20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Mental Health Service Use, Suicide Behavior, and Emergency Department Visits Among Rural US Veterans Who Received Video-Enabled Tablets During the COVID-19 Pandemic

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Was the US Veterans Affairs initiative to distribute video-enabled tablets during COVID-19 associated with mental health care access, suicide behavior, or emergency department (ED) visits among rural veterans?

          Findings

          In this retrospective cohort study of 471 791 rural US veterans with a history of mental health care use, receipt of a video-enabled tablet was associated with increased use of mental health care via video, increased psychotherapy visits (across all modalities), and reduced suicide behavior and ED visits.

          Meaning

          These findings suggest that video-enabled tablets may provide access to critical services for rural patients with mental health needs and reduce instances of suicide behavior and ED visits among them.

          Abstract

          This cohort study evaluates the association between the distribution of the US Veterans Affairs’ video-enabled tablets during the COVID-19 pandemic and rural veterans’ mental health service use and suicide-related outcomes.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Suicide rates are rising disproportionately in rural counties, a concerning pattern as the COVID-19 pandemic has intensified suicide risk factors in these regions and exacerbated barriers to mental health care access. Although telehealth has the potential to improve access to mental health care, telehealth’s effectiveness for suicide-related outcomes remains relatively unknown.

          Objective

          To evaluate the association between the escalated distribution of the US Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA’s) video-enabled tablets during the COVID-19 pandemic and rural veterans’ mental health service use and suicide-related outcomes.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This retrospective cohort study included rural veterans who had at least 1 VA mental health care visit in calendar year 2019 and a subcohort of patients identified by the VA as high-risk for suicide. Event studies and difference-in-differences estimation were used to compare monthly mental health service utilization for patients who received VA tablets during COVID-19 with patients who were not issued tablets over 10 months before and after tablet shipment. Statistical analysis was performed from November 2021 to February 2022.

          Exposure

          Receipt of a video-enabled tablet.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Mental health service utilization outcomes included psychotherapy visits, medication management visits, and comprehensive suicide risk evaluations (CSREs) via video and total visits across all modalities (phone, video, and in-person). We also analyzed likelihood of emergency department (ED) visit, likelihood of suicide-related ED visit, and number of VA’s suicide behavior and overdose reports (SBORs).

          Results

          The study cohort included 13 180 rural tablet recipients (11 617 [88%] men; 2161 [16%] Black; 301 [2%] Hispanic; 10 644 [80%] White; mean [SD] age, 61.2 [13.4] years) and 458 611 nonrecipients (406 545 [89%] men; 59 875 [13%] Black or African American; 16 778 [4%] Hispanic; 384 630 [83%] White; mean [SD] age, 58.0 [15.8] years). Tablets were associated with increases of 1.8 psychotherapy visits per year (monthly coefficient, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.13-0.17), 3.5 video psychotherapy visits per year (monthly coefficient, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.27-0.31), 0.7 video medication management visits per year (monthly coefficient, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.055-0.062), and 0.02 video CSREs per year (monthly coefficient, 0.002; 95% CI, 0.002-0.002). Tablets were associated with an overall 20% reduction in the likelihood of an ED visit (proportion change, −0.012; 95% CI, −0.014 to −0.010), a 36% reduction in the likelihood of suicide-related ED visit (proportion change, −0.0017; 95% CI, −0.0023 to −0.0013), and a 22% reduction in the likelihood of suicide behavior as indicated by SBORs (monthly coefficient, −0.0011; 95% CI, −0.0016 to −0.0005). These associations persisted for the subcohort of rural veterans the VA identifies as high-risk for suicide.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          This cohort study of rural US veterans with a history of mental health care use found that receipt of a video-enabled tablet was associated with increased use of mental health care via video, increased psychotherapy visits (across all modalities), and reduced suicide behavior and ED visits. These findings suggest that the VA and other health systems should consider leveraging video-enabled tablets for improving access to mental health care via telehealth and for preventing suicides among rural residents.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Designing Difference in Difference Studies: Best Practices for Public Health Policy Research

          The difference in difference (DID) design is a quasi-experimental research design that researchers often use to study causal relationships in public health settings where randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are infeasible or unethical. However, causal inference poses many challenges in DID designs. In this article, we review key features of DID designs with an emphasis on public health policy research. Contemporary researchers should take an active approach to the design of DID studies, seeking to construct comparison groups, sensitivity analyses, and robustness checks that help validate the method's assumptions. We explain the key assumptions of the design and discuss analytic tactics, supplementary analysis, and approaches to statistical inference that are often important in applied research. The DID design is not a perfect substitute for randomized experiments, but it often represents a feasible way to learn about casual relationships. We conclude by noting that combining elements from multiple quasi-experimental techniques may be important in the next wave of innovations to the DID approach.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Semiparametric Difference-in-Differences Estimators

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Suicide risk and prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic

              The mental health effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic might be profound 1 and there are suggestions that suicide rates will rise, although this is not inevitable. Suicide is likely to become a more pressing concern as the pandemic spreads and has longer-term effects on the general population, the economy, and vulnerable groups. Preventing suicide therefore needs urgent consideration. The response must capitalise on, but extend beyond, general mental health policies and practices. There is some evidence that deaths by suicide increased in the USA during the 1918–19 influenza pandemic 2 and among older people in Hong Kong during the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic. 3 The current context is different and evolving. A wide-ranging interdisciplinary response that recognises how the pandemic might heighten risk and applies knowledge about effective suicide prevention approaches is key. Selective, indicated, and universal interventions are required (figure ). Figure Public health responses to mitigating suicide risk associated with the COVID-19 pandemic COVID-19=coronavirus disease 2019. The likely adverse effects of the pandemic on people with mental illness, and on population mental health in general, might be exacerbated by fear, self-isolation, and physical distancing. 4 Suicide risk might be increased because of stigma towards individuals with COVID-19 and their families. Those with psychiatric disorders might experience worsening symptoms and others might develop new mental health problems, especially depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress (all associated with increased suicide risk). These mental health problems will be experienced by the general population and those with high levels of exposure to illness caused by COVID-19, such as frontline health-care workers and those who develop the illness. The consequences for mental health services are already being felt (eg, increased workloads and the need to find new ways of working). Some services are developing expertise in conducting psychiatric assessments and delivering interventions remotely (eg, by telephone or digitally); these new working practices should be implemented more widely, but with consideration that not all patients will feel comfortable with such interactions and they may present implications for privacy. Making evidence-based online resources and interventions freely available at scale could benefit population mental health. People in suicidal crises require special attention. Some might not seek help, fearing that services are overwhelmed and that attending face-to-face appointments might put them at risk. Others may seek help from voluntary sector crisis helplines which might be stretched beyond capacity due to surges in calls and reductions in volunteers. Mental health services should develop clear remote assessment and care pathways for people who are suicidal, and staff training to support new ways of working. Helplines will require support to maintain or increase their volunteer workforce, and offer more flexible methods of working. Digital training resources would enable those who have not previously worked with people who are suicidal to take active roles in mental health services and helplines. Evidence-based online interventions and applications should be made available to support people who are suicidal. 5 Loss of employment and financial stressors are well-recognised risk factors for suicide. 6 Governments should provide financial safety nets (eg, food, housing, and unemployment supports). Consideration must be given not only to individuals' current situations but also their futures. For example, many young people have had their education interrupted and are anxious about their prospects. Educational institutions must seek alternative ways to deliver curricula and governments need to be prepared to offer them financial support if necessary. Active labour market programmes will also be crucial. 6 The pandemic could adversely affect other known precipitants of suicide. For example, domestic violence and alcohol consumption might increase during lockdown. Public health responses must ensure that those facing interpersonal violence are supported and that safe drinking messages are communicated. Social isolation, entrapment, and loneliness contribute to suicide risk 7 and are likely to increase during the pandemic, particularly for bereaved individuals. Providing community support for those living alone and encouraging families and friends to check in is helpful. Easily accessible help for bereaved individuals is crucial. Access to means is a major risk factor for suicide. In the current environment, certain lethal means (eg, firearms, pesticides, and analgesics) might be more readily available, stockpiled in homes. Retailers selling such products should be especially vigilant when dealing with distressed individuals. Governments and non-governmental organisations should consider temporary sales restrictions and deliver carefully framed messages about reducing access to commonly used and highly lethal suicide means. Irresponsible media reporting of suicide can lead to spikes in suicides. 8 Repeated exposure to stories about the crisis can increase fear 9 and heighten suicide risk. Media professionals should ensure that reporting follows existing 10 and COVID-19-specific guidelines. Comprehensive responses should be informed by enhanced surveillance of COVID-19-related risk factors contributing to suicidal behaviours. Some suicide and self-harm registers are now collecting data on COVID-19-related stressors contributing to the episode; summaries of these data will facilitate timely public health responses. Repeat representative cross-sectional and longitudinal surveys will help identify increases in population-level risk, as might anonymised real-time data on caller concerns from helplines. Monitoring demands and capacity of mental health-care providers over the coming months is also essential to ensure resources are directed to those parts of the system under greatest pressure. These efforts need to be appropriately resourced and coordinated. The suicide-related consequences of the pandemic might vary depending on countries' public health control measures, sociocultural and demographic structures, availability of digital alternatives to face-to-face consultation, and existing supports. The effects might be worse in resource-poor settings where economic adversity is compounded by inadequate welfare supports. Other concerns in these settings include social effects of banning religious gatherings and funerals, interpersonal violence, and vulnerable migrant workers. COVID-19-related stigma and misinformation may be particularly acute in these settings; many of the solutions proposed above will be applicable globally, but additional efforts will be required in resource-poor settings. These are unprecedented times. The pandemic will cause distress and leave many people vulnerable to mental health problems and suicidal behaviour. Mental health consequences are likely to be present for longer and peak later than the actual pandemic. However, research evidence and the experience of national strategies provide a strong basis for suicide prevention. We should be prepared to take the actions highlighted here, backed by vigilance and international collaboration.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                6 April 2022
                April 2022
                6 April 2022
                : 5
                : 4
                : e226250
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Health Economics Resource Center, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, California
                [2 ]Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, California
                [3 ]Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
                [4 ]National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, California
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: February 14, 2022.
                Published: April 6, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6250
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 Gujral K et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Kritee Gujral, PhD, Health Economics Resource Center (HERC), VA Palo Alto Health Care System, 795 Willow Rd, 152 MPD, Menlo Park, CA 94025 ( kritee.gujral@ 123456va.gov ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Gurjal had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Gujral, Jacobs, Kimerling, Blonigen, Zulman.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Gujral.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Gujral, Van Campen, Jacobs, Kimerling, Blonigen, Zulman.
                Statistical analysis: Gujral.
                Obtained funding: Gujral, Zulman.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Gujral, Van Campen, Jacobs, Kimerling, Blonigen, Zulman.
                Supervision: Gujral, Zulman.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
                Funding/Support: This work was supported by a US Department of Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative PEI 18-205 and the VA Office of Rural Health Veterans Rural Health Resource Center-Portland.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: Views expressed are those of the authors and the contents do not represent the views of the US Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government.
                Additional Contributions: We are thankful for our discussions with the VA’s Program Evaluation Resource Center (PERC) regarding mental health-related outcomes. We thank Todd Wagner, PhD, Liam Rose, PhD, and Liberty Greene, MS, Med, for their thoughtful comments for this work. We are also grateful to Samantha Illarmo, MPH, and Cindie Slightam, MPH, for research and administrative assistance. They were not compensated for these contributions.
                Article
                zoi220195
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6250
                8987904
                35385088
                3e5a5d36-b18d-41da-b913-72ebea4d3173
                Copyright 2022 Gujral K et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 3 December 2021
                : 14 February 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Health Policy

                Comments

                Comment on this article