Behavioral Health Provider Attitudes Toward Behavioral Health Profiles in the U.S. Army

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction U.S. Army healthcare providers’ use of profiles to document and communicate behavioral health (BH) condition limitations to commanders is vital to understanding both the individual soldier’s BH readiness for missions and, as an aggregate, the unit’s overall BH readiness status. Quantitative work exploring the link between soldier attitudes toward BH profiles and treatment utilization found that profiles may actually promote increases in treatment-seeking behavior in those receiving conventional BH services. BH provider attitudes on the subject, however, have not been quantitatively explored. Using data from the recently described Behavioral Health Readiness and Decision-Making Instrument (B-REDI) study, the current inquiry addresses this by examining BH providers’ pre-/post-B-REDI attitudes toward BH profiles, including therapeutic alliance, to better understand how BH profiles may impact BH treatment. Methods This study was approved by the WRAIR Institutional Review Board and is part of the larger B-REDI study. BH providers (n = 307) across five installations supporting active duty U.S. Army Divisions completed surveys longitudinally across three time points from September 2018 to March 2019. The survey specific to this study included five items, developed by WRAIR, assessing BH provider attitudes toward BH profiles. Of the providers who completed the survey, 250 (81%) consented to participate in the study and 149 (60%) completed the 3-month follow-up survey. Results Over 80% of BH providers expressed agreement with each of three items assessing rationale for issuing BH profiles in both the pre- and post B-REDI period. Specifically, most providers agreed that profiles facilitate commander support to the soldier, afford soldiers resources for recovery, and give commanders increased understanding of soldier health for mission planning. Twenty-six percent of BH providers agreed, 46% were neutral, and 28% disagreed on whether profile impact on the soldier was positive or not in the pre-B-REDI period, but there was a significant positive trend relative to baseline in the post B-REDI period. The vast majority of providers (≥94%) did not endorse agreement that BH profiles negatively impact therapeutic alliance in either the pre- or post-B-REDI period. Conclusions Assuming that therapeutic alliance and perceptions of BH profile impact on soldiers are useful proxy measures of how treatment utilization may be affected by profiling, this inquiry fails to establish any meaningful negative association between them. This may provide some additional reassurance to BH providers and policymakers that efforts to improve readiness decision-making, such as B-REDI, and increased profiling in conventional military BH settings may not negatively impact treatment utilization rates.