, concerns about insufficient personal protective equipment (PPE), lack of safety at work, absence of effective treatment protocols, inconsistent organizational support and information and misinformation from hospital management, and witnessing intense pain, isolation, and loss on a daily basis with few opportunities to take breaks (Psychiatr Serv. 2020 Oct 6. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000274).

Personal concerns associated with psychopathological symptoms included spreading infection to family members; feeling responsibility for family members’ social isolation; self-isolating to avoid infecting family, which can lead to increased loneliness and sadness. “For those who were working remotely, this level of work is hard and challenging,” Dr. Levenson said. “For those who are parents, the 24-hour childcare responsibilities exist on top of work. They often found they can’t unwind with friends.”

Across SARS, MERS, Ebola, and swine flu, a wide range of prevalence in symptoms of distress, stress, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and substance use emerged, he continued. During COVID-19, at least three studies reported significant percentages of distress, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD among health care workers (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[3]:e203976, Front Psychol. 2020 Dec 8;11:608986., and Gen Hosp Psychiatry. Sep-Oct 2020;66:1-8).

“Who is at most-increased risk?” Dr. Levenson asked. “Women; those who are younger and have fewer years of work experience; those working on the front lines such as nurses and advanced practice professionals; and people with preexisting vulnerabilities to psychiatric disorders including anxiety, depression, obsessional symptoms, substance use, suicidal behavior, and impulse control disorders are likely to be especially vulnerable to stress-related symptoms.”

At CUIMC, there were certain “tipping points,” to the vulnerability of health care worker well-being in the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, he said, including the loss of an emergency medicine physician colleague from death by suicide. “On the national level there were so many other issues going on such as health care disparities of the COVID-19 infection itself, the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, other issues of racial injustice, a tense political climate with an upcoming election at the time, and other factors related to the natural climate concerns,” he said. This prompted several faculty members in the CUIMC department of psychiatry including Claude Ann Mellins, PhD, Laurel S. Mayer, MD, and Lourival Baptista-Neto, MD, to partner with ColumbiaDoctors and New York-Presbyterian Hospital and develop a model of care for health care workers known as CopeColumbia, a virtual program intended to address staff burnout and fatigue, with an emphasis on prevention and promotion of resilience.* It launched in March of 2020 and consists of 1:1 peer support, a peer support group program, town halls/webinars, and an active web site.

The 1:1 peer support sessions typically last 20-30 minutes and provide easy access for all distressed hospital and medical center staff. “We have a phone line staffed by Columbia psychiatrists and psychologists so that a distressed staff member can reach support directly,” he said. The format of these sessions includes a brief discussion of challenges and brainstorming around potential coping strategies. “This is not a psychotherapy session,” Dr. Levenson said. “Each session can be individualized to further assess the type of distress or to implement rating scales such as the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale to assess for signs and symptoms consistent with GAD. There are options to schedule a second or third peer support session, or a prompt referral within Columbia psychiatry when indicated.”

A typical peer support group meeting lasts about 30 minutes and comprises individual divisions or departments. Some goals of the peer groups are to discuss unique challenges of the work environment and to encourage the members of the group to come up with solutions; to promote team support and coping; to teach resilience-enhancing strategies from empirically based treatments such as CBT, “and to end each meeting with expressions of gratitude and of thanks within the group,” he said.

According to Dr. Levenson, sample questions CopeColumbia faculty use to facilitate coping, include “which coping skills are working for you?”; “Are you able to be present?”; “Have you honored loss with any specific ways or traditions?”; “Do you have any work buddies who support you and vice versa?”; “Can your work community build off each other’s individual strengths to help both the individual and the work group cope optimally?”; and “How can your work team help facilitate each other to best support each other?”

Other aspects of the CopeColumbia program include town halls/grand rounds that range from 30 to 60 minutes in length. “It may be a virtual presentation from a mental health professional on specific aspects of coping such as relaxation techniques,” he said. “The focus is how to manage stress, anxiety, trauma, loss, and grief. It also includes an active Q&A to engage staff participants. The advantage of this format is that you can reach many staff in an entire department.” The program also has an active web site for staff with both internal and external support links including mindfulness, meditation, exercise, parenting suggestions/caregiving, and other resources to promote well-being and resilience for staff and family.

To date, certain themes emerged from the 1:1 and peer support group sessions, including expressions of difficulty adapting to “such a new reality,” compared with the pre-COVID era. “Staff would often express anticipatory anxiety and uncertainty, such as is there going to be another surge of COVID-19 cases, and will there be a change in policies?” Dr. Levenson said. “There was a lot of expression of stress and frustration related to politicizing the virus and public containment strategies, both on a local and national level.”

Staff also mentioned the loss of usual coping strategies because of prolonged social isolation, especially for those doing remote work, and the loss of usual support resources that have helped them in the past. “They also reported delayed trauma and grief reactions, including symptoms of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress,” he said. “Health care workers with children mentioned high levels of stress related to childcare, increased workload, and what seems like an impossible work-life balance.” Many reported exhaustion and irritability, “which could affect and cause tension within the work group and challenges to effective team cohesion,” he said. “There were also stressors related to the impact of racial injustices and the [presidential] election that could exacerbate the impact of COVID-19.”

Dr. Levenson hopes that CopeColumbia serves as a model for other health care systems looking for ways to support the mental well-being of their employees. “We want to promote the message that emotional health should have the same priority level as physical health,” he said. “The term that I like to use is total health. Addressing the well-being of health care workers is critical for a healthy workforce and for delivering high-quality patient care.”

He reported having no relevant financial disclosures related to his presentation.

Correction, 2/28/22: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Lourival Baptista-Neto's name.

LAS VEGAS – Long after the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic subsides, the psychological sequelae and behavioral effects of persistent distress will likely persist for health care workers, according to Jon A. Levenson, MD.

“We can learn from previous pandemics and epidemics, which will be important for us going forward from COVID-19,” Dr. Levenson, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.

During the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic in 2005, 68% of health care workers reported significant job-related stress, including increased workload, changing work duties, redeployment, shortage of medical supplies, concerns about insufficient personal protective equipment (PPE), lack of safety at work, absence of effective treatment protocols, inconsistent organizational support and information and misinformation from hospital management, and witnessing intense pain, isolation, and loss on a daily basis with few opportunities to take breaks (Psychiatr Serv. 2020 Oct 6. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000274).

Personal concerns associated with psychopathological symptoms included spreading infection to family members; feeling responsibility for family members’ social isolation; self-isolating to avoid infecting family, which can lead to increased loneliness and sadness. “For those who were working remotely, this level of work is hard and challenging,” Dr. Levenson said. “For those who are parents, the 24-hour childcare responsibilities exist on top of work. They often found they can’t unwind with friends.”

Across SARS, MERS, Ebola, and swine flu, a wide range of prevalence in symptoms of distress, stress, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and substance use emerged, he continued. During COVID-19, at least three studies reported significant percentages of distress, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD among health care workers (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[3]:e203976, Front Psychol. 2020 Dec 8;11:608986., and Gen Hosp Psychiatry. Sep-Oct 2020;66:1-8).

“Who is at most-increased risk?” Dr. Levenson asked. “Women; those who are younger and have fewer years of work experience; those working on the front lines such as nurses and advanced practice professionals; and people with preexisting vulnerabilities to psychiatric disorders including anxiety, depression, obsessional symptoms, substance use, suicidal behavior, and impulse control disorders are likely to be especially vulnerable to stress-related symptoms.”

At CUIMC, there were certain “tipping points,” to the vulnerability of health care worker well-being in the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, he said, including the loss of an emergency medicine physician colleague from death by suicide. “On the national level there were so many other issues going on such as health care disparities of the COVID-19 infection itself, the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, other issues of racial injustice, a tense political climate with an upcoming election at the time, and other factors related to the natural climate concerns,” he said. This prompted several faculty members in the CUIMC department of psychiatry including Claude Ann Mellins, PhD, Laurel S. Mayer, MD, and Lourival Baptista-Neto, MD, to partner with ColumbiaDoctors and New York-Presbyterian Hospital and develop a model of care for health care workers known as CopeColumbia, a virtual program intended to address staff burnout and fatigue, with an emphasis on prevention and promotion of resilience.* It launched in March of 2020 and consists of 1:1 peer support, a peer support group program, town halls/webinars, and an active web site.

The 1:1 peer support sessions typically last 20-30 minutes and provide easy access for all distressed hospital and medical center staff. “We have a phone line staffed by Columbia psychiatrists and psychologists so that a distressed staff member can reach support directly,” he said. The format of these sessions includes a brief discussion of challenges and brainstorming around potential coping strategies. “This is not a psychotherapy session,” Dr. Levenson said. “Each session can be individualized to further assess the type of distress or to implement rating scales such as the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale to assess for signs and symptoms consistent with GAD. There are options to schedule a second or third peer support session, or a prompt referral within Columbia psychiatry when indicated.”

A typical peer support group meeting lasts about 30 minutes and comprises individual divisions or departments. Some goals of the peer groups are to discuss unique challenges of the work environment and to encourage the members of the group to come up with solutions; to promote team support and coping; to teach resilience-enhancing strategies from empirically based treatments such as CBT, “and to end each meeting with expressions of gratitude and of thanks within the group,” he said.

According to Dr. Levenson, sample questions CopeColumbia faculty use to facilitate coping, include “which coping skills are working for you?”; “Are you able to be present?”; “Have you honored loss with any specific ways or traditions?”; “Do you have any work buddies who support you and vice versa?”; “Can your work community build off each other’s individual strengths to help both the individual and the work group cope optimally?”; and “How can your work team help facilitate each other to best support each other?”

Other aspects of the CopeColumbia program include town halls/grand rounds that range from 30 to 60 minutes in length. “It may be a virtual presentation from a mental health professional on specific aspects of coping such as relaxation techniques,” he said. “The focus is how to manage stress, anxiety, trauma, loss, and grief. It also includes an active Q&A to engage staff participants. The advantage of this format is that you can reach many staff in an entire department.” The program also has an active web site for staff with both internal and external support links including mindfulness, meditation, exercise, parenting suggestions/caregiving, and other resources to promote well-being and resilience for staff and family.

To date, certain themes emerged from the 1:1 and peer support group sessions, including expressions of difficulty adapting to “such a new reality,” compared with the pre-COVID era. “Staff would often express anticipatory anxiety and uncertainty, such as is there going to be another surge of COVID-19 cases, and will there be a change in policies?” Dr. Levenson said. “There was a lot of expression of stress and frustration related to politicizing the virus and public containment strategies, both on a local and national level.”

Staff also mentioned the loss of usual coping strategies because of prolonged social isolation, especially for those doing remote work, and the loss of usual support resources that have helped them in the past. “They also reported delayed trauma and grief reactions, including symptoms of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress,” he said. “Health care workers with children mentioned high levels of stress related to childcare, increased workload, and what seems like an impossible work-life balance.” Many reported exhaustion and irritability, “which could affect and cause tension within the work group and challenges to effective team cohesion,” he said. “There were also stressors related to the impact of racial injustices and the [presidential] election that could exacerbate the impact of COVID-19.”

Dr. Levenson hopes that CopeColumbia serves as a model for other health care systems looking for ways to support the mental well-being of their employees. “We want to promote the message that emotional health should have the same priority level as physical health,” he said. “The term that I like to use is total health. Addressing the well-being of health care workers is critical for a healthy workforce and for delivering high-quality patient care.”

He reported having no relevant financial disclosures related to his presentation.

Correction, 2/28/22: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Lourival Baptista-Neto's name.

The pandemic has significantly affected the mental health of family members of patients with COVID-19, including high rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression, new research suggests.

In a prospective cohort study of more than 500 individuals, those related to intensive care unit patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) had a significantly higher prevalence of, and were at increased risk for, PTSD-related symptoms 90 days after discharge compared with their peers who were related to ICU patients with non-COVID ARDS.

They also had a higher prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms.

The results illustrate how the mental health of families has been adversely affected by strict isolation measures instituted at the height of the COVID pandemic, lead author Elie Azoulay, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Diderot University and director of the Medical Intensive Care Unit, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, told this news organization.

Such restrictions were unnecessary, Dr. Azoulay noted, adding that everyone, including health care professionals, benefits when families are allowed to interact with their loved ones in the ICU.

He added the study findings also emphasize the importance of social supports.

“We need to develop and really increase what we can do for family members”  of patients staying in the ICU, said Dr. Azoulay.

The findings were published online Feb. 18 in JAMA.
 

Twenty-three ICUs in France

The study included adult family members of patients admitted with ARDS to 23 ICUs in France from January to October 2020.

Patients had a partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO₂/FiO₂) of less than 300, and bilateral opacities on chest radiography not fully explained by cardiac failure or fluid overload.

Two trained clinical psychologists interviewed family members and patients by telephone a median of 112 days after ICU discharge. During this interview, participants completed the Impact of Event Scale Revised (IES-R) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).

The IES-R score ranges from 0 (best) to 88 (worst) with a score of more than 22 indicating presence of PTSD-related symptoms of clinical concern. The HADS has separate subscales for anxiety and depression, with a score of 7 or greater on a 21-point scale indicating symptoms of anxiety or depression.

Family members also rated social supports on a scale from 0 (extremely limited) to 10 (extremely effective). Dr. Azoulay noted that social support is the subjective perception of the extent to which friends, mental health specialists, and others are available and helpful.

Investigators divided patients into two groups depending on whether or not the cause of ARDS was COVID-19. Causes other than COVID-19 mainly included community-acquired pneumonia and influenza.

The primary outcome was the prevalence of PTSD-related symptoms among family members. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of anxiety and depression in family members.

The analysis included 303 family members of patients with COVID-19 ARDS and 214 family members of patients with non–COVID-19 ARDS. Almost half of the family members were spouses.

Those with family members with COVID-19 were younger than the non-COVID group (median age, 50 vs. 55 years). They were less frequently allowed to visit the ICU (35% vs. 88%) and more commonly received patient information by phone (84% vs. 20%).
 

Better strategies needed

Results showed PTSD symptoms were significantly more common in family members of patients with than without COVID-10 (35% vs. 19%; difference of 16%; 95% confidence interval, 8%-24%; P < .001).

Anxiety symptoms were significantly more common in the COVID-19 group (41% vs. 34%; difference of 8%; 95% CI, 0%-16%; P = .05), as were depression symptoms (31% vs. 18%; difference of 13%; 95% CI, 6%-21%; P < .001).

About 26% of the hospitalized relatives died. PTSD symptoms were more common among bereaved family members of patients who died from COVID-19 than of patients without COVID-19 (63% vs. 39%; difference of 24%; 95% CI, 7%-40%; P = .008).

In the COVID-19 group, significantly fewer family members reported having attended the funeral (77% vs. 91%, P = .04). This could be because of concerns over transmitting the virus, the investigators noted.

After adjustment for age, sex, and level of social support in a multivariable analysis, COVID-19 ARDS was significantly associated with increased risk for PTSD-related symptoms in family members (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.30-3.23; P =.002).

Other factors independently associated with PTSD symptoms were age, level of social support, and being male.

Factors associated with anxiety included having COVID-19 ARDS, age, being male, and level of social support. COVID-19 ARDS and level of social support were independently associated with depression.

Although isolation measures were implemented to prevent viral transmission during the pandemic, severely restricting family members from interacting with their sick loved ones in the ICU is “very destructive [and] deeply distressing,” said Dr. Azoulay. “It’s almost cruel.”

Fear may be at the heart of the “psycho-trauma” experienced by family members, he said.

“I would say one of the main sources is fear of getting infected, fear of abandoning family members, fear of leaving the kids alone without any support, and fear of infecting others,” he added.

Health care providers should develop strategies to better communicate with family members, who also feel a lot of guilt when they’re unable to be with their sick loved ones, said Dr. Azoulay.
 

‘Element of fear’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, O. Joseph Bienvenu, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, called the study “solid” and noted the lead author is “a well-recognized clinical researcher.”

It was “remarkable” that investigators were able to include a control group of family members of patients with ARDS not due to COVID-19, added Dr. Bienvenu, who was not involved with the research.

“It sounds like the bottom line is COVID adds an additional element of fear in loved ones,” he said.

Dr. Bienvenu added this fits with his own clinical experience – and noted that some COVID-19 follow-up clinics now include family members in their assessments and care.

“I think this study nicely illustrates the utility of this,” he concluded.

The study received funding from the French Ministry of Health. Dr. Azoulay reported receipt of personal fees from lectures from Pfizer, Gilead, Baxter, and Alexion, and institutional research grants from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer, Baxter, and Alexion. Dr. Bienvenu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The pandemic has significantly affected the mental health of family members of patients with COVID-19, including high rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression, new research suggests.

In a prospective cohort study of more than 500 individuals, those related to intensive care unit patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) had a significantly higher prevalence of, and were at increased risk for, PTSD-related symptoms 90 days after discharge compared with their peers who were related to ICU patients with non-COVID ARDS.

They also had a higher prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms.

The results illustrate how the mental health of families has been adversely affected by strict isolation measures instituted at the height of the COVID pandemic, lead author Elie Azoulay, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Diderot University and director of the Medical Intensive Care Unit, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, told this news organization.

Such restrictions were unnecessary, Dr. Azoulay noted, adding that everyone, including health care professionals, benefits when families are allowed to interact with their loved ones in the ICU.

He added the study findings also emphasize the importance of social supports.

“We need to develop and really increase what we can do for family members”  of patients staying in the ICU, said Dr. Azoulay.

The findings were published online Feb. 18 in JAMA.
 

Twenty-three ICUs in France

The study included adult family members of patients admitted with ARDS to 23 ICUs in France from January to October 2020.

Patients had a partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO₂/FiO₂) of less than 300, and bilateral opacities on chest radiography not fully explained by cardiac failure or fluid overload.

Two trained clinical psychologists interviewed family members and patients by telephone a median of 112 days after ICU discharge. During this interview, participants completed the Impact of Event Scale Revised (IES-R) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).

The IES-R score ranges from 0 (best) to 88 (worst) with a score of more than 22 indicating presence of PTSD-related symptoms of clinical concern. The HADS has separate subscales for anxiety and depression, with a score of 7 or greater on a 21-point scale indicating symptoms of anxiety or depression.

Family members also rated social supports on a scale from 0 (extremely limited) to 10 (extremely effective). Dr. Azoulay noted that social support is the subjective perception of the extent to which friends, mental health specialists, and others are available and helpful.

Investigators divided patients into two groups depending on whether or not the cause of ARDS was COVID-19. Causes other than COVID-19 mainly included community-acquired pneumonia and influenza.

The primary outcome was the prevalence of PTSD-related symptoms among family members. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of anxiety and depression in family members.

The analysis included 303 family members of patients with COVID-19 ARDS and 214 family members of patients with non–COVID-19 ARDS. Almost half of the family members were spouses.

Those with family members with COVID-19 were younger than the non-COVID group (median age, 50 vs. 55 years). They were less frequently allowed to visit the ICU (35% vs. 88%) and more commonly received patient information by phone (84% vs. 20%).
 

Better strategies needed

Results showed PTSD symptoms were significantly more common in family members of patients with than without COVID-10 (35% vs. 19%; difference of 16%; 95% confidence interval, 8%-24%; P < .001).

Anxiety symptoms were significantly more common in the COVID-19 group (41% vs. 34%; difference of 8%; 95% CI, 0%-16%; P = .05), as were depression symptoms (31% vs. 18%; difference of 13%; 95% CI, 6%-21%; P < .001).

About 26% of the hospitalized relatives died. PTSD symptoms were more common among bereaved family members of patients who died from COVID-19 than of patients without COVID-19 (63% vs. 39%; difference of 24%; 95% CI, 7%-40%; P = .008).

In the COVID-19 group, significantly fewer family members reported having attended the funeral (77% vs. 91%, P = .04). This could be because of concerns over transmitting the virus, the investigators noted.

After adjustment for age, sex, and level of social support in a multivariable analysis, COVID-19 ARDS was significantly associated with increased risk for PTSD-related symptoms in family members (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.30-3.23; P =.002).

Other factors independently associated with PTSD symptoms were age, level of social support, and being male.

Factors associated with anxiety included having COVID-19 ARDS, age, being male, and level of social support. COVID-19 ARDS and level of social support were independently associated with depression.

Although isolation measures were implemented to prevent viral transmission during the pandemic, severely restricting family members from interacting with their sick loved ones in the ICU is “very destructive [and] deeply distressing,” said Dr. Azoulay. “It’s almost cruel.”

Fear may be at the heart of the “psycho-trauma” experienced by family members, he said.

“I would say one of the main sources is fear of getting infected, fear of abandoning family members, fear of leaving the kids alone without any support, and fear of infecting others,” he added.

Health care providers should develop strategies to better communicate with family members, who also feel a lot of guilt when they’re unable to be with their sick loved ones, said Dr. Azoulay.
 

‘Element of fear’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, O. Joseph Bienvenu, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, called the study “solid” and noted the lead author is “a well-recognized clinical researcher.”

It was “remarkable” that investigators were able to include a control group of family members of patients with ARDS not due to COVID-19, added Dr. Bienvenu, who was not involved with the research.

“It sounds like the bottom line is COVID adds an additional element of fear in loved ones,” he said.

Dr. Bienvenu added this fits with his own clinical experience – and noted that some COVID-19 follow-up clinics now include family members in their assessments and care.

“I think this study nicely illustrates the utility of this,” he concluded.

The study received funding from the French Ministry of Health. Dr. Azoulay reported receipt of personal fees from lectures from Pfizer, Gilead, Baxter, and Alexion, and institutional research grants from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer, Baxter, and Alexion. Dr. Bienvenu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The pandemic has significantly affected the mental health of family members of patients with COVID-19, including high rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression, new research suggests.

In a prospective cohort study of more than 500 individuals, those related to intensive care unit patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) had a significantly higher prevalence of, and were at increased risk for, PTSD-related symptoms 90 days after discharge compared with their peers who were related to ICU patients with non-COVID ARDS.

They also had a higher prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms.

The results illustrate how the mental health of families has been adversely affected by strict isolation measures instituted at the height of the COVID pandemic, lead author Elie Azoulay, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Diderot University and director of the Medical Intensive Care Unit, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, told this news organization.

Such restrictions were unnecessary, Dr. Azoulay noted, adding that everyone, including health care professionals, benefits when families are allowed to interact with their loved ones in the ICU.

He added the study findings also emphasize the importance of social supports.

“We need to develop and really increase what we can do for family members”  of patients staying in the ICU, said Dr. Azoulay.

The findings were published online Feb. 18 in JAMA.
 

Twenty-three ICUs in France

The study included adult family members of patients admitted with ARDS to 23 ICUs in France from January to October 2020.

Patients had a partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO₂/FiO₂) of less than 300, and bilateral opacities on chest radiography not fully explained by cardiac failure or fluid overload.

Two trained clinical psychologists interviewed family members and patients by telephone a median of 112 days after ICU discharge. During this interview, participants completed the Impact of Event Scale Revised (IES-R) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).

The IES-R score ranges from 0 (best) to 88 (worst) with a score of more than 22 indicating presence of PTSD-related symptoms of clinical concern. The HADS has separate subscales for anxiety and depression, with a score of 7 or greater on a 21-point scale indicating symptoms of anxiety or depression.

Family members also rated social supports on a scale from 0 (extremely limited) to 10 (extremely effective). Dr. Azoulay noted that social support is the subjective perception of the extent to which friends, mental health specialists, and others are available and helpful.

Investigators divided patients into two groups depending on whether or not the cause of ARDS was COVID-19. Causes other than COVID-19 mainly included community-acquired pneumonia and influenza.

The primary outcome was the prevalence of PTSD-related symptoms among family members. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of anxiety and depression in family members.

The analysis included 303 family members of patients with COVID-19 ARDS and 214 family members of patients with non–COVID-19 ARDS. Almost half of the family members were spouses.

Those with family members with COVID-19 were younger than the non-COVID group (median age, 50 vs. 55 years). They were less frequently allowed to visit the ICU (35% vs. 88%) and more commonly received patient information by phone (84% vs. 20%).
 

Better strategies needed

Results showed PTSD symptoms were significantly more common in family members of patients with than without COVID-10 (35% vs. 19%; difference of 16%; 95% confidence interval, 8%-24%; P < .001).

Anxiety symptoms were significantly more common in the COVID-19 group (41% vs. 34%; difference of 8%; 95% CI, 0%-16%; P = .05), as were depression symptoms (31% vs. 18%; difference of 13%; 95% CI, 6%-21%; P < .001).

About 26% of the hospitalized relatives died. PTSD symptoms were more common among bereaved family members of patients who died from COVID-19 than of patients without COVID-19 (63% vs. 39%; difference of 24%; 95% CI, 7%-40%; P = .008).

In the COVID-19 group, significantly fewer family members reported having attended the funeral (77% vs. 91%, P = .04). This could be because of concerns over transmitting the virus, the investigators noted.

After adjustment for age, sex, and level of social support in a multivariable analysis, COVID-19 ARDS was significantly associated with increased risk for PTSD-related symptoms in family members (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.30-3.23; P =.002).

Other factors independently associated with PTSD symptoms were age, level of social support, and being male.

Factors associated with anxiety included having COVID-19 ARDS, age, being male, and level of social support. COVID-19 ARDS and level of social support were independently associated with depression.

Although isolation measures were implemented to prevent viral transmission during the pandemic, severely restricting family members from interacting with their sick loved ones in the ICU is “very destructive [and] deeply distressing,” said Dr. Azoulay. “It’s almost cruel.”

Fear may be at the heart of the “psycho-trauma” experienced by family members, he said.

“I would say one of the main sources is fear of getting infected, fear of abandoning family members, fear of leaving the kids alone without any support, and fear of infecting others,” he added.

Health care providers should develop strategies to better communicate with family members, who also feel a lot of guilt when they’re unable to be with their sick loved ones, said Dr. Azoulay.
 

‘Element of fear’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, O. Joseph Bienvenu, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, called the study “solid” and noted the lead author is “a well-recognized clinical researcher.”

It was “remarkable” that investigators were able to include a control group of family members of patients with ARDS not due to COVID-19, added Dr. Bienvenu, who was not involved with the research.

“It sounds like the bottom line is COVID adds an additional element of fear in loved ones,” he said.

Dr. Bienvenu added this fits with his own clinical experience – and noted that some COVID-19 follow-up clinics now include family members in their assessments and care.

“I think this study nicely illustrates the utility of this,” he concluded.

The study received funding from the French Ministry of Health. Dr. Azoulay reported receipt of personal fees from lectures from Pfizer, Gilead, Baxter, and Alexion, and institutional research grants from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer, Baxter, and Alexion. Dr. Bienvenu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Updated June 17, 2022

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides health care for > 9 million military veterans, nearly half of all former service members.¹ Over the past 15 years, there has been a steady and substantial increase in the frequency of disability awards for veterans with post-9/11 military service. Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that 41% of veterans who served after 9/11 receive service-connected disability benefits compared with 28% of veterans overall.² More than 5 million veterans receive VA service-related disability benefits.^2,3 More than half of the VA $243 billion budget for fiscal year (FY) 2021 ($135.5 billion) was allocated to the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), of which $115.7 billion (85%) was allocated specifically for service-related compensation claims payments.⁴

The VA predicted that VBA will have completed 1.4 million ratings for disability claims in 2021.⁵ A substantial percentage of these claims will be for mental disorders, specifically posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). VA officials testifying before Congress in 2017 noted that the number of PTSD claims had nearly tripled in the previous 10 years.⁶ As far back as 2013, McNally and Frueh analyzed “the skyrocketing of disability claims,” particularly for PTSD, among veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.⁷

This large increase has placed an unprecedented burden on the VBA to expand its capacity to conduct initial PTSD disability evaluations that by regulations are completed by psychologists or psychiatrists. This need has led the VBA to make significant changes in the compensation and pension (C&P) process, including a reduced role for Veterans Health Administration (VHA) examiners and increased reliance on non-VA (contract) examiners through the Contract Medical Disability Examination (MDE) program. In 2019, the MDE budget was $1.23 billion; in 2020, it was increased to $1.79 billion, and for 2021, it was $2.23 billion, reflecting the increasing investment of resources in non-VA examiners, ostensibly to both increase capacity and save costs.⁵

Anecdotally, concerns have been raised regarding inadequate training of contract examiners as well as inadequate reports by these examiners. A 2018 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report concluded that VA lacked the data to determine whether contract examiners were meeting standards for quality, timeliness, and accuracy.⁸ The GAO report noted that VA required 92% of contractor reports contained no obvious errors, a relatively low target; however, in the first half of 2017, only 1 contractor group met that target. The report noted further that “VBA does not verify if examiners have completed training nor does it collect information to assess training effectiveness in preparing examiners.”⁸ A subsequent analysis of contract examinations completed by the VA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in 2019 concluded that the MDE program was “hampered in their ability to provide oversight because of limitations with VBA’s electronic examination management systems, the lack of reliable data, and inadequate staffing of the program.”⁹

These reports have focused almost exclusively on simple performance metrics, such as timeliness of examination completion. However, the 2018 GAO report referenced isolated “focused reviews” of complaints about the quality of examinations by contract examiners and gave as an example an isolated “review of one contracted examiner who had high rates of diagnosing severe posttraumatic stress disorder.”⁸ After review indicated the examiner’s reports were of poor quality, the VBA discontinued the examiner’s contract.

Unfortunately, despite such anecdotal reports and isolated actions, to date there are no published reports examining and comparing the quality of PTSD examination reports completed by VHA and contract examiners or the subsequent disability determinations made by the VBA as a result of these evaluations. In a November 2020 letter to the VA Secretary, 11 US Senators expressed “grave concerns” regarding the VA decision to privatize C&P programs noting, among other concerns, that there were “no clinical quality measurement for, or evaluation of, contractor examinations.”¹⁰ The letter cited anecdotal evidence of contract examiners not reviewing veteran’s medical records and diagnosing conditions “without supporting evidence.”¹⁰

The purpose of the present evaluation was to provide a systematic comparison of the content and quality of initial PTSD disability examinations conducted by VHA and non-VA contract examiners. In addition, this study compared the disability rating decisions resulting from VHA and contract examinations.

Methods

A random sample of 100 Initial PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs)—structured forms completed by all examiners—were obtained from a list supplied by the VA Office of Performance Analysis and Integrity. All examinations were from the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 1, encompassing the New England region and were conducted in 2019 and 2020. Two of the 100 cases were excluded for technical reasons, resulting in 98 examination reports. However, the final pool yielded 62 contract examinations and only 36 VHA examinations. To make the sample sizes more comparable, an additional 15 examinations were randomly selected from the local examination database (also VISN 1) to complement the original examination pool.

Once DBQs were retrieved, all identifying information was deleted, and cases were analyzed using assigned record numbers. All coding was completed by the 2 principal investigators, both VA psychologists with extensive training and experience in C&P evaluation and treatment of veterans with PTSD. Due to inherent structural differences between the forms used for VA and contract examinations, raters could not be masked/blinded to the source of the report.

A number of measures were taken to reduce bias and enhance objectivity of rating. First, objectively coded variables (eg, age and sex of veteran, period of service, trauma type, diagnoses rendered by the examiner, impairment category endorsed, number and type of symptoms) were transcribed directly from the DBQ as recorded by the examiner. Second, to rate report quality, an initial categorical rating scale was developed based on predetermined elements of examination quality that were considered essential. After refinement and preliminary analysis of interrater reliabilities, 3 quality-related indices were identified: (1) level of detail in description of key content areas (history before service, service trauma, after service social and vocational history, mental health history, substance use); (2) synthesis of history and findings in explaining opinion rendered; and (3) clarity of opinion regarding causation required “at least as likely as not” degree of confidence. The first 2 quality ratings were based on a 3-point scale (poor, fair, good), and the third variable was coded as yes or no. (eAppendix available at doi:10.12788/fp.0225). Interrater reliabilities calculated based on a subsample of 18 cases, randomly selected and rated by both raters, yielded Cohen κ in the acceptable range (.61, .72, and .89 for detail, synthesis, and clarity, respectively). Finally, for information regarding VBA decision making, rating decision documents contained in the Veterans Benefit Management System database were reviewed to determine whether the veteran was granted service connection for PTSD or another mental disorder based on the examination report in question and, if so, the disability rating percentage awarded. These were recorded independently after all other coding had been completed.

Results

Comparison of VHA and contract examinations revealed no significant differences between groups on relevant sociodemographic and other measures (Table). Missing data were not obtained from other records or sources, and for this study, reflect only what is recorded in the examination reports except for age, which was calculated using veteran’s date of birth and the date of examination.

To examine differences between VHA and contract examinations, the groups were first compared on a set of predetermined objectively coded variables taken directly from the DBQ. The frequency of PTSD diagnoses by VHA (57%) and contract (71%) examiners was not significantly different nor were rates of non-PTSD diagnoses by VHA (51%) and contract (73%) examiners. There also was no difference in the mean number of PTSD symptoms endorsed across PTSD diagnostic criteria B, C, D, and E (maximum of 20) recorded by VHA (9.4) and contract (10.9) examiners.

Contract examiners recorded a significantly greater mean number of “other symptoms” on a checklist of 31 possible symptoms as compared to VHA examiners: 7.3 vs 5.8, respectively (t[104] = 2.27, P < .05). An initial analysis of overall social/vocational impairment ratings coded by examiners did not reveal significant differences between examiner groups. However, when the 2 most severe impairment categories were combined to create a pooled “severe” category, 31% of contract examiners rated veterans as severely impaired compared with only 12% of VHA examiners (χ² = 5.79, 1 df, P < .05) (Figure 1).

Discussion

The present study provides the first reported systematic comparison of VA disability examinations for PTSD completed by examiners employed by the VHA and those hired as contract examiners through the MDE program. Although the frequency of PTSD diagnoses by contract examiners was higher than that of VHA examiners (71% vs 57%, respectively), the difference was not statistically significant. However, contract examiners recorded significantly more symptoms for examinees and rated them as severely impaired more frequently than did their VHA counterparts. In keeping with rating guidelines used by the VBA, these differences in examination content resulted in higher disability ratings for veterans seen by contract examiners.

Along with these elevated reports in symptom and severity ratings, contract examiners were less likely to provide adequate detail in the narrative sections of their reports and less frequently provided a satisfactory explanation and synthesis of relevant history and findings in support of their conclusions. Although not reflected in the statistical analysis, case-by-case review revealed some startlingly inadequate examination reports by contract examiners, several of which contained no review of records, no report or discussion of relevant background, and no discussion or analysis of social and vocational function to inform and support their opinion about level of impairment. None of the VHA examination reports reviewed lacked information to that degree.

Such deficiencies in detail and synthesis run counter to accepted guidelines for the adequate assessment of psychological injury in general and in VA disability claims specifically.^11,12 For example, Watson and colleagues proposed that a minimum of 3 hours was required to conduct an initial PTSD examination, with more complex cases possibly taking longer.¹¹ There is no information available about how long contract examiners take to complete their examinations and how that compares with the time taken by VA examiners. The VBA failure to monitor whether or not examiners follow accepted guidelines for PTSD examination has not previously been evaluated. Historically, a large number of clinicians, researchers, and policy critics have raised concerns about the potential for exaggeration or malingering among VA PTSD disability claimants and have urged the need to adequately assess for unreliable reporting and presentation.^13,14 However, the possibility of systematic examiner deficiency and/or bias increasing the frequency of false or inflated claims being approved has received little empirical attention.

Limitations

A methodological limitation of the present study was that, due to structural differences in the DBQ forms used for VHA and contract examinations, the reports could not be de-identified as to examiner type and thus raters could not be masked/blinded. To mitigate bias, a predetermined, piloted, and refined coding and rating plan for report quality metrics was adhered to strictly, and interrater reliabilities were acceptable. Future study is suggested in which all report content is standardized for coding using the same format, which at present would require a complete rewriting of the entire report; this problem could be resolved by having the VBA adopt a more coherent system in which all reports, regardless of examiner type, use a single, standardized template. Further study using larger data sets and expanding to other VA regions also is needed.

Conclusions

The present study suggests that poor examination and report quality—by contract examiners and to a lesser degree VHA examiners—are not uncommon. The findings confirm and extend previous anecdotal reports of deficiencies in PTSD examinations performed by contract examiners and provide empirical support for concerns raised of global deficiencies in the VBA oversight of the MDE program. Such deficiencies have significant implications for the quality and integrity of the VA disability determination process for veterans claiming PTSD related to military service.

The current findings support and strengthen the call for development and management of a structured and enforced training and quality assurance/improvement program for VA PTSD disability examinations. Such training and oversight will be critical to improve the quality and integrity of these examinations, reduce error and waste in VBA’s Compensation and Pension process, and in doing so optimize VA financial resources to best serve veterans’ benefits and health care needs.

Updated June 17, 2022

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides health care for > 9 million military veterans, nearly half of all former service members.¹ Over the past 15 years, there has been a steady and substantial increase in the frequency of disability awards for veterans with post-9/11 military service. Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that 41% of veterans who served after 9/11 receive service-connected disability benefits compared with 28% of veterans overall.² More than 5 million veterans receive VA service-related disability benefits.^2,3 More than half of the VA $243 billion budget for fiscal year (FY) 2021 ($135.5 billion) was allocated to the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), of which $115.7 billion (85%) was allocated specifically for service-related compensation claims payments.⁴

The VA predicted that VBA will have completed 1.4 million ratings for disability claims in 2021.⁵ A substantial percentage of these claims will be for mental disorders, specifically posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). VA officials testifying before Congress in 2017 noted that the number of PTSD claims had nearly tripled in the previous 10 years.⁶ As far back as 2013, McNally and Frueh analyzed “the skyrocketing of disability claims,” particularly for PTSD, among veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.⁷

This large increase has placed an unprecedented burden on the VBA to expand its capacity to conduct initial PTSD disability evaluations that by regulations are completed by psychologists or psychiatrists. This need has led the VBA to make significant changes in the compensation and pension (C&P) process, including a reduced role for Veterans Health Administration (VHA) examiners and increased reliance on non-VA (contract) examiners through the Contract Medical Disability Examination (MDE) program. In 2019, the MDE budget was $1.23 billion; in 2020, it was increased to $1.79 billion, and for 2021, it was $2.23 billion, reflecting the increasing investment of resources in non-VA examiners, ostensibly to both increase capacity and save costs.⁵

Anecdotally, concerns have been raised regarding inadequate training of contract examiners as well as inadequate reports by these examiners. A 2018 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report concluded that VA lacked the data to determine whether contract examiners were meeting standards for quality, timeliness, and accuracy.⁸ The GAO report noted that VA required 92% of contractor reports contained no obvious errors, a relatively low target; however, in the first half of 2017, only 1 contractor group met that target. The report noted further that “VBA does not verify if examiners have completed training nor does it collect information to assess training effectiveness in preparing examiners.”⁸ A subsequent analysis of contract examinations completed by the VA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in 2019 concluded that the MDE program was “hampered in their ability to provide oversight because of limitations with VBA’s electronic examination management systems, the lack of reliable data, and inadequate staffing of the program.”⁹

These reports have focused almost exclusively on simple performance metrics, such as timeliness of examination completion. However, the 2018 GAO report referenced isolated “focused reviews” of complaints about the quality of examinations by contract examiners and gave as an example an isolated “review of one contracted examiner who had high rates of diagnosing severe posttraumatic stress disorder.”⁸ After review indicated the examiner’s reports were of poor quality, the VBA discontinued the examiner’s contract.

Unfortunately, despite such anecdotal reports and isolated actions, to date there are no published reports examining and comparing the quality of PTSD examination reports completed by VHA and contract examiners or the subsequent disability determinations made by the VBA as a result of these evaluations. In a November 2020 letter to the VA Secretary, 11 US Senators expressed “grave concerns” regarding the VA decision to privatize C&P programs noting, among other concerns, that there were “no clinical quality measurement for, or evaluation of, contractor examinations.”¹⁰ The letter cited anecdotal evidence of contract examiners not reviewing veteran’s medical records and diagnosing conditions “without supporting evidence.”¹⁰

The purpose of the present evaluation was to provide a systematic comparison of the content and quality of initial PTSD disability examinations conducted by VHA and non-VA contract examiners. In addition, this study compared the disability rating decisions resulting from VHA and contract examinations.

Methods

A random sample of 100 Initial PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs)—structured forms completed by all examiners—were obtained from a list supplied by the VA Office of Performance Analysis and Integrity. All examinations were from the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 1, encompassing the New England region and were conducted in 2019 and 2020. Two of the 100 cases were excluded for technical reasons, resulting in 98 examination reports. However, the final pool yielded 62 contract examinations and only 36 VHA examinations. To make the sample sizes more comparable, an additional 15 examinations were randomly selected from the local examination database (also VISN 1) to complement the original examination pool.

Once DBQs were retrieved, all identifying information was deleted, and cases were analyzed using assigned record numbers. All coding was completed by the 2 principal investigators, both VA psychologists with extensive training and experience in C&P evaluation and treatment of veterans with PTSD. Due to inherent structural differences between the forms used for VA and contract examinations, raters could not be masked/blinded to the source of the report.

A number of measures were taken to reduce bias and enhance objectivity of rating. First, objectively coded variables (eg, age and sex of veteran, period of service, trauma type, diagnoses rendered by the examiner, impairment category endorsed, number and type of symptoms) were transcribed directly from the DBQ as recorded by the examiner. Second, to rate report quality, an initial categorical rating scale was developed based on predetermined elements of examination quality that were considered essential. After refinement and preliminary analysis of interrater reliabilities, 3 quality-related indices were identified: (1) level of detail in description of key content areas (history before service, service trauma, after service social and vocational history, mental health history, substance use); (2) synthesis of history and findings in explaining opinion rendered; and (3) clarity of opinion regarding causation required “at least as likely as not” degree of confidence. The first 2 quality ratings were based on a 3-point scale (poor, fair, good), and the third variable was coded as yes or no. (eAppendix available at doi:10.12788/fp.0225). Interrater reliabilities calculated based on a subsample of 18 cases, randomly selected and rated by both raters, yielded Cohen κ in the acceptable range (.61, .72, and .89 for detail, synthesis, and clarity, respectively). Finally, for information regarding VBA decision making, rating decision documents contained in the Veterans Benefit Management System database were reviewed to determine whether the veteran was granted service connection for PTSD or another mental disorder based on the examination report in question and, if so, the disability rating percentage awarded. These were recorded independently after all other coding had been completed.

Results

Comparison of VHA and contract examinations revealed no significant differences between groups on relevant sociodemographic and other measures (Table). Missing data were not obtained from other records or sources, and for this study, reflect only what is recorded in the examination reports except for age, which was calculated using veteran’s date of birth and the date of examination.

To examine differences between VHA and contract examinations, the groups were first compared on a set of predetermined objectively coded variables taken directly from the DBQ. The frequency of PTSD diagnoses by VHA (57%) and contract (71%) examiners was not significantly different nor were rates of non-PTSD diagnoses by VHA (51%) and contract (73%) examiners. There also was no difference in the mean number of PTSD symptoms endorsed across PTSD diagnostic criteria B, C, D, and E (maximum of 20) recorded by VHA (9.4) and contract (10.9) examiners.

Contract examiners recorded a significantly greater mean number of “other symptoms” on a checklist of 31 possible symptoms as compared to VHA examiners: 7.3 vs 5.8, respectively (t[104] = 2.27, P < .05). An initial analysis of overall social/vocational impairment ratings coded by examiners did not reveal significant differences between examiner groups. However, when the 2 most severe impairment categories were combined to create a pooled “severe” category, 31% of contract examiners rated veterans as severely impaired compared with only 12% of VHA examiners (χ² = 5.79, 1 df, P < .05) (Figure 1).

Discussion

The present study provides the first reported systematic comparison of VA disability examinations for PTSD completed by examiners employed by the VHA and those hired as contract examiners through the MDE program. Although the frequency of PTSD diagnoses by contract examiners was higher than that of VHA examiners (71% vs 57%, respectively), the difference was not statistically significant. However, contract examiners recorded significantly more symptoms for examinees and rated them as severely impaired more frequently than did their VHA counterparts. In keeping with rating guidelines used by the VBA, these differences in examination content resulted in higher disability ratings for veterans seen by contract examiners.

Along with these elevated reports in symptom and severity ratings, contract examiners were less likely to provide adequate detail in the narrative sections of their reports and less frequently provided a satisfactory explanation and synthesis of relevant history and findings in support of their conclusions. Although not reflected in the statistical analysis, case-by-case review revealed some startlingly inadequate examination reports by contract examiners, several of which contained no review of records, no report or discussion of relevant background, and no discussion or analysis of social and vocational function to inform and support their opinion about level of impairment. None of the VHA examination reports reviewed lacked information to that degree.

Such deficiencies in detail and synthesis run counter to accepted guidelines for the adequate assessment of psychological injury in general and in VA disability claims specifically.^11,12 For example, Watson and colleagues proposed that a minimum of 3 hours was required to conduct an initial PTSD examination, with more complex cases possibly taking longer.¹¹ There is no information available about how long contract examiners take to complete their examinations and how that compares with the time taken by VA examiners. The VBA failure to monitor whether or not examiners follow accepted guidelines for PTSD examination has not previously been evaluated. Historically, a large number of clinicians, researchers, and policy critics have raised concerns about the potential for exaggeration or malingering among VA PTSD disability claimants and have urged the need to adequately assess for unreliable reporting and presentation.^13,14 However, the possibility of systematic examiner deficiency and/or bias increasing the frequency of false or inflated claims being approved has received little empirical attention.

Limitations

A methodological limitation of the present study was that, due to structural differences in the DBQ forms used for VHA and contract examinations, the reports could not be de-identified as to examiner type and thus raters could not be masked/blinded. To mitigate bias, a predetermined, piloted, and refined coding and rating plan for report quality metrics was adhered to strictly, and interrater reliabilities were acceptable. Future study is suggested in which all report content is standardized for coding using the same format, which at present would require a complete rewriting of the entire report; this problem could be resolved by having the VBA adopt a more coherent system in which all reports, regardless of examiner type, use a single, standardized template. Further study using larger data sets and expanding to other VA regions also is needed.

Conclusions

The present study suggests that poor examination and report quality—by contract examiners and to a lesser degree VHA examiners—are not uncommon. The findings confirm and extend previous anecdotal reports of deficiencies in PTSD examinations performed by contract examiners and provide empirical support for concerns raised of global deficiencies in the VBA oversight of the MDE program. Such deficiencies have significant implications for the quality and integrity of the VA disability determination process for veterans claiming PTSD related to military service.

The current findings support and strengthen the call for development and management of a structured and enforced training and quality assurance/improvement program for VA PTSD disability examinations. Such training and oversight will be critical to improve the quality and integrity of these examinations, reduce error and waste in VBA’s Compensation and Pension process, and in doing so optimize VA financial resources to best serve veterans’ benefits and health care needs.

Updated June 17, 2022

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides health care for > 9 million military veterans, nearly half of all former service members.¹ Over the past 15 years, there has been a steady and substantial increase in the frequency of disability awards for veterans with post-9/11 military service. Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that 41% of veterans who served after 9/11 receive service-connected disability benefits compared with 28% of veterans overall.² More than 5 million veterans receive VA service-related disability benefits.^2,3 More than half of the VA $243 billion budget for fiscal year (FY) 2021 ($135.5 billion) was allocated to the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), of which $115.7 billion (85%) was allocated specifically for service-related compensation claims payments.⁴

The VA predicted that VBA will have completed 1.4 million ratings for disability claims in 2021.⁵ A substantial percentage of these claims will be for mental disorders, specifically posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). VA officials testifying before Congress in 2017 noted that the number of PTSD claims had nearly tripled in the previous 10 years.⁶ As far back as 2013, McNally and Frueh analyzed “the skyrocketing of disability claims,” particularly for PTSD, among veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.⁷

This large increase has placed an unprecedented burden on the VBA to expand its capacity to conduct initial PTSD disability evaluations that by regulations are completed by psychologists or psychiatrists. This need has led the VBA to make significant changes in the compensation and pension (C&P) process, including a reduced role for Veterans Health Administration (VHA) examiners and increased reliance on non-VA (contract) examiners through the Contract Medical Disability Examination (MDE) program. In 2019, the MDE budget was $1.23 billion; in 2020, it was increased to $1.79 billion, and for 2021, it was $2.23 billion, reflecting the increasing investment of resources in non-VA examiners, ostensibly to both increase capacity and save costs.⁵

Anecdotally, concerns have been raised regarding inadequate training of contract examiners as well as inadequate reports by these examiners. A 2018 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report concluded that VA lacked the data to determine whether contract examiners were meeting standards for quality, timeliness, and accuracy.⁸ The GAO report noted that VA required 92% of contractor reports contained no obvious errors, a relatively low target; however, in the first half of 2017, only 1 contractor group met that target. The report noted further that “VBA does not verify if examiners have completed training nor does it collect information to assess training effectiveness in preparing examiners.”⁸ A subsequent analysis of contract examinations completed by the VA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in 2019 concluded that the MDE program was “hampered in their ability to provide oversight because of limitations with VBA’s electronic examination management systems, the lack of reliable data, and inadequate staffing of the program.”⁹

These reports have focused almost exclusively on simple performance metrics, such as timeliness of examination completion. However, the 2018 GAO report referenced isolated “focused reviews” of complaints about the quality of examinations by contract examiners and gave as an example an isolated “review of one contracted examiner who had high rates of diagnosing severe posttraumatic stress disorder.”⁸ After review indicated the examiner’s reports were of poor quality, the VBA discontinued the examiner’s contract.

Unfortunately, despite such anecdotal reports and isolated actions, to date there are no published reports examining and comparing the quality of PTSD examination reports completed by VHA and contract examiners or the subsequent disability determinations made by the VBA as a result of these evaluations. In a November 2020 letter to the VA Secretary, 11 US Senators expressed “grave concerns” regarding the VA decision to privatize C&P programs noting, among other concerns, that there were “no clinical quality measurement for, or evaluation of, contractor examinations.”¹⁰ The letter cited anecdotal evidence of contract examiners not reviewing veteran’s medical records and diagnosing conditions “without supporting evidence.”¹⁰

The purpose of the present evaluation was to provide a systematic comparison of the content and quality of initial PTSD disability examinations conducted by VHA and non-VA contract examiners. In addition, this study compared the disability rating decisions resulting from VHA and contract examinations.

Methods

A random sample of 100 Initial PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs)—structured forms completed by all examiners—were obtained from a list supplied by the VA Office of Performance Analysis and Integrity. All examinations were from the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 1, encompassing the New England region and were conducted in 2019 and 2020. Two of the 100 cases were excluded for technical reasons, resulting in 98 examination reports. However, the final pool yielded 62 contract examinations and only 36 VHA examinations. To make the sample sizes more comparable, an additional 15 examinations were randomly selected from the local examination database (also VISN 1) to complement the original examination pool.

Once DBQs were retrieved, all identifying information was deleted, and cases were analyzed using assigned record numbers. All coding was completed by the 2 principal investigators, both VA psychologists with extensive training and experience in C&P evaluation and treatment of veterans with PTSD. Due to inherent structural differences between the forms used for VA and contract examinations, raters could not be masked/blinded to the source of the report.

A number of measures were taken to reduce bias and enhance objectivity of rating. First, objectively coded variables (eg, age and sex of veteran, period of service, trauma type, diagnoses rendered by the examiner, impairment category endorsed, number and type of symptoms) were transcribed directly from the DBQ as recorded by the examiner. Second, to rate report quality, an initial categorical rating scale was developed based on predetermined elements of examination quality that were considered essential. After refinement and preliminary analysis of interrater reliabilities, 3 quality-related indices were identified: (1) level of detail in description of key content areas (history before service, service trauma, after service social and vocational history, mental health history, substance use); (2) synthesis of history and findings in explaining opinion rendered; and (3) clarity of opinion regarding causation required “at least as likely as not” degree of confidence. The first 2 quality ratings were based on a 3-point scale (poor, fair, good), and the third variable was coded as yes or no. (eAppendix available at doi:10.12788/fp.0225). Interrater reliabilities calculated based on a subsample of 18 cases, randomly selected and rated by both raters, yielded Cohen κ in the acceptable range (.61, .72, and .89 for detail, synthesis, and clarity, respectively). Finally, for information regarding VBA decision making, rating decision documents contained in the Veterans Benefit Management System database were reviewed to determine whether the veteran was granted service connection for PTSD or another mental disorder based on the examination report in question and, if so, the disability rating percentage awarded. These were recorded independently after all other coding had been completed.

Results

Comparison of VHA and contract examinations revealed no significant differences between groups on relevant sociodemographic and other measures (Table). Missing data were not obtained from other records or sources, and for this study, reflect only what is recorded in the examination reports except for age, which was calculated using veteran’s date of birth and the date of examination.

To examine differences between VHA and contract examinations, the groups were first compared on a set of predetermined objectively coded variables taken directly from the DBQ. The frequency of PTSD diagnoses by VHA (57%) and contract (71%) examiners was not significantly different nor were rates of non-PTSD diagnoses by VHA (51%) and contract (73%) examiners. There also was no difference in the mean number of PTSD symptoms endorsed across PTSD diagnostic criteria B, C, D, and E (maximum of 20) recorded by VHA (9.4) and contract (10.9) examiners.

Contract examiners recorded a significantly greater mean number of “other symptoms” on a checklist of 31 possible symptoms as compared to VHA examiners: 7.3 vs 5.8, respectively (t[104] = 2.27, P < .05). An initial analysis of overall social/vocational impairment ratings coded by examiners did not reveal significant differences between examiner groups. However, when the 2 most severe impairment categories were combined to create a pooled “severe” category, 31% of contract examiners rated veterans as severely impaired compared with only 12% of VHA examiners (χ² = 5.79, 1 df, P < .05) (Figure 1).

Discussion

The present study provides the first reported systematic comparison of VA disability examinations for PTSD completed by examiners employed by the VHA and those hired as contract examiners through the MDE program. Although the frequency of PTSD diagnoses by contract examiners was higher than that of VHA examiners (71% vs 57%, respectively), the difference was not statistically significant. However, contract examiners recorded significantly more symptoms for examinees and rated them as severely impaired more frequently than did their VHA counterparts. In keeping with rating guidelines used by the VBA, these differences in examination content resulted in higher disability ratings for veterans seen by contract examiners.

Along with these elevated reports in symptom and severity ratings, contract examiners were less likely to provide adequate detail in the narrative sections of their reports and less frequently provided a satisfactory explanation and synthesis of relevant history and findings in support of their conclusions. Although not reflected in the statistical analysis, case-by-case review revealed some startlingly inadequate examination reports by contract examiners, several of which contained no review of records, no report or discussion of relevant background, and no discussion or analysis of social and vocational function to inform and support their opinion about level of impairment. None of the VHA examination reports reviewed lacked information to that degree.

Such deficiencies in detail and synthesis run counter to accepted guidelines for the adequate assessment of psychological injury in general and in VA disability claims specifically.^11,12 For example, Watson and colleagues proposed that a minimum of 3 hours was required to conduct an initial PTSD examination, with more complex cases possibly taking longer.¹¹ There is no information available about how long contract examiners take to complete their examinations and how that compares with the time taken by VA examiners. The VBA failure to monitor whether or not examiners follow accepted guidelines for PTSD examination has not previously been evaluated. Historically, a large number of clinicians, researchers, and policy critics have raised concerns about the potential for exaggeration or malingering among VA PTSD disability claimants and have urged the need to adequately assess for unreliable reporting and presentation.^13,14 However, the possibility of systematic examiner deficiency and/or bias increasing the frequency of false or inflated claims being approved has received little empirical attention.

Limitations

A methodological limitation of the present study was that, due to structural differences in the DBQ forms used for VHA and contract examinations, the reports could not be de-identified as to examiner type and thus raters could not be masked/blinded. To mitigate bias, a predetermined, piloted, and refined coding and rating plan for report quality metrics was adhered to strictly, and interrater reliabilities were acceptable. Future study is suggested in which all report content is standardized for coding using the same format, which at present would require a complete rewriting of the entire report; this problem could be resolved by having the VBA adopt a more coherent system in which all reports, regardless of examiner type, use a single, standardized template. Further study using larger data sets and expanding to other VA regions also is needed.

Conclusions

The present study suggests that poor examination and report quality—by contract examiners and to a lesser degree VHA examiners—are not uncommon. The findings confirm and extend previous anecdotal reports of deficiencies in PTSD examinations performed by contract examiners and provide empirical support for concerns raised of global deficiencies in the VBA oversight of the MDE program. Such deficiencies have significant implications for the quality and integrity of the VA disability determination process for veterans claiming PTSD related to military service.

The current findings support and strengthen the call for development and management of a structured and enforced training and quality assurance/improvement program for VA PTSD disability examinations. Such training and oversight will be critical to improve the quality and integrity of these examinations, reduce error and waste in VBA’s Compensation and Pension process, and in doing so optimize VA financial resources to best serve veterans’ benefits and health care needs.