Development and psychometric evaluation of the Transdiagnostic Decision Tool:matched care for patients with a mental disorder in need of highly specialised care

BackgroundEarly identification of patients with mental health problems in need of highly specialised care could enhance the timely provision of appropriate care and improve the clinical and cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies. Recent research on the development and psychometric evaluation of diagnosis-specific decision-support algorithms suggested that the treatment allocation of patients to highly specialised mental healthcare settings may be guided by a core set of transdiagnostic patient factors.AimsTo develop and psychometrically evaluate a transdiagnostic decision tool to facilitate the uniform assessment of highly specialised mental healthcare need in heterogeneous patient groups. Method The Transdiagnostic Decision Tool was developed based on an analysis of transdiagnostic items of earlier developed diagnosis-specific decision tools. The Transdiagnostic Decision Tool was psychometrically evaluated in 505 patients with a somatic symptom disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder. Feasibility, interrater reliability, convergent validity and criterion validity were assessed. In order to evaluate convergent validity, the five-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and the ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A) were administered.ResultsThe six-item clinician-administered Transdiagnostic Decision Tool demonstrated excellent feasibility and acceptable interrater reliability. Spearman's rank correlations between the Transdiagnostic Decision Tool and ICECAP-A (-0.335), EQ-5D-5L index (-0.386) and EQ-5D-visual analogue scale (-0.348) supported convergent validity. The area under the curve was 0.81 and a cut-off value of &gt;= 3 was found to represent the optimal cut-off value.ConclusionsThe Transdiagnostic Decision Tool demonstrated solid psychometric properties and showed promise as a measure for the early detection of patients in need of highly specialised mental healthcare.</p

Deployment-related mental health support: comparative analysis of NATO and allied ISAF partners

Background: For years there has been a tremendous gap in our understanding of the mental health effects of deployment and the efforts by military forces at trying to minimize or mitigate these. Many military forces have recently systematized the mental support that is provided to support operational deployments. However, the rationale for doing so and the consequential allocation of resources are felt to vary considerably across North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) International Security Assistance (ISAF) partners. This review aims to compare the organization and practice of mental support by five partnering countries in the recent deployment in Afghanistan in order to identify and compare the key methods and structures for delivering mental health support, describe bottlenecks and illustrate new developments. Method: Information was collected through document analysis and semi-structured interviews with key military mental healthcare stakeholders. The review resulted from close collaboration between key military mental healthcare professionals within the Australian Defense Forces (ADF), Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), United Kingdom Armed Forces (UK), Netherlands Armed Forces (NLD), and the United States Army (US). Key stakeholders were interviewed about the mental health support provided during a serviceperson's military career. The main items discussed were training, prevention, early identification, intervention, and aftercare in the field of mental health. Results: All forces reported that much attention was paid to mental health during the individual's military career, including deployment. In doing so there was much overlap between the rationale and applied methods. The main method of providing support was through training and education. The educative focus was to strengthen the mental resilience of individual soldiers while providing a range of mental healthcare services. All forces had abandoned standard psychological debriefing after critical incidents. Instead, by default, mental healthcare professionals acted to support the leader and peer led “after action” reviews. All countries provided professional mental support close to the front line, aimed at early detection and early return to normal activities within the unit. All countries deployed a mental health support team that consisted of a range of mental health staff including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, mental health nurses, and chaplains. There was no overall consensus in the allocation of mental health disciplines in theatre. All countries (except the US) provided troops with a third location decompression (TLD) stop after deployment, which aimed to recognize what the deployed units had been through and to prepare them for transition home. The US conducted in-garrison ‘decompression’, or ‘reintegration training’ in the US, with a similiar focus to TLD. All had a reasonably comparable infrastructure in the field of mental healthcare. Shared bottlenecks across countries included perceived stigma and barriers to care around mental health problems as well as the need for improving the awareness and recognition of mental health problems among service members. among service personnel as well as the need for improving the awareness and recognition of symptoms as being indicative of a mental health problems among service members. Conclusion: This analysis demonstrated that in all five partners state-of-the-art preventative mental healthcare was included in the last deployment in Afghanistan, including a positive approach towards strengthening the mental resilience, a focus on self-regulatory skills and self-empowerment, and several initiatives that were well-integrated in a military context. These initiatives were partly/completely implemented by the military/colleagues/supervisors and applicable during several phases of the deployment cycle. Important new developments in operational mental health support are recognition of the role of social leadership and enhancement of operational peer support. This requires awareness of mental problems that will contribute to reduction of the barriers to care in case of problems. Finally, comparing mental health support services across countries can contribute to optimal preparation for the challenges of military deployment

Development and Evaluation of the Dutch Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5)

Background: In 2013, the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale, the golden standard to assess PTSD, was adapted to the DSM-5 (CAPS-5). Objective: This project aimed to develop a clinically relevant Dutch translation of the CAPS-5 and to investigate its psychometric properties. Method: We conducted a stepped translation including Delphi rounds with a crowd of 44 Dutch psychotrauma experts and five senior psychotrauma experts. Using partial crowd-translations, two professional translations and the official Dutch translation of the DSM-5, each senior expert aggregated one independent translation. Consensus was reached plenary. After back-translation, comparison with the original CAPS-5 and field testing, a last round with the senior experts resulted in the final version. After implementation clinicians conducted CAPS-5 interviews with 669 trauma-exposed individuals referred for specialized diagnostic assessment. Reliability of the Dutch CAPS-5 was investigated through internal consistency and interrater reliability analyses, and construct validity through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results: CAPS-5 total severity score showed high internal consistency (α = .90) and interrater reliability (ICC = .98, 95% CI: .94-.99). CAPS-5 diagnosis showed modest interrater reliability (kappa = .59, 95% CI: .20-.98). CFA with alternative PTSD models revealed adequate support for the DSM-5 four-factor model, but a six-factor (Anhedonia) model fit the data best. Conclusions: The Dutch CAPS-5 is a carefully translated instrument with adequate psychometric properties. Current results add to the growing support for more refined (six and seven) factor models for DSM-5 PTSD indicating that the validity and clinical implications of these models should be objective of further research

Fluctuations of stress and resilience in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: Insights and recommendations

Background: Healthcare workers (HCW) have faced unprecedented challenges during the COVID-19, with significant impact on their well-being. We aimed to monitor stress-related symptoms and resilience in HCW over time in relation to various factors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Between June 2020 and May 2022, data was collected among HCW of Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC) through a digital self-monitoring application. The application included a 14-items self-monitoring tool (i.e., 7-items on Supporting factors, 7-items on Stressful burden), and a set of validated questionnaires (i.e., the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), Impact of Event Scale – Revised (IES-R), Resilience Evaluation Scale (RES), and Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21). Results: The self-monitoring tool and validated questionnaires were completed by 1070 and 413 participants respectively. Mean stress-related symptom scores (as measured by the self-monitoring, CBI, IES-R, and DASS-21) exhibited significant changes over time (all p’s < 0.001), which correlated with the waves of COVID-19 patients admitted and the national COVID-19 mortality rate (all p’s < 0.005). Resilience, as measured by the RES, showed a significant decrease from the start of data collection onwards (p = 0.001), whereas supporting factors showed significant decreases the first few months, followed by fluctuations after January 2021 (p = 0.02). Limitations: Selection bias may have arisen as those participating may have been more concerned with the burden on mental wellbeing. Conclusions: The current study underscores the need for active psychosocial support for all HCW particularly during periods of increased admissions due to pandemics