Roberto J Rona1, Howard Burdett2, Mizanur Khondoker3, Melanie Chesnokov2, Kevin Green4, David Pernet2, Norman Jones5, Neil Greenberg5, Simon Wessely2, Nicola T Fear5. 1. King's Centre for Military Health Research, Department of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, London, UK. Electronic address: roberto.rona@kcl.ac.uk. 2. King's Centre for Military Health Research, Department of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, London, UK. 3. Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 4. King's Centre for Military Health Research, Department of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, London, UK; Navy Command Headquarter Operational Stress Management/Trauma Risk Management, West Battery, Whale Island, Portsmouth, UK. 5. Academic Department of Military Mental Health, Department of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of post-deployment screening for mental disorders has not been assessed in a randomised controlled trial. We aimed to assess whether post-deployment screening for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, or alcohol misuse was effective. We defined screening as the presumptive identification of a previously unrecognised disorder using tests to distinguish those who probably had the disorder from those who probably did not so that those people with a probable disorder could be referred appropriately, and assessed effectiveness and consequences for help-seeking by the odds ratio at follow-up between those receiving tailored help-seeking advice and those who received general mental health advice. METHODS: We did a cluster randomised controlled trial among Royal Marines and Army personnel in the UK military after deployment to Afghanistan. Platoons were randomly assigned (1:1 initially, then 2:1) by stratified block randomisation with randomly varying block sizes of two and four to the screening group, which received tailored help-seeking advice, or the control group, which received general mental health advice. Initial assessment took place 6-12 weeks after deployment; follow-up assessments were done 10-24 months later. Follow-up measures were the PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 scale, Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT), and self-reported help-seeking from clinical and welfare providers comparing those receiving tailored advice and those receiving only general advice. All participants and all investigators other than the person who analysed the data were masked to allocation. The primary outcomes were PTSD, depression or generalised anxiety disorder, and alcohol misuse at follow-up. A key secondary outcome was assessment of whether post-deployment screening followed by tailored advice would modify help-seeking behaviour. Comparisons were made between screening and control groups, with primary analyses by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN19965528. FINDINGS:Between Oct 24, 2011, and Oct 31, 2014, 434 platoons comprising 10 190 personnel were included: 274 (6350 personnel) in the screening group and 160 (3840 personnel) in the control group. 5577 (88%) of 6350 personnel received screening and 3996 (63%) completed follow-up, whereas 3149 (82%) of 3840 received thecontrol questionnaire and 2369 (62%) completed follow-up. 1958 (35%) of 5577 personnel in the screening group declined to see the tailored advice, but those with PTSD (83%) or anxiety or depression (84%) were more likely than non-cases (64%) to view the advice (both p<0·0001). At follow-up, there were no significant differences in prevalence between groups for PTSD (adjusted odds ratio 0·92, 95% CI 0·75-1·14), depression or anxiety (0·91, 0·71-1·16), alcohol misuse (0·88, 0·73-1·06), or seeking support for mental disorders (0·92, 0·78-1·08). INTERPRETATION:Post-deployment screening for mental disorders based on tailored advice was not effective at reducing prevalence of mental health disorders nor did it increase help-seeking. Countries that have implemented post-deployment screening programmes for mental disorders should consider monitoring the outcomes of their programmes. FUNDING: The US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command-Military Operational Medicine Research Program (USAMRMC-MOMRP).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of post-deployment screening for mental disorders has not been assessed in a randomised controlled trial. We aimed to assess whether post-deployment screening for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, or alcohol misuse was effective. We defined screening as the presumptive identification of a previously unrecognised disorder using tests to distinguish those who probably had the disorder from those who probably did not so that those people with a probable disorder could be referred appropriately, and assessed effectiveness and consequences for help-seeking by the odds ratio at follow-up between those receiving tailored help-seeking advice and those who received general mental health advice. METHODS: We did a cluster randomised controlled trial among Royal Marines and Army personnel in the UK military after deployment to Afghanistan. Platoons were randomly assigned (1:1 initially, then 2:1) by stratified block randomisation with randomly varying block sizes of two and four to the screening group, which received tailored help-seeking advice, or the control group, which received general mental health advice. Initial assessment took place 6-12 weeks after deployment; follow-up assessments were done 10-24 months later. Follow-up measures were the PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 scale, Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT), and self-reported help-seeking from clinical and welfare providers comparing those receiving tailored advice and those receiving only general advice. All participants and all investigators other than the person who analysed the data were masked to allocation. The primary outcomes were PTSD, depression or generalised anxiety disorder, and alcohol misuse at follow-up. A key secondary outcome was assessment of whether post-deployment screening followed by tailored advice would modify help-seeking behaviour. Comparisons were made between screening and control groups, with primary analyses by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN19965528. FINDINGS: Between Oct 24, 2011, and Oct 31, 2014, 434 platoons comprising 10 190 personnel were included: 274 (6350 personnel) in the screening group and 160 (3840 personnel) in the control group. 5577 (88%) of 6350 personnel received screening and 3996 (63%) completed follow-up, whereas 3149 (82%) of 3840 received the control questionnaire and 2369 (62%) completed follow-up. 1958 (35%) of 5577 personnel in the screening group declined to see the tailored advice, but those with PTSD (83%) or anxiety or depression (84%) were more likely than non-cases (64%) to view the advice (both p<0·0001). At follow-up, there were no significant differences in prevalence between groups for PTSD (adjusted odds ratio 0·92, 95% CI 0·75-1·14), depression or anxiety (0·91, 0·71-1·16), alcohol misuse (0·88, 0·73-1·06), or seeking support for mental disorders (0·92, 0·78-1·08). INTERPRETATION: Post-deployment screening for mental disorders based on tailored advice was not effective at reducing prevalence of mental health disorders nor did it increase help-seeking. Countries that have implemented post-deployment screening programmes for mental disorders should consider monitoring the outcomes of their programmes. FUNDING: The US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command-Military Operational Medicine Research Program (USAMRMC-MOMRP).
Authors: Sharon A M Stevelink; Norman Jones; Margaret Jones; Daniel Dyball; Charandeep K Khera; David Pernet; Shirlee MacCrimmon; Dominic Murphy; Lisa Hull; Neil Greenberg; Deirdre MacManus; Laura Goodwin; Marie-Louise Sharp; Simon Wessely; Roberto J Rona; Nicola T Fear Journal: Eur J Psychotraumatol Date: 2019-01-14
Authors: Ruth E Marshall; Josie Milligan-Saville; Katherine Petrie; Richard A Bryant; Philip B Mitchell; Samuel B Harvey Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Andreas Bauer; Dorothy Newbury-Birch; Shannon Robalino; Jennifer Ferguson; Sarah Wigham Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Roeland Christiaan Alfons Achterbergh; Martijn S van Rooijen; Wim van den Brink; Anders Boyd; Henry John Christiaan de Vries Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 3.519