Identifying candidate mechanisms of comorbidity in disordered eating and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms among U.S. veterans: A network analytic approach

OBJECTIVE

Comorbidity between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and disordered eating (DE) symptoms is common, reflecting a possible reciprocal relationship between these disorders. Network analysis may reveal candidate mechanisms underlying their comorbidity and highlight important treatment targets.

METHOD

Two national samples of U.S. veterans endorsing trauma exposure self-reported PTSD and DE symptoms. The discovery sample included veterans from all service eras (n = 434). The validation sample included recently separated post-9/11 veterans (n = 507). We fit graphical lasso models to evaluate the network structure of PTSD factors based on the seven-factor "hybrid" model and DE symptoms within each sample. We used strength scores to identify the most central symptoms within the networks and identified bridge symptoms connecting PTSD and DE features. We tested for network invariance between self-identified men and women within each sample and across the studies.

RESULTS

PTSD and DE symptoms clustered as expected within networks for each sample. The strongest nodes in the networks included both PTSD and DE features. The strongest bridge symptoms in both studies included overevaluation of shape and weight, negative affect, and avoidance. Networks were invariant across men and women in each sample and largely invariant across samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Cross-sectional network models of PTSD and DE symptoms largely replicated across national samples of U.S. veterans and between men and women within samples. Cognitive features of both disorders, along with avoidance, may partially underlie comorbidity and represent potential treatment targets. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Peer specialist-led interventions in primary care at the Veterans Health Administration: An integrative review

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) currently employs over 1,300 peer specialists-veterans with lived experience of mental illness who are in recovery and have been trained to provide support to other veterans experiencing these issues. VHA peer specialists have largely been employed in behavioral health settings. In 2014, VHA began to employ peer specialists in primary care settings via the peers in Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) program, and congressional legislation was passed to expand this program in 2022. In light of this expansion, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions provided in the Peers in PACT program. This integrative review of studies of peer specialist-led interventions in VHA primary care includes 13 articles with 11 unique studies represented in these articles. These studies targeted mental health symptoms, substance use, health/well-being, and health/treatment engagement. Seven described single-arm studies, three described two-arm studies with a treatment as usual control group, and three described two-arm studies with an active control group. The majority of these studies demonstrated statistically significant improvements on at least one main outcome. Seven studies also included qualitative interviews with veterans; several common themes emerged, including the importance of working with a veteran peer with shared lived experiences, and finding peers helpful in providing accountability, motivation, encouragement, emotional support, resources, and assistance navigating VA health care. Recommendations for future research on the peers in PACT program are discussed, including a need for more RCTs with active controls. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Misbegotten methodologies and forgotten lessons from Tom Swift's electric factor analysis machine: A demonstration with competing structural models of psychopathology

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and its bifactor models are popular in empirical investigations of the factor structure of psychological constructs. CFA offers straightforward hypothesis testing but has notable pitfalls, such as the imposition of strict assumptions (i.e., simple structure) that obscure unmodeled complexity. Due to the limitations of bifactor CFAs, they have yielded anomalous results across samples and studies that suggest model misspecification (e.g., evaporating specific factors and unexpected loadings). We propose the use of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to evaluate the structural validity of CFA solutions-either before or after the estimation of more restrictive CFA models-to (a) identify model misspecifications that may drive anomalous estimates and (b) confirm CFA models by examining whether hypothesized structures emerge with limited researcher input. We evaluated the degree to which predominant factor structures were invariant across contexts along the exploratory-confirmatory continuum and demonstrate how poor methodological choices can distort results and impede theory development. All CFA models fit well, but there were numerous differences in replicability and substantive interpretability. Several similarities emerged between bifactor CFA and EFA models, including evidence of overextraction, the collapse of specific factors onto the general factor, and subsequent shifts in how the general factor was defined. We situate these methodological shortcomings within the broader literature on structural models of psychopathology, articulate implications for theories (such as the p-factor) that are borne out of factor analysis, outline several remedies for problems encountered when performing exploratory bifactor analysis, and propose alternative specifications for confirmatory bifactor models. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on peer specialists

OBJECTIVE

Individuals with mental health challenges are at particularly high risk of experiencing negative outcomes (e.g., worsening of mental health, increased risk of mortality) due to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Peer specialists may have the benefit of several protective factors, including higher levels of social support and better illness self-management skills that buffer against negative effects of the pandemic. In this study, we compared the differences in the impact of COVID-19 on those trained as peer specialists (e.g., certified peer specialists, recovery coaches) to those not trained in this role.

METHOD

Participants with self-reported mental health and/or substance use challenges completed an online survey to collect information on their experiences during COVID-19 (Epidemic-Pandemic Impacts Inventory [EPII]), loneliness (3-item Loneliness Scale), and access to and satisfaction with mental health support. Respondents self-identified as peer specialists or not.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-three U.S. resident participants from 23 states were included in the final analysis: 109 were peer specialists and 64 were nonpeer specialists. Those who were trained as peer specialists reported fewer negative outcomes during the pandemic, including less disruption in employment, less loneliness, and less worsening of mental health, while reporting more positive attitudes in the face of difficulties. Peer specialists were also likely to report more access to and satisfaction with mental health services.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Possibly as a function of their role, peer specialists reported better mental health outcomes during COVID-19, providing key, empirical evidence to support the benefits of helping others. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Racial differences in the psychosocial response to the COVID-19 pandemic in veterans with psychosis or recent homelessness

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to disproportionately impact people of color and individuals experiencing psychosis and homelessness. However, it is unclear whether there are differences by race in psychosocial responses to the pandemic in vulnerable populations. The double jeopardy hypothesis posits that multiply marginalized individuals would experience worse psychosocial outcomes. The present study investigated the clinical and functional initial responses to the pandemic in both Black (n = 103) and White veterans (n = 98) with psychosis (PSY), recent homelessness (RHV), and in a control group (CTL) enrolled in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare services. Clinical interviews were administered via phone at two time points: baseline (mid-May through mid-August 2020) and follow-up (mid-August through September 2020). The baseline interview also included retrospective measures of pre-COVID status from January 2020. There were no significant differences between Black and White veterans in depression, anxiety, or loneliness. However, Black veterans did endorse more fears of contamination, F(1, 196.29) = 9.48, p = .002. Across all groups, Black veterans had better family integration compared to White veterans, F(1, 199.98) = 7.62, p = .006. There were no significant differences by race in social integration, work/role productivity, or independent living. In sum, there were few significant differences between Black and White veterans in initial psychosocial response to the pandemic. The lack of racial disparities might reflect the presence of VA's wrap-around services. The findings also highlight the robust nature of social support in Black veterans, even in the context of a global pandemic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Differential effects of deployment and nondeployment mild TBI on neuropsychological outcomes

Objective: Mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) that occurs in a deployment environment is characteristically different from mild TBI that occurs outside of deployment. This study evaluated differential and interaction effects of deployment and nondeployment mild TBI on cognitive and behavioral health outcomes. Research Method: Combat veterans (N = 293) who passed performance-validity measures completed the Mid-Atlantic MIRECC Assessment of TBI (MMA-TBI), Clinician-Administered Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Scale (CAPS-5), a neuropsychological assessment battery, and self-report questionnaires. A 2 × 2 × 2 analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to evaluate the main and interaction effects across mild TBI groups and PTSD diagnosis. Results: Deployment TBI was associated with poorer outcomes on several cognitive tests: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 4th edition (WAIS-IV); Working Memory Index (WMI; p = .018); Trail Making Test A (TMT-A; p < .001); and Trail Making Test B (TMT-B; p = .002). Deployment TBI and PTSD were also associated with increased PTSD, depressive, and neurobehavioral symptoms; pain interference; and poorer sleep quality. Nondeployment TBI had no effect on cognitive performance and was associated only with poorer sleep quality. PTSD had the strongest associations with symptom measures and deployment TBI with cognitive outcomes. There were no significant interaction effects after adjusting for multiple comparisons. Conclusions: Remote outcomes associated with mild deployment TBI are different from those associated with nondeployment mild TBI and are robust beyond PTSD. This suggests that the environment surrounding a TBI event influences cognitive and symptom sequelae. Veterans who experience mild TBI during deployment may report changes in cognition, but most will continue to function within the expected range. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).