Jan Dyer

Veterans at risk of suicide may not share their suicidal ideation with their psychotherapists or may choose not to disclose enough detail to illustrate the depths of those thoughts due to feelings of shame or embarrassment, according to a newly published study. These individuals may view suicidal thoughts as a sign of weakness, fear involuntary hospitalization or prescriptions, or belong to marginalized groups who do not feel comfortable (or safe) to reveal their thoughts or intentions. This can make it difficult for mental health professionals to identify the exact details of a patient’s mindset and provide appropriate care. 

A veteran’s first—and sometimes only—stop may be their primary care practitioner (PCPs) rather than a mental health professional. A review of 40 studies found that although 45% of individuals who died by suicide had contact with PCPs within 1 month of their death, only 19% had contact with mental health services. Studies have also found that veterans disclose suicidal ideation during primary care visits closest to the actual suicide less than half the time.

Patients may have an appointment for medical, but not psychological reasons. In a study conducted at Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC), researchers reviewed the medical records of 112 veterans who died by suicide and had contact with a VAMC within 1 year prior to death. Of those last contacts, 32% were patient-initiated for new or exacerbated medical concerns, and 68% were follow-ups. 

In that study, health care professionals (HCPs) noted that 41 patients (37%) were experiencing emotional distress at the last contact, but 13 of 18 patients (72%) who were assessed for suicidal ideation at their last contact denied such thoughts. The study says this finding “highlights the complexity of addressing suicidal ideation and associated risk factors in health care settings.” Additionally, a number of veterans who died by suicide either did not have suicidal thoughts  at the time of their last contact with HCPs or denied such thoughts even when questioned. 

In 2018, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented the Suicide Risk Identification Strategy (Risk ID), an evidence-informed assessment that includes initial screening and subsequent evaluation. Veterans receiving VHA care are screened annually for suicidal ideation and behaviors. Most screening takes place in primary care and mental health specialty settings, but timely screening may not be enough to assess who is at risk if the patients aren’t being forthcoming about their thoughts and plans.

A recent cross-sectional national survey examined the frequency of self-reported “inaccurate disclosure” of suicidal ideation during initial screening and subsequent evaluation among 734 VHA patients screened in primary care.

Using the Risk ID process with the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale Screener (C-SSRS), the study asked respondents about their previous suicide screening in 2021. Of the 734 respondents, 306 screened positive and 428 screened negative. One survey item asked about the extent to which veterans had accurately responded to the HCP when asked about suicidal thoughts, while another asked how likely they would discuss when they felt suicidal with their PCP.

The study found that inaccurate disclosure is not uncommon: When asked about suicidal thoughts, about one-fifth of screen-negative participants and two-fifths of screen-positive participants said they responded, “less than very accurately.”

In the screen-positive group, women and those who reported more barriers to care were less likely to discuss feeling suicidal. Veterans who had lower ratings of satisfaction with the screening process, patient-staff communication, and the therapeutic relationship reported being less likely to discuss times they were suicidal. Notably, among C-SSRS-negative patients, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic, Asian, and multiracial veterans were more likely than White veterans to inaccurately report suicidal thoughts. 

This is consistent with studies on medical mistrust and other research suggesting that veterans who have experienced identity-based discrimination may be less inclined to discuss suicidal thoughts with VHA HCPs. A large 2023 study surveyed veterans about why they might hold back such information. One Gulf War-era veteran, a Black woman, had encountered discrimination when filing her VA benefits claim, leading her to feel like the care system was not interested in helping her.

“It’s one of the main reasons why when I do go in, they don’t get an honest response,” she wrote in her survey response. “I feel that you’re not for me, you’re not trying to help me, you don’t wanna help me, and why even go through it, go through the motions it seems. So, I can come in feeling suicidal and I leave out feeling suicidal then.” 

Veterans typically welcome screening for suicidal risk. In a 2023 study, > 90% of veterans reported that it is appropriate to be asked about thoughts of suicide during primary care visits, and about one-half agreed that veterans should be asked about suicidal thoughts at every visit. 

For many, though, the level of trust they have with HCPs makes or breaks whether they discuss their suicidal ideation. Higher ratings of the therapeutic relationship with clinicians are associated with more frequent disclosure. However, the screen-positive group demonstrated higher rates of inaccurate disclosure than the screen-negative group. While this may seem counterintuitive, it is possible that screen-positive individuals did not fully disclose their thoughts on the initial screen, or did not fully disclose the severity of their thoughts during follow-up evaluations. Individuals who disclose suicidal thoughts during initial screening may be ambivalent about disclosure and/or become more concerned about consequences of disclosure as additional evaluation ensues. 

A 2013 study of 34 Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans found that veterans felt trying to suppress and avoid thoughts of suicide was “burdensome and exhausting.” Despite this, they often failed to disclose severe and pervasive suicidal thoughts when screened. Among the reasons was that they perceived the templated computer reminder process as “perfunctory and disrespectful.”

Research has found that HCPs who focuses on building relationships, demonstrates genuineness and empathy, and uses straightforward and understandable language promotes the trust that can result in more honest disclosure of suicidal thoughts. In the “inaccurate disclosure” study, some veterans reported they did not understand the screening questions, or the questions did not make sense to them. This aligns with prior research, which demonstrates that how HCPs and researchers conceptualize suicidal thoughts may not fit with patients’ experiences. A lack of shared terminology, they note, “may confound how we think about ‘under-disclosure,’ such that perhaps patients may not be trying to hide their thoughts so much as not finding screening questions applicable to their unique situations or experiences.”

Veterans at risk of suicide may not share their suicidal ideation with their psychotherapists or may choose not to disclose enough detail to illustrate the depths of those thoughts due to feelings of shame or embarrassment, according to a newly published study. These individuals may view suicidal thoughts as a sign of weakness, fear involuntary hospitalization or prescriptions, or belong to marginalized groups who do not feel comfortable (or safe) to reveal their thoughts or intentions. This can make it difficult for mental health professionals to identify the exact details of a patient’s mindset and provide appropriate care. 

A veteran’s first—and sometimes only—stop may be their primary care practitioner (PCPs) rather than a mental health professional. A review of 40 studies found that although 45% of individuals who died by suicide had contact with PCPs within 1 month of their death, only 19% had contact with mental health services. Studies have also found that veterans disclose suicidal ideation during primary care visits closest to the actual suicide less than half the time.

Patients may have an appointment for medical, but not psychological reasons. In a study conducted at Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC), researchers reviewed the medical records of 112 veterans who died by suicide and had contact with a VAMC within 1 year prior to death. Of those last contacts, 32% were patient-initiated for new or exacerbated medical concerns, and 68% were follow-ups. 

In that study, health care professionals (HCPs) noted that 41 patients (37%) were experiencing emotional distress at the last contact, but 13 of 18 patients (72%) who were assessed for suicidal ideation at their last contact denied such thoughts. The study says this finding “highlights the complexity of addressing suicidal ideation and associated risk factors in health care settings.” Additionally, a number of veterans who died by suicide either did not have suicidal thoughts  at the time of their last contact with HCPs or denied such thoughts even when questioned. 

In 2018, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented the Suicide Risk Identification Strategy (Risk ID), an evidence-informed assessment that includes initial screening and subsequent evaluation. Veterans receiving VHA care are screened annually for suicidal ideation and behaviors. Most screening takes place in primary care and mental health specialty settings, but timely screening may not be enough to assess who is at risk if the patients aren’t being forthcoming about their thoughts and plans.

A recent cross-sectional national survey examined the frequency of self-reported “inaccurate disclosure” of suicidal ideation during initial screening and subsequent evaluation among 734 VHA patients screened in primary care.

Using the Risk ID process with the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale Screener (C-SSRS), the study asked respondents about their previous suicide screening in 2021. Of the 734 respondents, 306 screened positive and 428 screened negative. One survey item asked about the extent to which veterans had accurately responded to the HCP when asked about suicidal thoughts, while another asked how likely they would discuss when they felt suicidal with their PCP.

The study found that inaccurate disclosure is not uncommon: When asked about suicidal thoughts, about one-fifth of screen-negative participants and two-fifths of screen-positive participants said they responded, “less than very accurately.”

In the screen-positive group, women and those who reported more barriers to care were less likely to discuss feeling suicidal. Veterans who had lower ratings of satisfaction with the screening process, patient-staff communication, and the therapeutic relationship reported being less likely to discuss times they were suicidal. Notably, among C-SSRS-negative patients, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic, Asian, and multiracial veterans were more likely than White veterans to inaccurately report suicidal thoughts. 

This is consistent with studies on medical mistrust and other research suggesting that veterans who have experienced identity-based discrimination may be less inclined to discuss suicidal thoughts with VHA HCPs. A large 2023 study surveyed veterans about why they might hold back such information. One Gulf War-era veteran, a Black woman, had encountered discrimination when filing her VA benefits claim, leading her to feel like the care system was not interested in helping her.

“It’s one of the main reasons why when I do go in, they don’t get an honest response,” she wrote in her survey response. “I feel that you’re not for me, you’re not trying to help me, you don’t wanna help me, and why even go through it, go through the motions it seems. So, I can come in feeling suicidal and I leave out feeling suicidal then.” 

Veterans typically welcome screening for suicidal risk. In a 2023 study, > 90% of veterans reported that it is appropriate to be asked about thoughts of suicide during primary care visits, and about one-half agreed that veterans should be asked about suicidal thoughts at every visit. 

For many, though, the level of trust they have with HCPs makes or breaks whether they discuss their suicidal ideation. Higher ratings of the therapeutic relationship with clinicians are associated with more frequent disclosure. However, the screen-positive group demonstrated higher rates of inaccurate disclosure than the screen-negative group. While this may seem counterintuitive, it is possible that screen-positive individuals did not fully disclose their thoughts on the initial screen, or did not fully disclose the severity of their thoughts during follow-up evaluations. Individuals who disclose suicidal thoughts during initial screening may be ambivalent about disclosure and/or become more concerned about consequences of disclosure as additional evaluation ensues. 

A 2013 study of 34 Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans found that veterans felt trying to suppress and avoid thoughts of suicide was “burdensome and exhausting.” Despite this, they often failed to disclose severe and pervasive suicidal thoughts when screened. Among the reasons was that they perceived the templated computer reminder process as “perfunctory and disrespectful.”

Research has found that HCPs who focuses on building relationships, demonstrates genuineness and empathy, and uses straightforward and understandable language promotes the trust that can result in more honest disclosure of suicidal thoughts. In the “inaccurate disclosure” study, some veterans reported they did not understand the screening questions, or the questions did not make sense to them. This aligns with prior research, which demonstrates that how HCPs and researchers conceptualize suicidal thoughts may not fit with patients’ experiences. A lack of shared terminology, they note, “may confound how we think about ‘under-disclosure,’ such that perhaps patients may not be trying to hide their thoughts so much as not finding screening questions applicable to their unique situations or experiences.”

Veterans at risk of suicide may not share their suicidal ideation with their psychotherapists or may choose not to disclose enough detail to illustrate the depths of those thoughts due to feelings of shame or embarrassment, according to a newly published study. These individuals may view suicidal thoughts as a sign of weakness, fear involuntary hospitalization or prescriptions, or belong to marginalized groups who do not feel comfortable (or safe) to reveal their thoughts or intentions. This can make it difficult for mental health professionals to identify the exact details of a patient’s mindset and provide appropriate care. 

A veteran’s first—and sometimes only—stop may be their primary care practitioner (PCPs) rather than a mental health professional. A review of 40 studies found that although 45% of individuals who died by suicide had contact with PCPs within 1 month of their death, only 19% had contact with mental health services. Studies have also found that veterans disclose suicidal ideation during primary care visits closest to the actual suicide less than half the time.

Patients may have an appointment for medical, but not psychological reasons. In a study conducted at Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC), researchers reviewed the medical records of 112 veterans who died by suicide and had contact with a VAMC within 1 year prior to death. Of those last contacts, 32% were patient-initiated for new or exacerbated medical concerns, and 68% were follow-ups. 

In that study, health care professionals (HCPs) noted that 41 patients (37%) were experiencing emotional distress at the last contact, but 13 of 18 patients (72%) who were assessed for suicidal ideation at their last contact denied such thoughts. The study says this finding “highlights the complexity of addressing suicidal ideation and associated risk factors in health care settings.” Additionally, a number of veterans who died by suicide either did not have suicidal thoughts  at the time of their last contact with HCPs or denied such thoughts even when questioned. 

In 2018, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented the Suicide Risk Identification Strategy (Risk ID), an evidence-informed assessment that includes initial screening and subsequent evaluation. Veterans receiving VHA care are screened annually for suicidal ideation and behaviors. Most screening takes place in primary care and mental health specialty settings, but timely screening may not be enough to assess who is at risk if the patients aren’t being forthcoming about their thoughts and plans.

A recent cross-sectional national survey examined the frequency of self-reported “inaccurate disclosure” of suicidal ideation during initial screening and subsequent evaluation among 734 VHA patients screened in primary care.

Using the Risk ID process with the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale Screener (C-SSRS), the study asked respondents about their previous suicide screening in 2021. Of the 734 respondents, 306 screened positive and 428 screened negative. One survey item asked about the extent to which veterans had accurately responded to the HCP when asked about suicidal thoughts, while another asked how likely they would discuss when they felt suicidal with their PCP.

The study found that inaccurate disclosure is not uncommon: When asked about suicidal thoughts, about one-fifth of screen-negative participants and two-fifths of screen-positive participants said they responded, “less than very accurately.”

In the screen-positive group, women and those who reported more barriers to care were less likely to discuss feeling suicidal. Veterans who had lower ratings of satisfaction with the screening process, patient-staff communication, and the therapeutic relationship reported being less likely to discuss times they were suicidal. Notably, among C-SSRS-negative patients, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic, Asian, and multiracial veterans were more likely than White veterans to inaccurately report suicidal thoughts. 

This is consistent with studies on medical mistrust and other research suggesting that veterans who have experienced identity-based discrimination may be less inclined to discuss suicidal thoughts with VHA HCPs. A large 2023 study surveyed veterans about why they might hold back such information. One Gulf War-era veteran, a Black woman, had encountered discrimination when filing her VA benefits claim, leading her to feel like the care system was not interested in helping her.

“It’s one of the main reasons why when I do go in, they don’t get an honest response,” she wrote in her survey response. “I feel that you’re not for me, you’re not trying to help me, you don’t wanna help me, and why even go through it, go through the motions it seems. So, I can come in feeling suicidal and I leave out feeling suicidal then.” 

Veterans typically welcome screening for suicidal risk. In a 2023 study, > 90% of veterans reported that it is appropriate to be asked about thoughts of suicide during primary care visits, and about one-half agreed that veterans should be asked about suicidal thoughts at every visit. 

For many, though, the level of trust they have with HCPs makes or breaks whether they discuss their suicidal ideation. Higher ratings of the therapeutic relationship with clinicians are associated with more frequent disclosure. However, the screen-positive group demonstrated higher rates of inaccurate disclosure than the screen-negative group. While this may seem counterintuitive, it is possible that screen-positive individuals did not fully disclose their thoughts on the initial screen, or did not fully disclose the severity of their thoughts during follow-up evaluations. Individuals who disclose suicidal thoughts during initial screening may be ambivalent about disclosure and/or become more concerned about consequences of disclosure as additional evaluation ensues. 

A 2013 study of 34 Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans found that veterans felt trying to suppress and avoid thoughts of suicide was “burdensome and exhausting.” Despite this, they often failed to disclose severe and pervasive suicidal thoughts when screened. Among the reasons was that they perceived the templated computer reminder process as “perfunctory and disrespectful.”

Research has found that HCPs who focuses on building relationships, demonstrates genuineness and empathy, and uses straightforward and understandable language promotes the trust that can result in more honest disclosure of suicidal thoughts. In the “inaccurate disclosure” study, some veterans reported they did not understand the screening questions, or the questions did not make sense to them. This aligns with prior research, which demonstrates that how HCPs and researchers conceptualize suicidal thoughts may not fit with patients’ experiences. A lack of shared terminology, they note, “may confound how we think about ‘under-disclosure,’ such that perhaps patients may not be trying to hide their thoughts so much as not finding screening questions applicable to their unique situations or experiences.”

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) guidelines increasingly are recommending prolonged exposure therapy (PET) and cognitive processing therapy (CPT) as first-line treatments, including the 2023 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and US Department of Defense clinical practice guideline.

Since 2006, > 6000 VA therapists have been trained in PET and CPT; the VA requires all veterans to have access to these treatments. However, despite strong clinical trial evidence supporting PET and CPT for the treatment of PTSD, a 2023 study found that only 11.6% of veterans who received a PTSD diagnosis between 2017 and 2019 initiated Trauma-Focused Evidence-Based Psychotherapy (TF-EBP) in their first year of treatment. Of those who initiated TF-EBP, 67% dropped out. Recent VA programs have attempted to expand the reach of PET with video telehealth to reach rural and remote veterans through virtual group programs.

Recent research has suggested ways to maximize the effectiveness of the programs and assist veterans in receiving the full benefits. Studies have found that swapping traditional longer-term treatments (usually spanning 8 to 15 weeks) for intensified, shorter versions (eg, 6 sessions) may enhance engagement and retention. 

Intensive PET for PTSD is safe and highly effective. A study involving patients with chronic PTSD and complex trauma showed significant reductions in PTSD symptom severity, with large effect sizes and sustained improvements at 3 and 6 months. Multiple 90-minute sessions over consecutive days, supplemented with in vivo exposure or followed by weekly booster sessions, were found to minimize treatment disruptions.

PET is among the most extensively studied treatments for PTSD and is supported by dozens of clinical trials involving thousands of patients. The intervention was originally developed and validated in civilian samples and includes psychoeducation, relaxation through breathing retraining, and in vivo and imaginal exposure to traumatic memories.

A recent study compared treatment outcomes among military veterans and civilian patients receiving treatment in a community setting. Although some studies have compared PET outcomes for military veterans and civilian participants in community settings, none have directly compared outcomes across trauma type (combat, terror, or civilian trauma) and veteran status (military vs civilian) within the same framework. The study notes that combat-related trauma significantly differs from other forms of trauma exposure, as it is typically more prolonged and severe and therefore is more often resistant to treatment. Military personnel also often find themselves both victims and aggressors, a duality that can intensify guilt, shame, anger, disgust, and emotional reactions to moral injury, complicating treatment. 

The study assessed the effects of 8 to 15 PET sessions on PTSD symptoms in 55 civilians and 43 veterans using the PTSD Symptom Scale–Interview Version (PSS-I). Participants showed significant symptom reductions across all trauma types and veteran statuses.

Although veterans and participants in the combat trauma subgroup showed higher levels of baseline symptom severity compared with civilians, all groups experienced similar symptom reductions. These findings differ from some meta-analyses, which have found that PET often produces smaller effect sizes in combat-related PTSD compared to civilian trauma samples.

The study compared treatment outcomes across different groups within the same treatment centers and under consistent supervision. The PET intervention was delivered in community mental health centers to all patients regardless of background. Only 2 prior studies have compared civilian and military veterans within the same locations.

Although the “traditional” number of PET sessions produce evidence-based outcomes, high dropout rates and relapses have catalyzed interest in approaches that boost the power of therapy, such as delivering PET in ever-shorter sequences. 

A study in a Swedish psychiatric outpatient clinic compared the effect of an 8-day intensified treatment program with traditionally spaced treatments on 101 participants with PTSD or complex PTSD. The study reported a significant reduction in PTSD symptoms at posttreatment, with large effect sizes in both conditions. Moreover, symptom reduction was maintained at follow-up. Dropout rates were significantly different between treatment groups: 4.3% in the intensified treatment program and 24.1% in the traditional group.

Another study used VA administrative data to assess the impact of sequenced psychotherapy (≥ 8 sessions of not trauma-focused individual or group psychotherapy delivered before trauma-focused care) on initiation and retention in CPT and PET over 2 years. Roughly 13% of 490,097 veterans who entered care for PTSD between 2014 and 2020 initiated VA-disseminated evidence-based treatment within 21 months (9.5% CPT, 3.4% PE). Among those who initiated treatment, retention was 46% and 42%, respectively. Individual therapy was associated with increased CPT and PET retention of 8.0% and 8.2%. For group therapy, retention increases were 3.4% and 8.7%. 

Another recent study examined the RESET (Reconsolidation, Exposure, and Short-term Emotional Transformation) clinical protocol, an intensive, structured trauma-focused intervention designed to treat PTSD within 6 daily sessions. The protocol includes psychoeducation, targeted exposure, dynamic case formulation, and guided trauma processing. This novel framework ensures therapy moves beyond symptom reduction, fostering a deep understanding of the patient’s core struggles and their broader psychological patterns, and integrates it with the reconsolidation of the index trauma narrative to form a more cohesive sense of self.” 

Clinical studies are ongoing to refine and enhance PET and CPT. They may serve to make therapy more useful and effective in easing—maybe erasing—veterans’ traumatic memories.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) guidelines increasingly are recommending prolonged exposure therapy (PET) and cognitive processing therapy (CPT) as first-line treatments, including the 2023 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and US Department of Defense clinical practice guideline.

Since 2006, > 6000 VA therapists have been trained in PET and CPT; the VA requires all veterans to have access to these treatments. However, despite strong clinical trial evidence supporting PET and CPT for the treatment of PTSD, a 2023 study found that only 11.6% of veterans who received a PTSD diagnosis between 2017 and 2019 initiated Trauma-Focused Evidence-Based Psychotherapy (TF-EBP) in their first year of treatment. Of those who initiated TF-EBP, 67% dropped out. Recent VA programs have attempted to expand the reach of PET with video telehealth to reach rural and remote veterans through virtual group programs.

Recent research has suggested ways to maximize the effectiveness of the programs and assist veterans in receiving the full benefits. Studies have found that swapping traditional longer-term treatments (usually spanning 8 to 15 weeks) for intensified, shorter versions (eg, 6 sessions) may enhance engagement and retention. 

Intensive PET for PTSD is safe and highly effective. A study involving patients with chronic PTSD and complex trauma showed significant reductions in PTSD symptom severity, with large effect sizes and sustained improvements at 3 and 6 months. Multiple 90-minute sessions over consecutive days, supplemented with in vivo exposure or followed by weekly booster sessions, were found to minimize treatment disruptions.

PET is among the most extensively studied treatments for PTSD and is supported by dozens of clinical trials involving thousands of patients. The intervention was originally developed and validated in civilian samples and includes psychoeducation, relaxation through breathing retraining, and in vivo and imaginal exposure to traumatic memories.

A recent study compared treatment outcomes among military veterans and civilian patients receiving treatment in a community setting. Although some studies have compared PET outcomes for military veterans and civilian participants in community settings, none have directly compared outcomes across trauma type (combat, terror, or civilian trauma) and veteran status (military vs civilian) within the same framework. The study notes that combat-related trauma significantly differs from other forms of trauma exposure, as it is typically more prolonged and severe and therefore is more often resistant to treatment. Military personnel also often find themselves both victims and aggressors, a duality that can intensify guilt, shame, anger, disgust, and emotional reactions to moral injury, complicating treatment. 

The study assessed the effects of 8 to 15 PET sessions on PTSD symptoms in 55 civilians and 43 veterans using the PTSD Symptom Scale–Interview Version (PSS-I). Participants showed significant symptom reductions across all trauma types and veteran statuses.

Although veterans and participants in the combat trauma subgroup showed higher levels of baseline symptom severity compared with civilians, all groups experienced similar symptom reductions. These findings differ from some meta-analyses, which have found that PET often produces smaller effect sizes in combat-related PTSD compared to civilian trauma samples.

The study compared treatment outcomes across different groups within the same treatment centers and under consistent supervision. The PET intervention was delivered in community mental health centers to all patients regardless of background. Only 2 prior studies have compared civilian and military veterans within the same locations.

Although the “traditional” number of PET sessions produce evidence-based outcomes, high dropout rates and relapses have catalyzed interest in approaches that boost the power of therapy, such as delivering PET in ever-shorter sequences. 

A study in a Swedish psychiatric outpatient clinic compared the effect of an 8-day intensified treatment program with traditionally spaced treatments on 101 participants with PTSD or complex PTSD. The study reported a significant reduction in PTSD symptoms at posttreatment, with large effect sizes in both conditions. Moreover, symptom reduction was maintained at follow-up. Dropout rates were significantly different between treatment groups: 4.3% in the intensified treatment program and 24.1% in the traditional group.

Another study used VA administrative data to assess the impact of sequenced psychotherapy (≥ 8 sessions of not trauma-focused individual or group psychotherapy delivered before trauma-focused care) on initiation and retention in CPT and PET over 2 years. Roughly 13% of 490,097 veterans who entered care for PTSD between 2014 and 2020 initiated VA-disseminated evidence-based treatment within 21 months (9.5% CPT, 3.4% PE). Among those who initiated treatment, retention was 46% and 42%, respectively. Individual therapy was associated with increased CPT and PET retention of 8.0% and 8.2%. For group therapy, retention increases were 3.4% and 8.7%. 

Another recent study examined the RESET (Reconsolidation, Exposure, and Short-term Emotional Transformation) clinical protocol, an intensive, structured trauma-focused intervention designed to treat PTSD within 6 daily sessions. The protocol includes psychoeducation, targeted exposure, dynamic case formulation, and guided trauma processing. This novel framework ensures therapy moves beyond symptom reduction, fostering a deep understanding of the patient’s core struggles and their broader psychological patterns, and integrates it with the reconsolidation of the index trauma narrative to form a more cohesive sense of self.” 

Clinical studies are ongoing to refine and enhance PET and CPT. They may serve to make therapy more useful and effective in easing—maybe erasing—veterans’ traumatic memories.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) guidelines increasingly are recommending prolonged exposure therapy (PET) and cognitive processing therapy (CPT) as first-line treatments, including the 2023 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and US Department of Defense clinical practice guideline.

Since 2006, > 6000 VA therapists have been trained in PET and CPT; the VA requires all veterans to have access to these treatments. However, despite strong clinical trial evidence supporting PET and CPT for the treatment of PTSD, a 2023 study found that only 11.6% of veterans who received a PTSD diagnosis between 2017 and 2019 initiated Trauma-Focused Evidence-Based Psychotherapy (TF-EBP) in their first year of treatment. Of those who initiated TF-EBP, 67% dropped out. Recent VA programs have attempted to expand the reach of PET with video telehealth to reach rural and remote veterans through virtual group programs.

Recent research has suggested ways to maximize the effectiveness of the programs and assist veterans in receiving the full benefits. Studies have found that swapping traditional longer-term treatments (usually spanning 8 to 15 weeks) for intensified, shorter versions (eg, 6 sessions) may enhance engagement and retention. 

Intensive PET for PTSD is safe and highly effective. A study involving patients with chronic PTSD and complex trauma showed significant reductions in PTSD symptom severity, with large effect sizes and sustained improvements at 3 and 6 months. Multiple 90-minute sessions over consecutive days, supplemented with in vivo exposure or followed by weekly booster sessions, were found to minimize treatment disruptions.

PET is among the most extensively studied treatments for PTSD and is supported by dozens of clinical trials involving thousands of patients. The intervention was originally developed and validated in civilian samples and includes psychoeducation, relaxation through breathing retraining, and in vivo and imaginal exposure to traumatic memories.

A recent study compared treatment outcomes among military veterans and civilian patients receiving treatment in a community setting. Although some studies have compared PET outcomes for military veterans and civilian participants in community settings, none have directly compared outcomes across trauma type (combat, terror, or civilian trauma) and veteran status (military vs civilian) within the same framework. The study notes that combat-related trauma significantly differs from other forms of trauma exposure, as it is typically more prolonged and severe and therefore is more often resistant to treatment. Military personnel also often find themselves both victims and aggressors, a duality that can intensify guilt, shame, anger, disgust, and emotional reactions to moral injury, complicating treatment. 

The study assessed the effects of 8 to 15 PET sessions on PTSD symptoms in 55 civilians and 43 veterans using the PTSD Symptom Scale–Interview Version (PSS-I). Participants showed significant symptom reductions across all trauma types and veteran statuses.

Although veterans and participants in the combat trauma subgroup showed higher levels of baseline symptom severity compared with civilians, all groups experienced similar symptom reductions. These findings differ from some meta-analyses, which have found that PET often produces smaller effect sizes in combat-related PTSD compared to civilian trauma samples.

The study compared treatment outcomes across different groups within the same treatment centers and under consistent supervision. The PET intervention was delivered in community mental health centers to all patients regardless of background. Only 2 prior studies have compared civilian and military veterans within the same locations.

Although the “traditional” number of PET sessions produce evidence-based outcomes, high dropout rates and relapses have catalyzed interest in approaches that boost the power of therapy, such as delivering PET in ever-shorter sequences. 

A study in a Swedish psychiatric outpatient clinic compared the effect of an 8-day intensified treatment program with traditionally spaced treatments on 101 participants with PTSD or complex PTSD. The study reported a significant reduction in PTSD symptoms at posttreatment, with large effect sizes in both conditions. Moreover, symptom reduction was maintained at follow-up. Dropout rates were significantly different between treatment groups: 4.3% in the intensified treatment program and 24.1% in the traditional group.

Another study used VA administrative data to assess the impact of sequenced psychotherapy (≥ 8 sessions of not trauma-focused individual or group psychotherapy delivered before trauma-focused care) on initiation and retention in CPT and PET over 2 years. Roughly 13% of 490,097 veterans who entered care for PTSD between 2014 and 2020 initiated VA-disseminated evidence-based treatment within 21 months (9.5% CPT, 3.4% PE). Among those who initiated treatment, retention was 46% and 42%, respectively. Individual therapy was associated with increased CPT and PET retention of 8.0% and 8.2%. For group therapy, retention increases were 3.4% and 8.7%. 

Another recent study examined the RESET (Reconsolidation, Exposure, and Short-term Emotional Transformation) clinical protocol, an intensive, structured trauma-focused intervention designed to treat PTSD within 6 daily sessions. The protocol includes psychoeducation, targeted exposure, dynamic case formulation, and guided trauma processing. This novel framework ensures therapy moves beyond symptom reduction, fostering a deep understanding of the patient’s core struggles and their broader psychological patterns, and integrates it with the reconsolidation of the index trauma narrative to form a more cohesive sense of self.” 

Clinical studies are ongoing to refine and enhance PET and CPT. They may serve to make therapy more useful and effective in easing—maybe erasing—veterans’ traumatic memories.

“Moral and mortal stressors may be intertwined in their contribution to the complex symptomatic outcomes” of combat exposure according to a recent study in the European Journal of Psychotraumatology. The study examined the effect moral injury has on Israel Defense Forces (IDF) combat veterans. The resulting trauma may be consolidated in a single category, such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but stressors leading to that diagnosis may have been quite different. Properly defining the stressors to assist in better targeted treatment is a challenge.

Moral injury is the emotional distress of being involved in or witnessing actions that conflict with deeply held beliefs. Such experiences could be committing or failing to prevent a transgressive act or learning about or surviving a transgressive act.

The study defines moral injury outcomes as the psychological and emotional consequences that result from exposure to potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs): “This terminology is intended to distinguish the outcomes of moral injury from the broader and sometimes ambiguous use of ‘moral injury’ in the literature, which can refer to either the event, the experience, or the resulting symptoms.”

The study followed 374 male combat veterans for 5 years. Veterans served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in 4 primary combat roles: infantry, armored corps, special forces, and combat engineering. Psychological characteristics were measured 12 months prior to enlistment. PMIE exposure was measured during the final month of military service using the Moral Injury Events Scale. Moral injury outcomes were assessed 6 months postdischarge using the Expressions of Moral Injury Scale-Military Version-Short Form. Posttraumatic stress symptom (PTSS) clusters were evaluated 1 year postdischarge using the PTSD Checklist for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. 

Nearly half (49%) of participants reported exposure to PMIEs, while 8% met criteria for probable PTSD. The researchers say elevated PMIE rates observed in their sample may be attributed, in part, to participants’ extended deployments in densely populated urban areas, carrying out operations in close proximity to civilians, where it is difficult to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants. PTSD rates were somewhat lower than those reported in US studies (10% to 30%) among veterans; this may be attributed to the cohort not being engaged in a full-scale war, but deployed mostly in peacekeeping missions.

Longitudinal studies have described the effects of wartime atrocities on PTSD symptom severity. Studies have also linked moral injury outcomes and PTSS clusters (including negative alterations in cognition and mood [NACM]), depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. PMIEs can also include perceptions of betrayal from leaders, colleagues, or trusted others. The study of 374 male combat veterans found a direct effect of PMIE-betrayal on arousal and reactivity as well as NACM clusters. Results also showed indirect associations between exposure to all PMIE dimensions and PTSS clusters via moral injury outcomes. Combat exposure and experiencing PMIEs during military service significantly contributed to the emergence of PTSS during the first year after discharge. The study found 2 distinct paths PMIEs may lead to PTSS among veterans: experiencing acts of transgression and encountering betrayal. 

Betrayal has been linked to feelings of anger and humiliation, emotions thought to have evolved to trigger adaptive behavioral responses, such as aggression and revenge, to threats or transgressions by others. PMIE-betrayal also demonstrated direct effects on the arousal and reactivity and NACM symptom clusters, suggesting partial mediation. Another study (also on IDF veterans) found significant positive correlations between PMIE-betrayal and the NACM cluster, suggesting PMIE-betrayal as a link between PTSD and moral injury. While the link between betrayal and NACM is readily apparent, its connection to arousal and reactivity, a fear-based physiological symptom, is less evident. 

The findings of the study point to the need for assessment tools that separately measure exposure to PMIEs and individual reactions to them. A recent Federal Practitioner study of 100 veterans with a history of incarceration completed the Moral Injury Events Scale and an adapted version for legal-involved persons (MIES-LIP). The authors found that MIES-LIP demonstrated strong psychometric properties, including good reliability and convergent validity for legal-related moral injury.

The study cites a recent review of cognitive-behavioral psychotherapies for individuals experiencing moral injury that challenges the adequacy of existing evidence-based treatments for PTSD for addressing moral injury and its associated symptoms. It is important to evaluate individuals who express feelings of betrayal with tailored, evidence-based interventions such as adaptive disclosure or cognitive-processing therapy. Acceptance and commitment therapy may also help individuals experiencing emotions such as shame, humiliation, guilt, and anger following morally injurious events.

Newer therapy models like Multi-Modal Motion-Assisted Memory Desensitization and Reconsolidation allow clinicians to use personalized trauma cues to facilitate memory processing, reduce avoidance, and aid in emotional reconsolidation. Clinical research has demonstrated this model’s efficacy in reducing PTSD symptoms, depression, and anxiety, with high acceptability and low dropout rates among military personnel, veterans, and first responders.

Regardless of the treatment, the researchers encourage mental health professionals to approach veterans seeking help with the “utmost sensitivity and attentiveness to any expressions of (moral injury) outcomes.”

“Moral and mortal stressors may be intertwined in their contribution to the complex symptomatic outcomes” of combat exposure according to a recent study in the European Journal of Psychotraumatology. The study examined the effect moral injury has on Israel Defense Forces (IDF) combat veterans. The resulting trauma may be consolidated in a single category, such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but stressors leading to that diagnosis may have been quite different. Properly defining the stressors to assist in better targeted treatment is a challenge.

Moral injury is the emotional distress of being involved in or witnessing actions that conflict with deeply held beliefs. Such experiences could be committing or failing to prevent a transgressive act or learning about or surviving a transgressive act.

The study defines moral injury outcomes as the psychological and emotional consequences that result from exposure to potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs): “This terminology is intended to distinguish the outcomes of moral injury from the broader and sometimes ambiguous use of ‘moral injury’ in the literature, which can refer to either the event, the experience, or the resulting symptoms.”

The study followed 374 male combat veterans for 5 years. Veterans served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in 4 primary combat roles: infantry, armored corps, special forces, and combat engineering. Psychological characteristics were measured 12 months prior to enlistment. PMIE exposure was measured during the final month of military service using the Moral Injury Events Scale. Moral injury outcomes were assessed 6 months postdischarge using the Expressions of Moral Injury Scale-Military Version-Short Form. Posttraumatic stress symptom (PTSS) clusters were evaluated 1 year postdischarge using the PTSD Checklist for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. 

Nearly half (49%) of participants reported exposure to PMIEs, while 8% met criteria for probable PTSD. The researchers say elevated PMIE rates observed in their sample may be attributed, in part, to participants’ extended deployments in densely populated urban areas, carrying out operations in close proximity to civilians, where it is difficult to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants. PTSD rates were somewhat lower than those reported in US studies (10% to 30%) among veterans; this may be attributed to the cohort not being engaged in a full-scale war, but deployed mostly in peacekeeping missions.

Longitudinal studies have described the effects of wartime atrocities on PTSD symptom severity. Studies have also linked moral injury outcomes and PTSS clusters (including negative alterations in cognition and mood [NACM]), depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. PMIEs can also include perceptions of betrayal from leaders, colleagues, or trusted others. The study of 374 male combat veterans found a direct effect of PMIE-betrayal on arousal and reactivity as well as NACM clusters. Results also showed indirect associations between exposure to all PMIE dimensions and PTSS clusters via moral injury outcomes. Combat exposure and experiencing PMIEs during military service significantly contributed to the emergence of PTSS during the first year after discharge. The study found 2 distinct paths PMIEs may lead to PTSS among veterans: experiencing acts of transgression and encountering betrayal. 

Betrayal has been linked to feelings of anger and humiliation, emotions thought to have evolved to trigger adaptive behavioral responses, such as aggression and revenge, to threats or transgressions by others. PMIE-betrayal also demonstrated direct effects on the arousal and reactivity and NACM symptom clusters, suggesting partial mediation. Another study (also on IDF veterans) found significant positive correlations between PMIE-betrayal and the NACM cluster, suggesting PMIE-betrayal as a link between PTSD and moral injury. While the link between betrayal and NACM is readily apparent, its connection to arousal and reactivity, a fear-based physiological symptom, is less evident. 

The findings of the study point to the need for assessment tools that separately measure exposure to PMIEs and individual reactions to them. A recent Federal Practitioner study of 100 veterans with a history of incarceration completed the Moral Injury Events Scale and an adapted version for legal-involved persons (MIES-LIP). The authors found that MIES-LIP demonstrated strong psychometric properties, including good reliability and convergent validity for legal-related moral injury.

The study cites a recent review of cognitive-behavioral psychotherapies for individuals experiencing moral injury that challenges the adequacy of existing evidence-based treatments for PTSD for addressing moral injury and its associated symptoms. It is important to evaluate individuals who express feelings of betrayal with tailored, evidence-based interventions such as adaptive disclosure or cognitive-processing therapy. Acceptance and commitment therapy may also help individuals experiencing emotions such as shame, humiliation, guilt, and anger following morally injurious events.

Newer therapy models like Multi-Modal Motion-Assisted Memory Desensitization and Reconsolidation allow clinicians to use personalized trauma cues to facilitate memory processing, reduce avoidance, and aid in emotional reconsolidation. Clinical research has demonstrated this model’s efficacy in reducing PTSD symptoms, depression, and anxiety, with high acceptability and low dropout rates among military personnel, veterans, and first responders.

Regardless of the treatment, the researchers encourage mental health professionals to approach veterans seeking help with the “utmost sensitivity and attentiveness to any expressions of (moral injury) outcomes.”

“Moral and mortal stressors may be intertwined in their contribution to the complex symptomatic outcomes” of combat exposure according to a recent study in the European Journal of Psychotraumatology. The study examined the effect moral injury has on Israel Defense Forces (IDF) combat veterans. The resulting trauma may be consolidated in a single category, such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but stressors leading to that diagnosis may have been quite different. Properly defining the stressors to assist in better targeted treatment is a challenge.

Moral injury is the emotional distress of being involved in or witnessing actions that conflict with deeply held beliefs. Such experiences could be committing or failing to prevent a transgressive act or learning about or surviving a transgressive act.

The study defines moral injury outcomes as the psychological and emotional consequences that result from exposure to potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs): “This terminology is intended to distinguish the outcomes of moral injury from the broader and sometimes ambiguous use of ‘moral injury’ in the literature, which can refer to either the event, the experience, or the resulting symptoms.”

The study followed 374 male combat veterans for 5 years. Veterans served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in 4 primary combat roles: infantry, armored corps, special forces, and combat engineering. Psychological characteristics were measured 12 months prior to enlistment. PMIE exposure was measured during the final month of military service using the Moral Injury Events Scale. Moral injury outcomes were assessed 6 months postdischarge using the Expressions of Moral Injury Scale-Military Version-Short Form. Posttraumatic stress symptom (PTSS) clusters were evaluated 1 year postdischarge using the PTSD Checklist for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. 

Nearly half (49%) of participants reported exposure to PMIEs, while 8% met criteria for probable PTSD. The researchers say elevated PMIE rates observed in their sample may be attributed, in part, to participants’ extended deployments in densely populated urban areas, carrying out operations in close proximity to civilians, where it is difficult to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants. PTSD rates were somewhat lower than those reported in US studies (10% to 30%) among veterans; this may be attributed to the cohort not being engaged in a full-scale war, but deployed mostly in peacekeeping missions.

Longitudinal studies have described the effects of wartime atrocities on PTSD symptom severity. Studies have also linked moral injury outcomes and PTSS clusters (including negative alterations in cognition and mood [NACM]), depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. PMIEs can also include perceptions of betrayal from leaders, colleagues, or trusted others. The study of 374 male combat veterans found a direct effect of PMIE-betrayal on arousal and reactivity as well as NACM clusters. Results also showed indirect associations between exposure to all PMIE dimensions and PTSS clusters via moral injury outcomes. Combat exposure and experiencing PMIEs during military service significantly contributed to the emergence of PTSS during the first year after discharge. The study found 2 distinct paths PMIEs may lead to PTSS among veterans: experiencing acts of transgression and encountering betrayal. 

Betrayal has been linked to feelings of anger and humiliation, emotions thought to have evolved to trigger adaptive behavioral responses, such as aggression and revenge, to threats or transgressions by others. PMIE-betrayal also demonstrated direct effects on the arousal and reactivity and NACM symptom clusters, suggesting partial mediation. Another study (also on IDF veterans) found significant positive correlations between PMIE-betrayal and the NACM cluster, suggesting PMIE-betrayal as a link between PTSD and moral injury. While the link between betrayal and NACM is readily apparent, its connection to arousal and reactivity, a fear-based physiological symptom, is less evident. 

The findings of the study point to the need for assessment tools that separately measure exposure to PMIEs and individual reactions to them. A recent Federal Practitioner study of 100 veterans with a history of incarceration completed the Moral Injury Events Scale and an adapted version for legal-involved persons (MIES-LIP). The authors found that MIES-LIP demonstrated strong psychometric properties, including good reliability and convergent validity for legal-related moral injury.

The study cites a recent review of cognitive-behavioral psychotherapies for individuals experiencing moral injury that challenges the adequacy of existing evidence-based treatments for PTSD for addressing moral injury and its associated symptoms. It is important to evaluate individuals who express feelings of betrayal with tailored, evidence-based interventions such as adaptive disclosure or cognitive-processing therapy. Acceptance and commitment therapy may also help individuals experiencing emotions such as shame, humiliation, guilt, and anger following morally injurious events.

Newer therapy models like Multi-Modal Motion-Assisted Memory Desensitization and Reconsolidation allow clinicians to use personalized trauma cues to facilitate memory processing, reduce avoidance, and aid in emotional reconsolidation. Clinical research has demonstrated this model’s efficacy in reducing PTSD symptoms, depression, and anxiety, with high acceptability and low dropout rates among military personnel, veterans, and first responders.

Regardless of the treatment, the researchers encourage mental health professionals to approach veterans seeking help with the “utmost sensitivity and attentiveness to any expressions of (moral injury) outcomes.”

During an adenovirus (AdV) outbreak among recruits and staff at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) in San Diego, an investigation revealed that the earlier individuals working at the site received vaccination, the better. The clinical team found that accelerating the vaccination schedule could help prevent further outbreaks, medical separations, and training disruption.

From July 1, 2024, through September 23, 2024, a total of 212 trainees and staff developed AdV and 28 were hospitalized. Nine patients were hospitalized with AdV pneumo­nia within a 2-week period; 3 were admitted to the intensive care unit. Outpatient acute respiratory disease (ARD) cases also increased, with recruits accounting for nearly 97% of the AdV outbreak cases.

AdV is a frequent cause of illness among military recruits. Research has found that up to 80% of cases of febrile ARD in recruits are due to AdV, and 20% result in hospitalization. 

The military developed and implemented a live, oral vaccine against AdV serotypes 4 and 7 (most common in recruits) starting in the 1970s, reducing febrile respiratory illness in recruit training sites by 50% and AdV infection by > 90%. However, the manufacturer halted production of the vaccine in 1995. By 1999, vaccine supply was depleted, and ARD cases rose. A replacement vaccine introduced in 2011 proved 99% effective, leading to a dramatic 100-fold decline in AdV disease among military trainees. 

While the vaccine is effective, outbreaks are still possible among closely congregating groups like military trainees. AdV pneumonia cases spiked as the virus spread through the training companies and into new companies when they arrived at the MCRD in early July 2024. Most new infections were in recruits who had missed the AdV vaccination day.

Early symptoms of AdV may be very mild, and some recruits were likely already symptomatic when vaccinated. Aggressive environmental cleaning, separation of sick and well recruits, masking, and other nonpharmaceutical interventions did not slow the spread.

The preventive medicine and public health teams noted that AdV vaccination was being administered 11 days postarrival, to allow for pregnancy testing, and for assessing vaccine titers. US Department of Defense regula­tions do not dictate precise vaccination schedules. Implementation of the regulation varies among military train­ing sites. 

After reviewing other training sites’ vaccine timing schedules (most required vaccination by day 6 postarrival) and determin­ing the time required for immu­nity, the medical teams at MCRD recommended shifting AdV vac­cine administration, along with other standard vaccines, from day 11 to day 1 postarrival. Two weeks after the schedule change, overall incidence began declining rapidly.

Nearly 75% of patients had coinfections with other respiratory patho­gens, most notably seasonal coronaviruses, COVID-19, and rhinovirus/enterovirus, suggesting that infection with AdV may increase susceptibility to other viruses, a finding that has not been identified in previous AdV out­breaks. Newly increased testing sensitiv­ity associated with multiplex respiratory pathogen PCR availability may have been a factor in coinfection identification during this outbreak.

AdV is a significant medical threat to military recruits. Early vaccination, the investigators advise, should remain “a central tenet for preven­tion and control of communicable diseases in these high-risk, congregate settings.”

During an adenovirus (AdV) outbreak among recruits and staff at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) in San Diego, an investigation revealed that the earlier individuals working at the site received vaccination, the better. The clinical team found that accelerating the vaccination schedule could help prevent further outbreaks, medical separations, and training disruption.

From July 1, 2024, through September 23, 2024, a total of 212 trainees and staff developed AdV and 28 were hospitalized. Nine patients were hospitalized with AdV pneumo­nia within a 2-week period; 3 were admitted to the intensive care unit. Outpatient acute respiratory disease (ARD) cases also increased, with recruits accounting for nearly 97% of the AdV outbreak cases.

AdV is a frequent cause of illness among military recruits. Research has found that up to 80% of cases of febrile ARD in recruits are due to AdV, and 20% result in hospitalization. 

The military developed and implemented a live, oral vaccine against AdV serotypes 4 and 7 (most common in recruits) starting in the 1970s, reducing febrile respiratory illness in recruit training sites by 50% and AdV infection by > 90%. However, the manufacturer halted production of the vaccine in 1995. By 1999, vaccine supply was depleted, and ARD cases rose. A replacement vaccine introduced in 2011 proved 99% effective, leading to a dramatic 100-fold decline in AdV disease among military trainees. 

While the vaccine is effective, outbreaks are still possible among closely congregating groups like military trainees. AdV pneumonia cases spiked as the virus spread through the training companies and into new companies when they arrived at the MCRD in early July 2024. Most new infections were in recruits who had missed the AdV vaccination day.

Early symptoms of AdV may be very mild, and some recruits were likely already symptomatic when vaccinated. Aggressive environmental cleaning, separation of sick and well recruits, masking, and other nonpharmaceutical interventions did not slow the spread.

The preventive medicine and public health teams noted that AdV vaccination was being administered 11 days postarrival, to allow for pregnancy testing, and for assessing vaccine titers. US Department of Defense regula­tions do not dictate precise vaccination schedules. Implementation of the regulation varies among military train­ing sites. 

After reviewing other training sites’ vaccine timing schedules (most required vaccination by day 6 postarrival) and determin­ing the time required for immu­nity, the medical teams at MCRD recommended shifting AdV vac­cine administration, along with other standard vaccines, from day 11 to day 1 postarrival. Two weeks after the schedule change, overall incidence began declining rapidly.

Nearly 75% of patients had coinfections with other respiratory patho­gens, most notably seasonal coronaviruses, COVID-19, and rhinovirus/enterovirus, suggesting that infection with AdV may increase susceptibility to other viruses, a finding that has not been identified in previous AdV out­breaks. Newly increased testing sensitiv­ity associated with multiplex respiratory pathogen PCR availability may have been a factor in coinfection identification during this outbreak.

AdV is a significant medical threat to military recruits. Early vaccination, the investigators advise, should remain “a central tenet for preven­tion and control of communicable diseases in these high-risk, congregate settings.”

During an adenovirus (AdV) outbreak among recruits and staff at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) in San Diego, an investigation revealed that the earlier individuals working at the site received vaccination, the better. The clinical team found that accelerating the vaccination schedule could help prevent further outbreaks, medical separations, and training disruption.

From July 1, 2024, through September 23, 2024, a total of 212 trainees and staff developed AdV and 28 were hospitalized. Nine patients were hospitalized with AdV pneumo­nia within a 2-week period; 3 were admitted to the intensive care unit. Outpatient acute respiratory disease (ARD) cases also increased, with recruits accounting for nearly 97% of the AdV outbreak cases.

AdV is a frequent cause of illness among military recruits. Research has found that up to 80% of cases of febrile ARD in recruits are due to AdV, and 20% result in hospitalization. 

The military developed and implemented a live, oral vaccine against AdV serotypes 4 and 7 (most common in recruits) starting in the 1970s, reducing febrile respiratory illness in recruit training sites by 50% and AdV infection by > 90%. However, the manufacturer halted production of the vaccine in 1995. By 1999, vaccine supply was depleted, and ARD cases rose. A replacement vaccine introduced in 2011 proved 99% effective, leading to a dramatic 100-fold decline in AdV disease among military trainees. 

While the vaccine is effective, outbreaks are still possible among closely congregating groups like military trainees. AdV pneumonia cases spiked as the virus spread through the training companies and into new companies when they arrived at the MCRD in early July 2024. Most new infections were in recruits who had missed the AdV vaccination day.

Early symptoms of AdV may be very mild, and some recruits were likely already symptomatic when vaccinated. Aggressive environmental cleaning, separation of sick and well recruits, masking, and other nonpharmaceutical interventions did not slow the spread.

The preventive medicine and public health teams noted that AdV vaccination was being administered 11 days postarrival, to allow for pregnancy testing, and for assessing vaccine titers. US Department of Defense regula­tions do not dictate precise vaccination schedules. Implementation of the regulation varies among military train­ing sites. 

After reviewing other training sites’ vaccine timing schedules (most required vaccination by day 6 postarrival) and determin­ing the time required for immu­nity, the medical teams at MCRD recommended shifting AdV vac­cine administration, along with other standard vaccines, from day 11 to day 1 postarrival. Two weeks after the schedule change, overall incidence began declining rapidly.

Nearly 75% of patients had coinfections with other respiratory patho­gens, most notably seasonal coronaviruses, COVID-19, and rhinovirus/enterovirus, suggesting that infection with AdV may increase susceptibility to other viruses, a finding that has not been identified in previous AdV out­breaks. Newly increased testing sensitiv­ity associated with multiplex respiratory pathogen PCR availability may have been a factor in coinfection identification during this outbreak.

AdV is a significant medical threat to military recruits. Early vaccination, the investigators advise, should remain “a central tenet for preven­tion and control of communicable diseases in these high-risk, congregate settings.”