Mental Health

TOPLINE:

Among young adults with suicidal ideation, factors associated with the use of crisis text services were female sex, minoritized sexual orientation, engagement with a mental health provider, and prior hospitalizations. Participants who never texted crisis lines faced barriers such as doubts about effectiveness and embarrassment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey study in Oregon from August to December 2023 to identify characteristics linked to the use of crisis text services and barriers to use in young adults aged 18-24 years with suicidal ideation and financial stress.
• Overall, 118 participants were recruited through community partners and social media advertisements; 76% of them identified having a minoritized gender or sexual orientation.
• Participants completed an online survey with 38 closed-ended and two open-ended items, including questions about hospitalizations for suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, mental health provider status, service use, decision-making factors for contacting crisis lines, and barriers preventing the use of the service.
• Differences in demographic and health care characteristics between those who had ever texted crisis lines and those who had never were examined.

TAKEAWAY:

• When asked about disclosing suicidal ideation, participants most frequently told no one (69%), told a friend/boyfriend/girlfriend (64%), and texted/chatted with a crisis line (47%).
• Female sex (P = .019) and having a minoritized sexual orientation (P = .048) were significantly associated with the use of crisis text services, whereas minoritized gender status, race, and urbanicity showed no significant association. Having a mental health provider correlated with the use of crisis text services (P = .010), as did prior hospitalization for suicidal ideation or suicide attempt (P = .003).
• Participants who had ever texted crisis lines (n = 55) most often reported using crisis text services because they had no one else to talk to (78%), felt like a burden to others (71%), and preferred anonymity (65%).
• Among 63 participants who never texted crisis lines, 84% had heard of crisis text services but chose not to use them; key reasons for not texting included believing it would not help (46%), embarrassment (41%), and preferring to solve the problem independently (35%).

IN PRACTICE:

"[The study findings] highlight that unique outreach efforts may be necessary to engage young adults reluctant to seek support," the authors wrote, further suggesting that "local and national lines could benefit from improved conversational quality within CTS [crisis text services], possibly including enhanced training for counselors to increase the personalization of counseling and sensitivity to texters' situations."

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kate LaForge, PhD, MPH, of the Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care at the VA Portland Healthcare System in Portland, Oregon. It was published online on March 13, 2026, in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design did not allow for determining causal relationships between healthcare characteristics and the use of the crisis text service. Relying on self-reported data may have introduced recall bias. The severity of suicidal ideation was not measured, and the sample size was small.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Office of Academic Affiliations and the Office of Research and Development Health Systems Research Service, US Department of Veterans Affairs. Some authors reported being supported by various sources, including the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality, National Institute on Drug Abuse, or Department of Veterans Affairs Health Systems Research, and one of them reported being a paid consultant for Google Health. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among young adults with suicidal ideation, factors associated with the use of crisis text services were female sex, minoritized sexual orientation, engagement with a mental health provider, and prior hospitalizations. Participants who never texted crisis lines faced barriers such as doubts about effectiveness and embarrassment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey study in Oregon from August to December 2023 to identify characteristics linked to the use of crisis text services and barriers to use in young adults aged 18-24 years with suicidal ideation and financial stress.
• Overall, 118 participants were recruited through community partners and social media advertisements; 76% of them identified having a minoritized gender or sexual orientation.
• Participants completed an online survey with 38 closed-ended and two open-ended items, including questions about hospitalizations for suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, mental health provider status, service use, decision-making factors for contacting crisis lines, and barriers preventing the use of the service.
• Differences in demographic and health care characteristics between those who had ever texted crisis lines and those who had never were examined.

TAKEAWAY:

• When asked about disclosing suicidal ideation, participants most frequently told no one (69%), told a friend/boyfriend/girlfriend (64%), and texted/chatted with a crisis line (47%).
• Female sex (P = .019) and having a minoritized sexual orientation (P = .048) were significantly associated with the use of crisis text services, whereas minoritized gender status, race, and urbanicity showed no significant association. Having a mental health provider correlated with the use of crisis text services (P = .010), as did prior hospitalization for suicidal ideation or suicide attempt (P = .003).
• Participants who had ever texted crisis lines (n = 55) most often reported using crisis text services because they had no one else to talk to (78%), felt like a burden to others (71%), and preferred anonymity (65%).
• Among 63 participants who never texted crisis lines, 84% had heard of crisis text services but chose not to use them; key reasons for not texting included believing it would not help (46%), embarrassment (41%), and preferring to solve the problem independently (35%).

IN PRACTICE:

"[The study findings] highlight that unique outreach efforts may be necessary to engage young adults reluctant to seek support," the authors wrote, further suggesting that "local and national lines could benefit from improved conversational quality within CTS [crisis text services], possibly including enhanced training for counselors to increase the personalization of counseling and sensitivity to texters' situations."

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kate LaForge, PhD, MPH, of the Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care at the VA Portland Healthcare System in Portland, Oregon. It was published online on March 13, 2026, in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design did not allow for determining causal relationships between healthcare characteristics and the use of the crisis text service. Relying on self-reported data may have introduced recall bias. The severity of suicidal ideation was not measured, and the sample size was small.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Office of Academic Affiliations and the Office of Research and Development Health Systems Research Service, US Department of Veterans Affairs. Some authors reported being supported by various sources, including the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality, National Institute on Drug Abuse, or Department of Veterans Affairs Health Systems Research, and one of them reported being a paid consultant for Google Health. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among young adults with suicidal ideation, factors associated with the use of crisis text services were female sex, minoritized sexual orientation, engagement with a mental health provider, and prior hospitalizations. Participants who never texted crisis lines faced barriers such as doubts about effectiveness and embarrassment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey study in Oregon from August to December 2023 to identify characteristics linked to the use of crisis text services and barriers to use in young adults aged 18-24 years with suicidal ideation and financial stress.
• Overall, 118 participants were recruited through community partners and social media advertisements; 76% of them identified having a minoritized gender or sexual orientation.
• Participants completed an online survey with 38 closed-ended and two open-ended items, including questions about hospitalizations for suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, mental health provider status, service use, decision-making factors for contacting crisis lines, and barriers preventing the use of the service.
• Differences in demographic and health care characteristics between those who had ever texted crisis lines and those who had never were examined.

TAKEAWAY:

• When asked about disclosing suicidal ideation, participants most frequently told no one (69%), told a friend/boyfriend/girlfriend (64%), and texted/chatted with a crisis line (47%).
• Female sex (P = .019) and having a minoritized sexual orientation (P = .048) were significantly associated with the use of crisis text services, whereas minoritized gender status, race, and urbanicity showed no significant association. Having a mental health provider correlated with the use of crisis text services (P = .010), as did prior hospitalization for suicidal ideation or suicide attempt (P = .003).
• Participants who had ever texted crisis lines (n = 55) most often reported using crisis text services because they had no one else to talk to (78%), felt like a burden to others (71%), and preferred anonymity (65%).
• Among 63 participants who never texted crisis lines, 84% had heard of crisis text services but chose not to use them; key reasons for not texting included believing it would not help (46%), embarrassment (41%), and preferring to solve the problem independently (35%).

IN PRACTICE:

"[The study findings] highlight that unique outreach efforts may be necessary to engage young adults reluctant to seek support," the authors wrote, further suggesting that "local and national lines could benefit from improved conversational quality within CTS [crisis text services], possibly including enhanced training for counselors to increase the personalization of counseling and sensitivity to texters' situations."

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kate LaForge, PhD, MPH, of the Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care at the VA Portland Healthcare System in Portland, Oregon. It was published online on March 13, 2026, in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design did not allow for determining causal relationships between healthcare characteristics and the use of the crisis text service. Relying on self-reported data may have introduced recall bias. The severity of suicidal ideation was not measured, and the sample size was small.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Office of Academic Affiliations and the Office of Research and Development Health Systems Research Service, US Department of Veterans Affairs. Some authors reported being supported by various sources, including the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality, National Institute on Drug Abuse, or Department of Veterans Affairs Health Systems Research, and one of them reported being a paid consultant for Google Health. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

At the 24th edition of the L’Encéphale Congress, a psychiatry conference held in Paris, France, speakers discussed how the growing use of drones has become a defining feature of modern warfare and how these technologies may affect the mental health of both combatants and civilian populations. The topic was addressed during a session on war psychiatry.

The growing integration of drones into military operations is transforming the conduct of modern warfare and raising new concerns about the mental health effects on soldiers and civilian populations.

“In the age of drones, a new era of warfare has begun,” said Marie Dominique Colas, MD, a psychiatrist, and general practitioner at Military Teaching Hospital Sainte Anne in Toulon, France, speaking during a session on war.

The conflict following the Russian invasion of Ukraine illustrates this change. Drones are now widely used across multiple tactical levels for reconnaissance, surveillance, and attacks. According to Colas, this is the first high-intensity conflict in which these systems have been deployed on a large scale, primarily to destroy targets and cause casualties, rather than to eliminate specific identified individuals, which had been more typical in earlier operations in the Sahel or Afghanistan.

Combat Experience

The characteristics of drones, particularly their observation capabilities and ease of operation, have been gamechangers on the battlefield.

“The widespread use of drones has changed the subjective experience of combat,” said Emeric Saguin, MD, a psychiatrist in the Department of Psychiatry at the Begin Military Teaching Hospital, Saint-Mandé, France.

These miniaturized, stealthy, and often undetectable weapons have made battlefields increasingly transparent. “In Ukraine, enemy observation is almost constant for several kilometers behind the front line, creating a persistent sense of vulnerability and limiting medical care to basic first aid provided by fellow soldiers,” said Saguin.

The nature of these attacks has changed. “Gunshot wounds have become almost anecdotal. In Ukraine, more than 90% of attacks are caused by artillery and drones,” he added. Therefore, mental health specialists are increasingly examining how the constant threat posed by these weapons may affect psychological functioning, both individually and within groups.

Psychological Effects

Beyond their destructive capacity, drones are estimated to account for approximately 50% of casualties, and they can affect the morale of both opposing forces and civilian populations. Therefore, these precision weapons act as powerful tools for psychological attrition.

Clinically, “what predominates is not so much the traumatic impact of an isolated event as the repetition of exposures and the lack of recovery, leading to cumulative fatigue,” Saguin said. In his view, the clinical patterns observed are “less the result of a single shock than of a process of cumulative erosion.”

A key question raised by specialists is whether the widespread use of drones could lead to new clinical forms of war-related psychological disorders among drone operators.

Although drone operators remain physically distant from combat zones, they are not immune to the psychological effects of warfare. “Nearly half of drone operators show signs of psychological distress, primarily anxiety, which can affect both professional functioning and family life,” said Cécile Gorin, a senior psychiatrist at the Hôpital d’Instruction des Armées Sainte-Anne in Toulon, France. Greater vulnerability to emotional disengagement, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and burnout among drone operators has been linked to specific working conditions, including prolonged periods of intense vigilance, repeated exposure to detailed combat footage, and direct involvement in lethal decision-making.

“Exposure to images of destruction, particularly when civilians are affected by bombings, is a major risk factor for developing PTSD among these operators,” Gorin stated. A study analyzing drone operators found that 45.7% presented at least one psychological symptom, such as alcohol consumption, sleep disturbances, or anxiety. PTSD was identified with 2.9% of participants. However, according to the available literature, the prevalence of PTSD among drone operators may range from 5% to 10%, lower than among combatants deployed on the ground, where rates can reach up to 35%, Gorin noted.

The repeated and large-scale use of drones, including swarms and single-use devices, affects both civilians and combatants. This persistent threat can disrupt daily life and economic activity while creating a climate of constant uncertainty.

“The permanent, diffuse, and inescapable threat alters temporal and spatial reference points and fosters isolation,” Gorin explained. Prolonged exposure to such conditions can contribute to collective trauma, characterized by generalized anxiety, depressive episodes, erosion of social ties, and declining trust in institutions responsible for maintaining security.

Civilian populations living under continuous drone surveillance may also change their behavior patterns. Studies conducted among Afghan populations during wartime have described a phenomenon of self-objectification linked to constant surveillance and unpredictable strikes. In the context of chronic psychological insecurity, civilians gradually modified their behavior, particularly in social settings, avoiding gatherings, and adjusting daily activities to reduce the risk of being perceived as a threat.

Although the available data remain limited, similar patterns have emerged in Ukraine. A recent study on parents of Ukrainian children exposed to war conditions reported increased anxiety in 35% of respondents and sadness in 25%, along with behavioral problems and attention difficulties in approximately 25% of children.

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

At the 24th edition of the L’Encéphale Congress, a psychiatry conference held in Paris, France, speakers discussed how the growing use of drones has become a defining feature of modern warfare and how these technologies may affect the mental health of both combatants and civilian populations. The topic was addressed during a session on war psychiatry.

The growing integration of drones into military operations is transforming the conduct of modern warfare and raising new concerns about the mental health effects on soldiers and civilian populations.

“In the age of drones, a new era of warfare has begun,” said Marie Dominique Colas, MD, a psychiatrist, and general practitioner at Military Teaching Hospital Sainte Anne in Toulon, France, speaking during a session on war.

The conflict following the Russian invasion of Ukraine illustrates this change. Drones are now widely used across multiple tactical levels for reconnaissance, surveillance, and attacks. According to Colas, this is the first high-intensity conflict in which these systems have been deployed on a large scale, primarily to destroy targets and cause casualties, rather than to eliminate specific identified individuals, which had been more typical in earlier operations in the Sahel or Afghanistan.

Combat Experience

The characteristics of drones, particularly their observation capabilities and ease of operation, have been gamechangers on the battlefield.

“The widespread use of drones has changed the subjective experience of combat,” said Emeric Saguin, MD, a psychiatrist in the Department of Psychiatry at the Begin Military Teaching Hospital, Saint-Mandé, France.

These miniaturized, stealthy, and often undetectable weapons have made battlefields increasingly transparent. “In Ukraine, enemy observation is almost constant for several kilometers behind the front line, creating a persistent sense of vulnerability and limiting medical care to basic first aid provided by fellow soldiers,” said Saguin.

The nature of these attacks has changed. “Gunshot wounds have become almost anecdotal. In Ukraine, more than 90% of attacks are caused by artillery and drones,” he added. Therefore, mental health specialists are increasingly examining how the constant threat posed by these weapons may affect psychological functioning, both individually and within groups.

Psychological Effects

Beyond their destructive capacity, drones are estimated to account for approximately 50% of casualties, and they can affect the morale of both opposing forces and civilian populations. Therefore, these precision weapons act as powerful tools for psychological attrition.

Clinically, “what predominates is not so much the traumatic impact of an isolated event as the repetition of exposures and the lack of recovery, leading to cumulative fatigue,” Saguin said. In his view, the clinical patterns observed are “less the result of a single shock than of a process of cumulative erosion.”

A key question raised by specialists is whether the widespread use of drones could lead to new clinical forms of war-related psychological disorders among drone operators.

Although drone operators remain physically distant from combat zones, they are not immune to the psychological effects of warfare. “Nearly half of drone operators show signs of psychological distress, primarily anxiety, which can affect both professional functioning and family life,” said Cécile Gorin, a senior psychiatrist at the Hôpital d’Instruction des Armées Sainte-Anne in Toulon, France. Greater vulnerability to emotional disengagement, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and burnout among drone operators has been linked to specific working conditions, including prolonged periods of intense vigilance, repeated exposure to detailed combat footage, and direct involvement in lethal decision-making.

“Exposure to images of destruction, particularly when civilians are affected by bombings, is a major risk factor for developing PTSD among these operators,” Gorin stated. A study analyzing drone operators found that 45.7% presented at least one psychological symptom, such as alcohol consumption, sleep disturbances, or anxiety. PTSD was identified with 2.9% of participants. However, according to the available literature, the prevalence of PTSD among drone operators may range from 5% to 10%, lower than among combatants deployed on the ground, where rates can reach up to 35%, Gorin noted.

The repeated and large-scale use of drones, including swarms and single-use devices, affects both civilians and combatants. This persistent threat can disrupt daily life and economic activity while creating a climate of constant uncertainty.

“The permanent, diffuse, and inescapable threat alters temporal and spatial reference points and fosters isolation,” Gorin explained. Prolonged exposure to such conditions can contribute to collective trauma, characterized by generalized anxiety, depressive episodes, erosion of social ties, and declining trust in institutions responsible for maintaining security.

Civilian populations living under continuous drone surveillance may also change their behavior patterns. Studies conducted among Afghan populations during wartime have described a phenomenon of self-objectification linked to constant surveillance and unpredictable strikes. In the context of chronic psychological insecurity, civilians gradually modified their behavior, particularly in social settings, avoiding gatherings, and adjusting daily activities to reduce the risk of being perceived as a threat.

Although the available data remain limited, similar patterns have emerged in Ukraine. A recent study on parents of Ukrainian children exposed to war conditions reported increased anxiety in 35% of respondents and sadness in 25%, along with behavioral problems and attention difficulties in approximately 25% of children.

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

At the 24th edition of the L’Encéphale Congress, a psychiatry conference held in Paris, France, speakers discussed how the growing use of drones has become a defining feature of modern warfare and how these technologies may affect the mental health of both combatants and civilian populations. The topic was addressed during a session on war psychiatry.

The growing integration of drones into military operations is transforming the conduct of modern warfare and raising new concerns about the mental health effects on soldiers and civilian populations.

“In the age of drones, a new era of warfare has begun,” said Marie Dominique Colas, MD, a psychiatrist, and general practitioner at Military Teaching Hospital Sainte Anne in Toulon, France, speaking during a session on war.

The conflict following the Russian invasion of Ukraine illustrates this change. Drones are now widely used across multiple tactical levels for reconnaissance, surveillance, and attacks. According to Colas, this is the first high-intensity conflict in which these systems have been deployed on a large scale, primarily to destroy targets and cause casualties, rather than to eliminate specific identified individuals, which had been more typical in earlier operations in the Sahel or Afghanistan.

Combat Experience

The characteristics of drones, particularly their observation capabilities and ease of operation, have been gamechangers on the battlefield.

“The widespread use of drones has changed the subjective experience of combat,” said Emeric Saguin, MD, a psychiatrist in the Department of Psychiatry at the Begin Military Teaching Hospital, Saint-Mandé, France.

These miniaturized, stealthy, and often undetectable weapons have made battlefields increasingly transparent. “In Ukraine, enemy observation is almost constant for several kilometers behind the front line, creating a persistent sense of vulnerability and limiting medical care to basic first aid provided by fellow soldiers,” said Saguin.

The nature of these attacks has changed. “Gunshot wounds have become almost anecdotal. In Ukraine, more than 90% of attacks are caused by artillery and drones,” he added. Therefore, mental health specialists are increasingly examining how the constant threat posed by these weapons may affect psychological functioning, both individually and within groups.

Psychological Effects

Beyond their destructive capacity, drones are estimated to account for approximately 50% of casualties, and they can affect the morale of both opposing forces and civilian populations. Therefore, these precision weapons act as powerful tools for psychological attrition.

Clinically, “what predominates is not so much the traumatic impact of an isolated event as the repetition of exposures and the lack of recovery, leading to cumulative fatigue,” Saguin said. In his view, the clinical patterns observed are “less the result of a single shock than of a process of cumulative erosion.”

A key question raised by specialists is whether the widespread use of drones could lead to new clinical forms of war-related psychological disorders among drone operators.

Although drone operators remain physically distant from combat zones, they are not immune to the psychological effects of warfare. “Nearly half of drone operators show signs of psychological distress, primarily anxiety, which can affect both professional functioning and family life,” said Cécile Gorin, a senior psychiatrist at the Hôpital d’Instruction des Armées Sainte-Anne in Toulon, France. Greater vulnerability to emotional disengagement, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and burnout among drone operators has been linked to specific working conditions, including prolonged periods of intense vigilance, repeated exposure to detailed combat footage, and direct involvement in lethal decision-making.

“Exposure to images of destruction, particularly when civilians are affected by bombings, is a major risk factor for developing PTSD among these operators,” Gorin stated. A study analyzing drone operators found that 45.7% presented at least one psychological symptom, such as alcohol consumption, sleep disturbances, or anxiety. PTSD was identified with 2.9% of participants. However, according to the available literature, the prevalence of PTSD among drone operators may range from 5% to 10%, lower than among combatants deployed on the ground, where rates can reach up to 35%, Gorin noted.

The repeated and large-scale use of drones, including swarms and single-use devices, affects both civilians and combatants. This persistent threat can disrupt daily life and economic activity while creating a climate of constant uncertainty.

“The permanent, diffuse, and inescapable threat alters temporal and spatial reference points and fosters isolation,” Gorin explained. Prolonged exposure to such conditions can contribute to collective trauma, characterized by generalized anxiety, depressive episodes, erosion of social ties, and declining trust in institutions responsible for maintaining security.

Civilian populations living under continuous drone surveillance may also change their behavior patterns. Studies conducted among Afghan populations during wartime have described a phenomenon of self-objectification linked to constant surveillance and unpredictable strikes. In the context of chronic psychological insecurity, civilians gradually modified their behavior, particularly in social settings, avoiding gatherings, and adjusting daily activities to reduce the risk of being perceived as a threat.

Although the available data remain limited, similar patterns have emerged in Ukraine. A recent study on parents of Ukrainian children exposed to war conditions reported increased anxiety in 35% of respondents and sadness in 25%, along with behavioral problems and attention difficulties in approximately 25% of children.

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Public Health and Welfare Act of 1988 prohibited the use of federal funds to “provide individuals with hypodermic needles or syringes so that such individuals may use illegal drugs.”¹ Although the Act included the caveat that the US Surgeon General may determine that “a demonstration needle exchange program would be effective in reducing drug abuse,” and thus federal funds could be used, the legislation prohibited federal, state, and local agencies from funding syringe services programs (SSPs). SSPs use various harm reduction tools to improve public safety and reduce the potential harmful consequences of risky behaviors, similar to how using a seat belt while driving reduces the risk of injury or death.² SSPs are rooted in evidence-based practices, and several studies, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have found that people who use drugs (PWUDs) who use community-based SSPs are 5 times more likely to enter treatment than those who do not use these programs. Additionally, these programs have shown an estimated 50% reduction in HIV and hepatitis C infections.³

Amid a 2015 HIV outbreak in Indiana among individuals sharing needles for injection drug use, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill that partially lifted the federal funding restriction. Federal funds now may be used for operational costs that support SSPs but may not be used to purchase syringes themselves.⁴

Following the 2015 legislation, federal agencies began implementing SSPs. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) established SSPs at 3 medical centers in 2017.⁵ Veterans who participated in the programs were able to access supplies (eg, syringes, fentanyl test strips, wound care kits, and condoms) through donations to US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs). The success of these programs laid the foundation for the VHA to implement SSPs nationally. VHA SSPs provided access to naloxone (an opioid overdose reversal medication), fentanyl test strips, condoms, sterile syringe distribution, testing for blood-borne viruses, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, as well as educational materials and resources, and low-barrier access to drug treatment (eg, medications for opioid use disorder [OUD]).

In 2020, the Biden Administration outlined 7 drug policy priorities, which included enhancing evidence-based harm reduction efforts. ⁶ This policy also discussed mandates for federal agencies to remove barriers to federal funding for purchasing syringes and other harm reduction supplies. The VHA responded to the policy by publishing guidance that recommended VAMCs develop and/or ensure veterans have access to harm reduction services in the community, where state law is not legally more stringent.⁷

In 2025 the Trump administration Statement of Drug Policy Priorities encouraged local jurisdictions to increase the availability of drug test strips and naloxone.⁸ These significant policy shifts moved SSPs from being housed mostly in local public health departments and community-based organizations to also being available at health care facilities. ⁹ VAMCs have unique opportunities to provide universal health care that includes both prevention services and other medical management to PWUD.

One study assessed staff perceptions of PWUD at a VAMC in preparation for a training program about harm reduction. The results indicated an overall positive staff perception of PWUD, although only the Drug and Drug Problems Perceptions Questionnaire (DDPPQ) was administered, which assessed comfort of working with this population and not explicitly the use of harm reduction.¹⁰ Another study interviewed clinical pharmacists, primary care clinicians, social workers, and directors of addiction and mental health services to determine barriers and facilitators (ie, potential opportunities to promote change) to implementing harm reduction at the VHA. The study identified barriers to be a lack of knowledge, time, and comfort, while suggesting opportunities for improvement were engagement of champions, communication and educational strategies, and adaptation of existing infrastructure.¹¹

While these findings are insightful for the VHA to disseminate a harm reduction program, there remains a gap in assessing staff willingness to provide harm reduction services. Evidence on harm reduction services among veterans is limited and more research is needed to better understand the role of these services and acceptance among enrolled veterans and VHA staff. Specifically, more research is needed on health care practitioners’ (HCPs) perceptions of harm reduction use.

Mental health care practitioners frequently treat patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), making them an ideal initial cohort to assess willingness to provide harm reduction to this population. By analyzing mental HCPs’ perceptions, additional interventions could be identified, implemented, and evaluated to improve their willingness to provide harm reduction tools.

This project focused on mental health clinicians with prescribing privileges: physicians (allopathic and osteopathic physicians), nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and clinical pharmacist practitioners. Mental health prescribers were selected because they are uniquely positioned at the intersection of prevention and treatment in drug use. Furthermore, mental health prescribers at the VAMCs included in this study are usually the primary point of entry to SUD clinics. This mixed-methods study used an anonymous online survey and voluntary postsurvey discussions with mental health care prescribers to elaborate on their beliefs and attitudes, providing deeper insight into their responses regarding harm reduction.

Methods

This project was conducted by the Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) 5 academic detailing team. VISN 5 serves veterans from economically and demographically diverse areas in Maryland; Washington, DC; West Virginia; and portions of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky. VAMCs in Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC, serve a largely urban population while the 4 West Virginia facilities in Martinsburg, Huntington, Beckley, and Clarksburg, serve a largely rural population. West Virginia has been the epicenter of the opioid crisis and consistently has the highest drug overdose deaths per capita in the United States.¹² Among cities, Baltimore, Maryland, has the highest number of drug overdose deaths per capita with 174.1 per 100,000 people.^12,13

At the time of this project, the 6 VISN 5 VAMCs had established overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) programs. Although OEND programs have existed since 2013, VISN 5 SSPs and harm reduction services that provided fentanyl test strips were only available at the Martinsburg, Beckley, and Huntington VAMCs. All 6 VAMCs had substance use treatment programs with a variety of inpatient and outpatient mental health services. The Washington, DC and Baltimore VAMCs had opioid treatment programs that provided methadone maintenance.

The VISN 5 academic detailing team consists of 7 clinical pharmacists. These academic detailers plan annual systematic interventions to provide medical knowledge translation services on health-related campaigns. Academic detailers are trained in change management and motivational interviewing. They uniquely facilitate conversations with HCPs on various topics or campaigns, aiming for quality improvement and behavioral change through positive relationships and sharing resources.¹⁴ Academic detailing conversations and relationships with HCPs involve assessing and understanding HCP behaviors, including barriers and readiness to change to align with the goal of improving patient outcomes. Academic detailing has improved practice behaviors around providing OEND in VHA.¹⁵

To prepare for a harm reduction campaign, the academic detailers sought to gain insight from target VISN 5 mental health prescribers. Figure 1 outlines the project timeline, which started with emails inviting mental health prescribers to complete an anonymous online survey. Academic detailers from each site emailed mental health prescribers who completed the survey to determine interest in expanding on survey findings. Mental health prescribers who completed the survey could participate in a postsurvey discussion.

Surveys

Between January 29, 2024, and February 22, 2024, the academic detailers emailed facility mental health prescribers (N = 156) a link to an anonymous 15-question survey. The email informed recipients of the survey’s purpose: to gain a better understanding of prescriber perceptions of veterans with SUD and harm reduction programs and their willingness to provide harm reduction tools, to better determine interventions that could be implemented.

The survey collected prescriber demographic data and their perceptions of PWUD and harm reduction tools and education. Survey questions were extrapolated from validated surveys (eg, DDPPQ) and survey-based implicit association test.^16,17 The survey used multiple choice and 5-point Likert scale questions. Mental health prescribers were asked about their role at the VHA, years in practice, medical center affiliation, type of SUDs treated (eg, opioid, stimulant, alcohol, cannabis, or other), and whether they had previously met with academic detailers about harm reduction.

Respondents read statements about patients with or without SUD and provided Likert scale responses describing their regard, level of comfort, and preferences. The survey included Likert scale questions about respondents’ comfort in providing harm reduction education and supplies. Respondents also noted whether they believed harm reduction reduced substance use, harm reduction tools encourage people with SUD to continue using drugs, and whether HCPs can impact clinical change.

Postsurvey interviews with predetermined questions were conducted in-person or via video conference with ≥ 1 prescriber at each VAMC by an academic detailer. The postsurvey discussion offered an opportunity for respondents to further elaborate and describe previous experiences and current beliefs that may affect their attitudes toward people with SUD and their views on harm reduction. Participants received no compensation for survey completion or interviews.

Analysis

The Washington VAMC Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved this project as quality improvement with potential publication. No inferential statistics were calculated. Survey participant demographics were reported using frequencies and proportions reported for categorical variables. Notes from follow-up interviews were analyzed using the Prosci Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement (ADKAR) Model for Change Management.¹⁸ This framework is used by academic detailers to determine a prescriber’s stage of change, which helps select the appropriate resources to move the clinician along a change framework. Completed postsurvey interview sheets, including notes written by the academic detailer, were analyzed by the project lead (NJ) who reviewed each interview sheet and analysis with the academic detailer who led the discussion.

Results

Sixty-six respondents completed the online survey (42% response rate), and 7 mental health prescribers participated in a postsurvey discussion. Thirty-one participants (47%) were physicians and 17 (26%) were in practice for > 20 years. Response rates reflected the size of mental health staff at each VAMC at the time of the survey: 17 respondents (26%) worked at each of the Martinsburg and Baltimore VAMCs, with fewer at the other VAMCs (Table 1). Alcohol use disorder was the most commonly reported SUD treated (n = 62; 33%), followed by cannabis use disorder (n = 40; 21%), OUD (n = 38; 20%), and stimulant use disorder (n = 37; 20%).

Respondents felt comfortable and confident educating patients on ways to reduce harm related to substance use (91%; mean [SD], 4.24 [0.84]). Most prescribers surveyed (97%; mean [SD], 1.59 [0.68]) disagreed or strongly disagreed that harm reduction encourages patients with SUD to continue using drugs, and all prescribers surveyed disagreed that there is nothing they can do to encourage harm reduction. Survey results were mixed for personal comfort in working with people with SUD vs people without SUD (Figure 2). Respondents were most willing to provide naloxone (95%; mean [SD], 4.71 [0.78]), compared to fentanyl test strips (61%; mean [SD], 3.61 [1.41]) or syringes (39%; mean [SD], 3.18 [1.39]). Respondents were neutral or least willing to provide syringes (Figure 3).

Seven postsurvey interviews were completed between academic detailers and mental health clinicians across the 6 VAMCs. Respondents included 1 physician assistant, 1 nurse practitioner, 1 pharmacist, and 4 physicians. Notes were analyzed using the ADKAR Change Competency Model to organize clinician stages of change (Table 2).

Barriers identified by interviewees included lack of mobile services, lack of confidence and awareness of the availability of harm reduction at their respective medical center, lack of time to discuss harm reduction, negative sentiments toward providing SUD-related harm reduction, discomfort with harm reduction products, and lack of knowledge and time to learn about harm reduction services. Opportunities identified to drive change in practice included additional time allotted during patient appointments, educational discussions and presentations to increase knowledge of and comfort with harm reduction tools, a clear clinical patient care workflow and process for harm reduction services, and reinforcement strategies to recognize success.

Discussion

This project investigated mental health prescribers’ perceptions of harm reduction at VAMCs in West Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, DC. While previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of harm reduction tools, there is a lack of research on HCPs willingness to use these resources. This study suggests that while most respondents feel confident in and see the value of offering harm reduction resources to patients, a disparity exists between which resources HCPs are more likely to use and factors that would further enhance their ability to integrate harm reduction into practice. The follow-up interviews provided additional insight into the survey results.

Most respondents met the awareness and desire stage and moved to the knowledge, ability, or reinforcement ADKAR stage. It would be reasonable to extrapolate that most of the respondents felt comfortable with and were very likely to offer certain harm reduction tools. In the ADKAR interview analysis, the most common factors needed to drive change included having more time during patient appointments, additional education, clear processes for harm reduction services, and reinforcement strategies to sustain change. Respondents noted that harm reduction discussions took extra time in their already limited appointments with patients, which may have limited time for discussions surrounding all other mental health concerns. These discussions often necessitate in-depth conversations to accurately understand the patients’ needs. Given HCP time constraints, they may view harm reduction as lower in urgency and priority relative to other concerns. While most respondents were in the reinforcement phase, it is important to note the ADKAR model is fluid, and therefore an HCP could move forward or backward. This movement can be noted in the postsurvey interviews where, for example, prescriber 6 was determined to be in the reinforcement stage since they had already discussed harm reduction with patients. However, prescriber 6 also noted a barrier of unfamiliarity with local laws, which could shift them to the ADKAR knowledge stage.

Respondents noted that education through didactic sessions could lead to better incorporation of harm reduction into patient care. While harm reduction has evidence supporting its effectiveness, the respondents noted willingness to discuss harm reduction when treatment fails or the patient refuses treatment or referrals. Respondents expressed mixed opinions on use of harm reduction tools among patients with SUDs as some prescribers viewed harm reduction as part of a treatment plan and others viewed a return to drug use as a failure of treatment. Furthermore, respondents expressed hesitancy surrounding certain harm reduction tools, such as fentanyl test strips or syringes, and perceived these supplies as intended for medical use rather than harm reduction. HCPs may feel uncomfortable offering these supplies for drug use, despite their use for reducing risk.

Most responses were received from VAMCs with large mental health substance use programs. Respondents at larger, urban facilities (Washington, DC, and Baltimore, Maryland) expressed more hesitancy around using harm reduction tools despite having more harm reduction resources available compared to smaller or rural sites. These results align with previous studies that found no difference in prescribers providing medications for OUD in rural and urban VAMCs, showing urban sites, despite more resources, are not more willing to provide harm reduction or other addiction services.¹⁹ This evidence might indicate that urban sites may not use available resources (eg, methadone clinics) or that rural sites can provide just as robust medications for OUD care as urban sites.

Follow-up interview analysis indicated that HCPs lack knowledge of certain harm reduction tools. One-on-one peer discussions, like academic detailing, can facilitate discussions around a prescriber’s role in harm reduction, address gaps in knowledge by sharing what is available at the facilities for harm reduction, and suggest conversation points to help prescribers start harm reduction discussions with patients unwilling to begin treatment. Additionally, academic detailing can connect prescribers to available resources in the community to provide pragmatic approaches and suggestions. A clear and consistent treatment process may reduce barriers by reassuring prescribers they have support and by providing consistent directions so that prescribers do not waste time.

Reinforcement is important for sustaining change. VAMCs could consider positive feedback and other evidence-based reinforcement strategies (eg, social recognition, continuing education) to communicate that these changes are noticed and appreciated.²⁰ Late adopters may also be influenced by seeing positive feedback and results for peers. Systematic changes can be the catalyst for and sustain individual change.

Shifting perceptions and adopting change may be challenging, especially for SUD, which can be highly stigmatized. Promotion of successful change should be multifaceted and include both system and individual approaches. VHA systemic changes that could contribute to positive change include provision of time and access to SUD treatment training, a clear and sustainable treatment process, and reinforcement by recognizing success. In addition, facility leadership could provide support through dedicated time and resources during the workday for SUD treatment and harm reduction training. Support could empower HCPs and convey leadership support for harm reduction. This dedicated time could be used for didactic lecture sessions or individual meetings with academic detailers who can tailor discussions to the prescriber’s practice.

Strengths and Limitations

This survey included prescribers from a range of mental health care practice settings (eg, inpatient, outpatient clinic, rural, urban) and varied years of experience. This variety resulted in diverse perspectives and knowledge bases. Postsurvey interviews allowed academic detailers to gain deeper insight into answers in the survey, which can guide future interventions. Postsurvey interviews and application of the ADKAR model provided additional viewpoints on harm reduction.

A limitation of this project is the absence of an assessment of respondents’ harm reduction knowledge accuracy. Although respondents reported confidence in discussing harm reduction with patients, the survey did not assess whether their knowledge was accurate. Additionally, the survey did not ask about the availability of syringes and test strips at the prescribers’ VAMC, which could explain discrepancies in responses between naloxone and other forms of harm reduction (drug test strips and syringes were not available to all HCPs in the VISN). This lack of availability may have skewed responses. West Virginia SSPs, for example, were closed following legislative changes, which may contribute to stigma.²¹

Not all respondents were asked to do a follow-up interview, which limited the perspectives included in this study. Each site had ≥ 1 follow-up interview to limit the academic detailer’s workload. The initial survey included the phrase clean syringe, which can be stigmatizing and insinuate that PWUD are not clean. The preferred term would have been sterile syringe.²²

Conclusions

This survey of mental health prescribers found that most respondents are comfortable treating patients with SUD and confident in educating patients on harm reduction. Additionally, most respondents were more willing to provide naloxone vs fentanyl test strips or sterile syringes. A lack of time and awareness was the most frequently cited barrier to harm reduction services. As the VHA continues to expand access to harm reduction programs, which have proven to increase treatment rates and reduce disease, it will be imperative for HCPs, including mental health prescribers, to recognize the benefit of these programs for veterans with SUD. Future interventions should be designed and evaluated in collaboration with all HCPs and patients. This project determined ways to promote change for prescribers, but it will be important for further research to continue those conversations and incorporate patient perspectives.

The Public Health and Welfare Act of 1988 prohibited the use of federal funds to “provide individuals with hypodermic needles or syringes so that such individuals may use illegal drugs.”¹ Although the Act included the caveat that the US Surgeon General may determine that “a demonstration needle exchange program would be effective in reducing drug abuse,” and thus federal funds could be used, the legislation prohibited federal, state, and local agencies from funding syringe services programs (SSPs). SSPs use various harm reduction tools to improve public safety and reduce the potential harmful consequences of risky behaviors, similar to how using a seat belt while driving reduces the risk of injury or death.² SSPs are rooted in evidence-based practices, and several studies, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have found that people who use drugs (PWUDs) who use community-based SSPs are 5 times more likely to enter treatment than those who do not use these programs. Additionally, these programs have shown an estimated 50% reduction in HIV and hepatitis C infections.³

Amid a 2015 HIV outbreak in Indiana among individuals sharing needles for injection drug use, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill that partially lifted the federal funding restriction. Federal funds now may be used for operational costs that support SSPs but may not be used to purchase syringes themselves.⁴

Following the 2015 legislation, federal agencies began implementing SSPs. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) established SSPs at 3 medical centers in 2017.⁵ Veterans who participated in the programs were able to access supplies (eg, syringes, fentanyl test strips, wound care kits, and condoms) through donations to US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs). The success of these programs laid the foundation for the VHA to implement SSPs nationally. VHA SSPs provided access to naloxone (an opioid overdose reversal medication), fentanyl test strips, condoms, sterile syringe distribution, testing for blood-borne viruses, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, as well as educational materials and resources, and low-barrier access to drug treatment (eg, medications for opioid use disorder [OUD]).

In 2020, the Biden Administration outlined 7 drug policy priorities, which included enhancing evidence-based harm reduction efforts. ⁶ This policy also discussed mandates for federal agencies to remove barriers to federal funding for purchasing syringes and other harm reduction supplies. The VHA responded to the policy by publishing guidance that recommended VAMCs develop and/or ensure veterans have access to harm reduction services in the community, where state law is not legally more stringent.⁷

In 2025 the Trump administration Statement of Drug Policy Priorities encouraged local jurisdictions to increase the availability of drug test strips and naloxone.⁸ These significant policy shifts moved SSPs from being housed mostly in local public health departments and community-based organizations to also being available at health care facilities. ⁹ VAMCs have unique opportunities to provide universal health care that includes both prevention services and other medical management to PWUD.

One study assessed staff perceptions of PWUD at a VAMC in preparation for a training program about harm reduction. The results indicated an overall positive staff perception of PWUD, although only the Drug and Drug Problems Perceptions Questionnaire (DDPPQ) was administered, which assessed comfort of working with this population and not explicitly the use of harm reduction.¹⁰ Another study interviewed clinical pharmacists, primary care clinicians, social workers, and directors of addiction and mental health services to determine barriers and facilitators (ie, potential opportunities to promote change) to implementing harm reduction at the VHA. The study identified barriers to be a lack of knowledge, time, and comfort, while suggesting opportunities for improvement were engagement of champions, communication and educational strategies, and adaptation of existing infrastructure.¹¹

While these findings are insightful for the VHA to disseminate a harm reduction program, there remains a gap in assessing staff willingness to provide harm reduction services. Evidence on harm reduction services among veterans is limited and more research is needed to better understand the role of these services and acceptance among enrolled veterans and VHA staff. Specifically, more research is needed on health care practitioners’ (HCPs) perceptions of harm reduction use.

Mental health care practitioners frequently treat patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), making them an ideal initial cohort to assess willingness to provide harm reduction to this population. By analyzing mental HCPs’ perceptions, additional interventions could be identified, implemented, and evaluated to improve their willingness to provide harm reduction tools.

This project focused on mental health clinicians with prescribing privileges: physicians (allopathic and osteopathic physicians), nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and clinical pharmacist practitioners. Mental health prescribers were selected because they are uniquely positioned at the intersection of prevention and treatment in drug use. Furthermore, mental health prescribers at the VAMCs included in this study are usually the primary point of entry to SUD clinics. This mixed-methods study used an anonymous online survey and voluntary postsurvey discussions with mental health care prescribers to elaborate on their beliefs and attitudes, providing deeper insight into their responses regarding harm reduction.

Methods

This project was conducted by the Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) 5 academic detailing team. VISN 5 serves veterans from economically and demographically diverse areas in Maryland; Washington, DC; West Virginia; and portions of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky. VAMCs in Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC, serve a largely urban population while the 4 West Virginia facilities in Martinsburg, Huntington, Beckley, and Clarksburg, serve a largely rural population. West Virginia has been the epicenter of the opioid crisis and consistently has the highest drug overdose deaths per capita in the United States.¹² Among cities, Baltimore, Maryland, has the highest number of drug overdose deaths per capita with 174.1 per 100,000 people.^12,13

At the time of this project, the 6 VISN 5 VAMCs had established overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) programs. Although OEND programs have existed since 2013, VISN 5 SSPs and harm reduction services that provided fentanyl test strips were only available at the Martinsburg, Beckley, and Huntington VAMCs. All 6 VAMCs had substance use treatment programs with a variety of inpatient and outpatient mental health services. The Washington, DC and Baltimore VAMCs had opioid treatment programs that provided methadone maintenance.

The VISN 5 academic detailing team consists of 7 clinical pharmacists. These academic detailers plan annual systematic interventions to provide medical knowledge translation services on health-related campaigns. Academic detailers are trained in change management and motivational interviewing. They uniquely facilitate conversations with HCPs on various topics or campaigns, aiming for quality improvement and behavioral change through positive relationships and sharing resources.¹⁴ Academic detailing conversations and relationships with HCPs involve assessing and understanding HCP behaviors, including barriers and readiness to change to align with the goal of improving patient outcomes. Academic detailing has improved practice behaviors around providing OEND in VHA.¹⁵

To prepare for a harm reduction campaign, the academic detailers sought to gain insight from target VISN 5 mental health prescribers. Figure 1 outlines the project timeline, which started with emails inviting mental health prescribers to complete an anonymous online survey. Academic detailers from each site emailed mental health prescribers who completed the survey to determine interest in expanding on survey findings. Mental health prescribers who completed the survey could participate in a postsurvey discussion.

Surveys

Between January 29, 2024, and February 22, 2024, the academic detailers emailed facility mental health prescribers (N = 156) a link to an anonymous 15-question survey. The email informed recipients of the survey’s purpose: to gain a better understanding of prescriber perceptions of veterans with SUD and harm reduction programs and their willingness to provide harm reduction tools, to better determine interventions that could be implemented.

The survey collected prescriber demographic data and their perceptions of PWUD and harm reduction tools and education. Survey questions were extrapolated from validated surveys (eg, DDPPQ) and survey-based implicit association test.^16,17 The survey used multiple choice and 5-point Likert scale questions. Mental health prescribers were asked about their role at the VHA, years in practice, medical center affiliation, type of SUDs treated (eg, opioid, stimulant, alcohol, cannabis, or other), and whether they had previously met with academic detailers about harm reduction.

Respondents read statements about patients with or without SUD and provided Likert scale responses describing their regard, level of comfort, and preferences. The survey included Likert scale questions about respondents’ comfort in providing harm reduction education and supplies. Respondents also noted whether they believed harm reduction reduced substance use, harm reduction tools encourage people with SUD to continue using drugs, and whether HCPs can impact clinical change.

Postsurvey interviews with predetermined questions were conducted in-person or via video conference with ≥ 1 prescriber at each VAMC by an academic detailer. The postsurvey discussion offered an opportunity for respondents to further elaborate and describe previous experiences and current beliefs that may affect their attitudes toward people with SUD and their views on harm reduction. Participants received no compensation for survey completion or interviews.

Analysis

The Washington VAMC Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved this project as quality improvement with potential publication. No inferential statistics were calculated. Survey participant demographics were reported using frequencies and proportions reported for categorical variables. Notes from follow-up interviews were analyzed using the Prosci Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement (ADKAR) Model for Change Management.¹⁸ This framework is used by academic detailers to determine a prescriber’s stage of change, which helps select the appropriate resources to move the clinician along a change framework. Completed postsurvey interview sheets, including notes written by the academic detailer, were analyzed by the project lead (NJ) who reviewed each interview sheet and analysis with the academic detailer who led the discussion.

Results

Sixty-six respondents completed the online survey (42% response rate), and 7 mental health prescribers participated in a postsurvey discussion. Thirty-one participants (47%) were physicians and 17 (26%) were in practice for > 20 years. Response rates reflected the size of mental health staff at each VAMC at the time of the survey: 17 respondents (26%) worked at each of the Martinsburg and Baltimore VAMCs, with fewer at the other VAMCs (Table 1). Alcohol use disorder was the most commonly reported SUD treated (n = 62; 33%), followed by cannabis use disorder (n = 40; 21%), OUD (n = 38; 20%), and stimulant use disorder (n = 37; 20%).

Respondents felt comfortable and confident educating patients on ways to reduce harm related to substance use (91%; mean [SD], 4.24 [0.84]). Most prescribers surveyed (97%; mean [SD], 1.59 [0.68]) disagreed or strongly disagreed that harm reduction encourages patients with SUD to continue using drugs, and all prescribers surveyed disagreed that there is nothing they can do to encourage harm reduction. Survey results were mixed for personal comfort in working with people with SUD vs people without SUD (Figure 2). Respondents were most willing to provide naloxone (95%; mean [SD], 4.71 [0.78]), compared to fentanyl test strips (61%; mean [SD], 3.61 [1.41]) or syringes (39%; mean [SD], 3.18 [1.39]). Respondents were neutral or least willing to provide syringes (Figure 3).

Seven postsurvey interviews were completed between academic detailers and mental health clinicians across the 6 VAMCs. Respondents included 1 physician assistant, 1 nurse practitioner, 1 pharmacist, and 4 physicians. Notes were analyzed using the ADKAR Change Competency Model to organize clinician stages of change (Table 2).

Barriers identified by interviewees included lack of mobile services, lack of confidence and awareness of the availability of harm reduction at their respective medical center, lack of time to discuss harm reduction, negative sentiments toward providing SUD-related harm reduction, discomfort with harm reduction products, and lack of knowledge and time to learn about harm reduction services. Opportunities identified to drive change in practice included additional time allotted during patient appointments, educational discussions and presentations to increase knowledge of and comfort with harm reduction tools, a clear clinical patient care workflow and process for harm reduction services, and reinforcement strategies to recognize success.

Discussion

This project investigated mental health prescribers’ perceptions of harm reduction at VAMCs in West Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, DC. While previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of harm reduction tools, there is a lack of research on HCPs willingness to use these resources. This study suggests that while most respondents feel confident in and see the value of offering harm reduction resources to patients, a disparity exists between which resources HCPs are more likely to use and factors that would further enhance their ability to integrate harm reduction into practice. The follow-up interviews provided additional insight into the survey results.

Most respondents met the awareness and desire stage and moved to the knowledge, ability, or reinforcement ADKAR stage. It would be reasonable to extrapolate that most of the respondents felt comfortable with and were very likely to offer certain harm reduction tools. In the ADKAR interview analysis, the most common factors needed to drive change included having more time during patient appointments, additional education, clear processes for harm reduction services, and reinforcement strategies to sustain change. Respondents noted that harm reduction discussions took extra time in their already limited appointments with patients, which may have limited time for discussions surrounding all other mental health concerns. These discussions often necessitate in-depth conversations to accurately understand the patients’ needs. Given HCP time constraints, they may view harm reduction as lower in urgency and priority relative to other concerns. While most respondents were in the reinforcement phase, it is important to note the ADKAR model is fluid, and therefore an HCP could move forward or backward. This movement can be noted in the postsurvey interviews where, for example, prescriber 6 was determined to be in the reinforcement stage since they had already discussed harm reduction with patients. However, prescriber 6 also noted a barrier of unfamiliarity with local laws, which could shift them to the ADKAR knowledge stage.

Respondents noted that education through didactic sessions could lead to better incorporation of harm reduction into patient care. While harm reduction has evidence supporting its effectiveness, the respondents noted willingness to discuss harm reduction when treatment fails or the patient refuses treatment or referrals. Respondents expressed mixed opinions on use of harm reduction tools among patients with SUDs as some prescribers viewed harm reduction as part of a treatment plan and others viewed a return to drug use as a failure of treatment. Furthermore, respondents expressed hesitancy surrounding certain harm reduction tools, such as fentanyl test strips or syringes, and perceived these supplies as intended for medical use rather than harm reduction. HCPs may feel uncomfortable offering these supplies for drug use, despite their use for reducing risk.

Most responses were received from VAMCs with large mental health substance use programs. Respondents at larger, urban facilities (Washington, DC, and Baltimore, Maryland) expressed more hesitancy around using harm reduction tools despite having more harm reduction resources available compared to smaller or rural sites. These results align with previous studies that found no difference in prescribers providing medications for OUD in rural and urban VAMCs, showing urban sites, despite more resources, are not more willing to provide harm reduction or other addiction services.¹⁹ This evidence might indicate that urban sites may not use available resources (eg, methadone clinics) or that rural sites can provide just as robust medications for OUD care as urban sites.

Follow-up interview analysis indicated that HCPs lack knowledge of certain harm reduction tools. One-on-one peer discussions, like academic detailing, can facilitate discussions around a prescriber’s role in harm reduction, address gaps in knowledge by sharing what is available at the facilities for harm reduction, and suggest conversation points to help prescribers start harm reduction discussions with patients unwilling to begin treatment. Additionally, academic detailing can connect prescribers to available resources in the community to provide pragmatic approaches and suggestions. A clear and consistent treatment process may reduce barriers by reassuring prescribers they have support and by providing consistent directions so that prescribers do not waste time.

Reinforcement is important for sustaining change. VAMCs could consider positive feedback and other evidence-based reinforcement strategies (eg, social recognition, continuing education) to communicate that these changes are noticed and appreciated.²⁰ Late adopters may also be influenced by seeing positive feedback and results for peers. Systematic changes can be the catalyst for and sustain individual change.

Shifting perceptions and adopting change may be challenging, especially for SUD, which can be highly stigmatized. Promotion of successful change should be multifaceted and include both system and individual approaches. VHA systemic changes that could contribute to positive change include provision of time and access to SUD treatment training, a clear and sustainable treatment process, and reinforcement by recognizing success. In addition, facility leadership could provide support through dedicated time and resources during the workday for SUD treatment and harm reduction training. Support could empower HCPs and convey leadership support for harm reduction. This dedicated time could be used for didactic lecture sessions or individual meetings with academic detailers who can tailor discussions to the prescriber’s practice.

Strengths and Limitations

This survey included prescribers from a range of mental health care practice settings (eg, inpatient, outpatient clinic, rural, urban) and varied years of experience. This variety resulted in diverse perspectives and knowledge bases. Postsurvey interviews allowed academic detailers to gain deeper insight into answers in the survey, which can guide future interventions. Postsurvey interviews and application of the ADKAR model provided additional viewpoints on harm reduction.

A limitation of this project is the absence of an assessment of respondents’ harm reduction knowledge accuracy. Although respondents reported confidence in discussing harm reduction with patients, the survey did not assess whether their knowledge was accurate. Additionally, the survey did not ask about the availability of syringes and test strips at the prescribers’ VAMC, which could explain discrepancies in responses between naloxone and other forms of harm reduction (drug test strips and syringes were not available to all HCPs in the VISN). This lack of availability may have skewed responses. West Virginia SSPs, for example, were closed following legislative changes, which may contribute to stigma.²¹

Not all respondents were asked to do a follow-up interview, which limited the perspectives included in this study. Each site had ≥ 1 follow-up interview to limit the academic detailer’s workload. The initial survey included the phrase clean syringe, which can be stigmatizing and insinuate that PWUD are not clean. The preferred term would have been sterile syringe.²²

Conclusions

This survey of mental health prescribers found that most respondents are comfortable treating patients with SUD and confident in educating patients on harm reduction. Additionally, most respondents were more willing to provide naloxone vs fentanyl test strips or sterile syringes. A lack of time and awareness was the most frequently cited barrier to harm reduction services. As the VHA continues to expand access to harm reduction programs, which have proven to increase treatment rates and reduce disease, it will be imperative for HCPs, including mental health prescribers, to recognize the benefit of these programs for veterans with SUD. Future interventions should be designed and evaluated in collaboration with all HCPs and patients. This project determined ways to promote change for prescribers, but it will be important for further research to continue those conversations and incorporate patient perspectives.

The Public Health and Welfare Act of 1988 prohibited the use of federal funds to “provide individuals with hypodermic needles or syringes so that such individuals may use illegal drugs.”¹ Although the Act included the caveat that the US Surgeon General may determine that “a demonstration needle exchange program would be effective in reducing drug abuse,” and thus federal funds could be used, the legislation prohibited federal, state, and local agencies from funding syringe services programs (SSPs). SSPs use various harm reduction tools to improve public safety and reduce the potential harmful consequences of risky behaviors, similar to how using a seat belt while driving reduces the risk of injury or death.² SSPs are rooted in evidence-based practices, and several studies, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have found that people who use drugs (PWUDs) who use community-based SSPs are 5 times more likely to enter treatment than those who do not use these programs. Additionally, these programs have shown an estimated 50% reduction in HIV and hepatitis C infections.³

Amid a 2015 HIV outbreak in Indiana among individuals sharing needles for injection drug use, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill that partially lifted the federal funding restriction. Federal funds now may be used for operational costs that support SSPs but may not be used to purchase syringes themselves.⁴

Following the 2015 legislation, federal agencies began implementing SSPs. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) established SSPs at 3 medical centers in 2017.⁵ Veterans who participated in the programs were able to access supplies (eg, syringes, fentanyl test strips, wound care kits, and condoms) through donations to US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs). The success of these programs laid the foundation for the VHA to implement SSPs nationally. VHA SSPs provided access to naloxone (an opioid overdose reversal medication), fentanyl test strips, condoms, sterile syringe distribution, testing for blood-borne viruses, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, as well as educational materials and resources, and low-barrier access to drug treatment (eg, medications for opioid use disorder [OUD]).

In 2020, the Biden Administration outlined 7 drug policy priorities, which included enhancing evidence-based harm reduction efforts. ⁶ This policy also discussed mandates for federal agencies to remove barriers to federal funding for purchasing syringes and other harm reduction supplies. The VHA responded to the policy by publishing guidance that recommended VAMCs develop and/or ensure veterans have access to harm reduction services in the community, where state law is not legally more stringent.⁷

In 2025 the Trump administration Statement of Drug Policy Priorities encouraged local jurisdictions to increase the availability of drug test strips and naloxone.⁸ These significant policy shifts moved SSPs from being housed mostly in local public health departments and community-based organizations to also being available at health care facilities. ⁹ VAMCs have unique opportunities to provide universal health care that includes both prevention services and other medical management to PWUD.

One study assessed staff perceptions of PWUD at a VAMC in preparation for a training program about harm reduction. The results indicated an overall positive staff perception of PWUD, although only the Drug and Drug Problems Perceptions Questionnaire (DDPPQ) was administered, which assessed comfort of working with this population and not explicitly the use of harm reduction.¹⁰ Another study interviewed clinical pharmacists, primary care clinicians, social workers, and directors of addiction and mental health services to determine barriers and facilitators (ie, potential opportunities to promote change) to implementing harm reduction at the VHA. The study identified barriers to be a lack of knowledge, time, and comfort, while suggesting opportunities for improvement were engagement of champions, communication and educational strategies, and adaptation of existing infrastructure.¹¹

While these findings are insightful for the VHA to disseminate a harm reduction program, there remains a gap in assessing staff willingness to provide harm reduction services. Evidence on harm reduction services among veterans is limited and more research is needed to better understand the role of these services and acceptance among enrolled veterans and VHA staff. Specifically, more research is needed on health care practitioners’ (HCPs) perceptions of harm reduction use.

Mental health care practitioners frequently treat patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), making them an ideal initial cohort to assess willingness to provide harm reduction to this population. By analyzing mental HCPs’ perceptions, additional interventions could be identified, implemented, and evaluated to improve their willingness to provide harm reduction tools.

This project focused on mental health clinicians with prescribing privileges: physicians (allopathic and osteopathic physicians), nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and clinical pharmacist practitioners. Mental health prescribers were selected because they are uniquely positioned at the intersection of prevention and treatment in drug use. Furthermore, mental health prescribers at the VAMCs included in this study are usually the primary point of entry to SUD clinics. This mixed-methods study used an anonymous online survey and voluntary postsurvey discussions with mental health care prescribers to elaborate on their beliefs and attitudes, providing deeper insight into their responses regarding harm reduction.

Methods

This project was conducted by the Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) 5 academic detailing team. VISN 5 serves veterans from economically and demographically diverse areas in Maryland; Washington, DC; West Virginia; and portions of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky. VAMCs in Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC, serve a largely urban population while the 4 West Virginia facilities in Martinsburg, Huntington, Beckley, and Clarksburg, serve a largely rural population. West Virginia has been the epicenter of the opioid crisis and consistently has the highest drug overdose deaths per capita in the United States.¹² Among cities, Baltimore, Maryland, has the highest number of drug overdose deaths per capita with 174.1 per 100,000 people.^12,13

At the time of this project, the 6 VISN 5 VAMCs had established overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) programs. Although OEND programs have existed since 2013, VISN 5 SSPs and harm reduction services that provided fentanyl test strips were only available at the Martinsburg, Beckley, and Huntington VAMCs. All 6 VAMCs had substance use treatment programs with a variety of inpatient and outpatient mental health services. The Washington, DC and Baltimore VAMCs had opioid treatment programs that provided methadone maintenance.

The VISN 5 academic detailing team consists of 7 clinical pharmacists. These academic detailers plan annual systematic interventions to provide medical knowledge translation services on health-related campaigns. Academic detailers are trained in change management and motivational interviewing. They uniquely facilitate conversations with HCPs on various topics or campaigns, aiming for quality improvement and behavioral change through positive relationships and sharing resources.¹⁴ Academic detailing conversations and relationships with HCPs involve assessing and understanding HCP behaviors, including barriers and readiness to change to align with the goal of improving patient outcomes. Academic detailing has improved practice behaviors around providing OEND in VHA.¹⁵

To prepare for a harm reduction campaign, the academic detailers sought to gain insight from target VISN 5 mental health prescribers. Figure 1 outlines the project timeline, which started with emails inviting mental health prescribers to complete an anonymous online survey. Academic detailers from each site emailed mental health prescribers who completed the survey to determine interest in expanding on survey findings. Mental health prescribers who completed the survey could participate in a postsurvey discussion.

Surveys

Between January 29, 2024, and February 22, 2024, the academic detailers emailed facility mental health prescribers (N = 156) a link to an anonymous 15-question survey. The email informed recipients of the survey’s purpose: to gain a better understanding of prescriber perceptions of veterans with SUD and harm reduction programs and their willingness to provide harm reduction tools, to better determine interventions that could be implemented.

The survey collected prescriber demographic data and their perceptions of PWUD and harm reduction tools and education. Survey questions were extrapolated from validated surveys (eg, DDPPQ) and survey-based implicit association test.^16,17 The survey used multiple choice and 5-point Likert scale questions. Mental health prescribers were asked about their role at the VHA, years in practice, medical center affiliation, type of SUDs treated (eg, opioid, stimulant, alcohol, cannabis, or other), and whether they had previously met with academic detailers about harm reduction.

Respondents read statements about patients with or without SUD and provided Likert scale responses describing their regard, level of comfort, and preferences. The survey included Likert scale questions about respondents’ comfort in providing harm reduction education and supplies. Respondents also noted whether they believed harm reduction reduced substance use, harm reduction tools encourage people with SUD to continue using drugs, and whether HCPs can impact clinical change.

Postsurvey interviews with predetermined questions were conducted in-person or via video conference with ≥ 1 prescriber at each VAMC by an academic detailer. The postsurvey discussion offered an opportunity for respondents to further elaborate and describe previous experiences and current beliefs that may affect their attitudes toward people with SUD and their views on harm reduction. Participants received no compensation for survey completion or interviews.

Analysis

The Washington VAMC Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved this project as quality improvement with potential publication. No inferential statistics were calculated. Survey participant demographics were reported using frequencies and proportions reported for categorical variables. Notes from follow-up interviews were analyzed using the Prosci Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement (ADKAR) Model for Change Management.¹⁸ This framework is used by academic detailers to determine a prescriber’s stage of change, which helps select the appropriate resources to move the clinician along a change framework. Completed postsurvey interview sheets, including notes written by the academic detailer, were analyzed by the project lead (NJ) who reviewed each interview sheet and analysis with the academic detailer who led the discussion.

Results

Sixty-six respondents completed the online survey (42% response rate), and 7 mental health prescribers participated in a postsurvey discussion. Thirty-one participants (47%) were physicians and 17 (26%) were in practice for > 20 years. Response rates reflected the size of mental health staff at each VAMC at the time of the survey: 17 respondents (26%) worked at each of the Martinsburg and Baltimore VAMCs, with fewer at the other VAMCs (Table 1). Alcohol use disorder was the most commonly reported SUD treated (n = 62; 33%), followed by cannabis use disorder (n = 40; 21%), OUD (n = 38; 20%), and stimulant use disorder (n = 37; 20%).

Respondents felt comfortable and confident educating patients on ways to reduce harm related to substance use (91%; mean [SD], 4.24 [0.84]). Most prescribers surveyed (97%; mean [SD], 1.59 [0.68]) disagreed or strongly disagreed that harm reduction encourages patients with SUD to continue using drugs, and all prescribers surveyed disagreed that there is nothing they can do to encourage harm reduction. Survey results were mixed for personal comfort in working with people with SUD vs people without SUD (Figure 2). Respondents were most willing to provide naloxone (95%; mean [SD], 4.71 [0.78]), compared to fentanyl test strips (61%; mean [SD], 3.61 [1.41]) or syringes (39%; mean [SD], 3.18 [1.39]). Respondents were neutral or least willing to provide syringes (Figure 3).

Seven postsurvey interviews were completed between academic detailers and mental health clinicians across the 6 VAMCs. Respondents included 1 physician assistant, 1 nurse practitioner, 1 pharmacist, and 4 physicians. Notes were analyzed using the ADKAR Change Competency Model to organize clinician stages of change (Table 2).

Barriers identified by interviewees included lack of mobile services, lack of confidence and awareness of the availability of harm reduction at their respective medical center, lack of time to discuss harm reduction, negative sentiments toward providing SUD-related harm reduction, discomfort with harm reduction products, and lack of knowledge and time to learn about harm reduction services. Opportunities identified to drive change in practice included additional time allotted during patient appointments, educational discussions and presentations to increase knowledge of and comfort with harm reduction tools, a clear clinical patient care workflow and process for harm reduction services, and reinforcement strategies to recognize success.

Discussion

This project investigated mental health prescribers’ perceptions of harm reduction at VAMCs in West Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, DC. While previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of harm reduction tools, there is a lack of research on HCPs willingness to use these resources. This study suggests that while most respondents feel confident in and see the value of offering harm reduction resources to patients, a disparity exists between which resources HCPs are more likely to use and factors that would further enhance their ability to integrate harm reduction into practice. The follow-up interviews provided additional insight into the survey results.

Most respondents met the awareness and desire stage and moved to the knowledge, ability, or reinforcement ADKAR stage. It would be reasonable to extrapolate that most of the respondents felt comfortable with and were very likely to offer certain harm reduction tools. In the ADKAR interview analysis, the most common factors needed to drive change included having more time during patient appointments, additional education, clear processes for harm reduction services, and reinforcement strategies to sustain change. Respondents noted that harm reduction discussions took extra time in their already limited appointments with patients, which may have limited time for discussions surrounding all other mental health concerns. These discussions often necessitate in-depth conversations to accurately understand the patients’ needs. Given HCP time constraints, they may view harm reduction as lower in urgency and priority relative to other concerns. While most respondents were in the reinforcement phase, it is important to note the ADKAR model is fluid, and therefore an HCP could move forward or backward. This movement can be noted in the postsurvey interviews where, for example, prescriber 6 was determined to be in the reinforcement stage since they had already discussed harm reduction with patients. However, prescriber 6 also noted a barrier of unfamiliarity with local laws, which could shift them to the ADKAR knowledge stage.

Respondents noted that education through didactic sessions could lead to better incorporation of harm reduction into patient care. While harm reduction has evidence supporting its effectiveness, the respondents noted willingness to discuss harm reduction when treatment fails or the patient refuses treatment or referrals. Respondents expressed mixed opinions on use of harm reduction tools among patients with SUDs as some prescribers viewed harm reduction as part of a treatment plan and others viewed a return to drug use as a failure of treatment. Furthermore, respondents expressed hesitancy surrounding certain harm reduction tools, such as fentanyl test strips or syringes, and perceived these supplies as intended for medical use rather than harm reduction. HCPs may feel uncomfortable offering these supplies for drug use, despite their use for reducing risk.

Most responses were received from VAMCs with large mental health substance use programs. Respondents at larger, urban facilities (Washington, DC, and Baltimore, Maryland) expressed more hesitancy around using harm reduction tools despite having more harm reduction resources available compared to smaller or rural sites. These results align with previous studies that found no difference in prescribers providing medications for OUD in rural and urban VAMCs, showing urban sites, despite more resources, are not more willing to provide harm reduction or other addiction services.¹⁹ This evidence might indicate that urban sites may not use available resources (eg, methadone clinics) or that rural sites can provide just as robust medications for OUD care as urban sites.

Follow-up interview analysis indicated that HCPs lack knowledge of certain harm reduction tools. One-on-one peer discussions, like academic detailing, can facilitate discussions around a prescriber’s role in harm reduction, address gaps in knowledge by sharing what is available at the facilities for harm reduction, and suggest conversation points to help prescribers start harm reduction discussions with patients unwilling to begin treatment. Additionally, academic detailing can connect prescribers to available resources in the community to provide pragmatic approaches and suggestions. A clear and consistent treatment process may reduce barriers by reassuring prescribers they have support and by providing consistent directions so that prescribers do not waste time.

Reinforcement is important for sustaining change. VAMCs could consider positive feedback and other evidence-based reinforcement strategies (eg, social recognition, continuing education) to communicate that these changes are noticed and appreciated.²⁰ Late adopters may also be influenced by seeing positive feedback and results for peers. Systematic changes can be the catalyst for and sustain individual change.

Shifting perceptions and adopting change may be challenging, especially for SUD, which can be highly stigmatized. Promotion of successful change should be multifaceted and include both system and individual approaches. VHA systemic changes that could contribute to positive change include provision of time and access to SUD treatment training, a clear and sustainable treatment process, and reinforcement by recognizing success. In addition, facility leadership could provide support through dedicated time and resources during the workday for SUD treatment and harm reduction training. Support could empower HCPs and convey leadership support for harm reduction. This dedicated time could be used for didactic lecture sessions or individual meetings with academic detailers who can tailor discussions to the prescriber’s practice.

Strengths and Limitations

This survey included prescribers from a range of mental health care practice settings (eg, inpatient, outpatient clinic, rural, urban) and varied years of experience. This variety resulted in diverse perspectives and knowledge bases. Postsurvey interviews allowed academic detailers to gain deeper insight into answers in the survey, which can guide future interventions. Postsurvey interviews and application of the ADKAR model provided additional viewpoints on harm reduction.

A limitation of this project is the absence of an assessment of respondents’ harm reduction knowledge accuracy. Although respondents reported confidence in discussing harm reduction with patients, the survey did not assess whether their knowledge was accurate. Additionally, the survey did not ask about the availability of syringes and test strips at the prescribers’ VAMC, which could explain discrepancies in responses between naloxone and other forms of harm reduction (drug test strips and syringes were not available to all HCPs in the VISN). This lack of availability may have skewed responses. West Virginia SSPs, for example, were closed following legislative changes, which may contribute to stigma.²¹

Not all respondents were asked to do a follow-up interview, which limited the perspectives included in this study. Each site had ≥ 1 follow-up interview to limit the academic detailer’s workload. The initial survey included the phrase clean syringe, which can be stigmatizing and insinuate that PWUD are not clean. The preferred term would have been sterile syringe.²²

Conclusions

This survey of mental health prescribers found that most respondents are comfortable treating patients with SUD and confident in educating patients on harm reduction. Additionally, most respondents were more willing to provide naloxone vs fentanyl test strips or sterile syringes. A lack of time and awareness was the most frequently cited barrier to harm reduction services. As the VHA continues to expand access to harm reduction programs, which have proven to increase treatment rates and reduce disease, it will be imperative for HCPs, including mental health prescribers, to recognize the benefit of these programs for veterans with SUD. Future interventions should be designed and evaluated in collaboration with all HCPs and patients. This project determined ways to promote change for prescribers, but it will be important for further research to continue those conversations and incorporate patient perspectives.

New research challenges the assumption that long-term cannabis use improves symptoms or functioning in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

On the contrary, researchers found that abstaining from cannabis for 3 months was associated with significantly greater reductions in PTSD symptoms in adults with PTSD and comorbid cannabis use disorder (CUD).

The data suggest that continued cannabis use could limit recovery in some domains — underscoring the need to routinely assess cannabis use during PTSD treatment and to educate patients on the potential consequences of continued use, the researchers said. 

The study was published online February 18 in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 

Helpful or Harmful? 

PTSD is a debilitating psychiatric condition marked by intrusive memories, avoidance, negative changes in mood and cognition, and hyperarousal. Many patients turn to cannabis to ease symptoms. In one recent study, roughly 28% of individuals with PTSD reported past-year cannabis use and 9% met criteria for CUD. 

Although some studies have suggested PTSD symptom reduction with cannabis or cannabinoid-based treatments, others have identified potential risks, such as disrupted fear-extinction learning and worse clinical and treatment outcomes. 

A recent systematic review found mixed evidence overall, with six studies suggesting benefits, five reporting worsening of symptoms, and three showing no significant impact of cannabis use in the setting of PTSD.

Led by Ahmed Hassan, MD, University of Toronto, Ontario, the researchers recruited adults aged 18-65 years with confirmed PTSD and CUD through the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto and asked them to discontinue cannabis for 12 weeks.

Abstinence was defined as a urine 11-nor-9-carboxy-tetrahydrocannabinol level of 50 ng/mL or lower with no self-reported use, verified at multiple timepoints. Participants received escalating cash incentives for remaining abstinent at weeks 4, 8, and 12.

Eleven (52%) of the 21 participants who completed the 12-week protocol achieved biochemically verified abstinence, while 10 did not.

Those who achieved abstinence reported significantly greater reductions in total PTSD symptom severity and symptom count compared to those who did not. 

Total severity scores on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 dropped from 36.2 at baseline to 10.5 at week 12 among abstainers vs 34.6 to 21.8 among those who did not maintain abstinence (P = .001).

A similar pattern emerged for total symptom count, with abstinent participants dropping from 14.3 symptoms at baseline to 4.1 at week 12, compared to a decrease from 13.5 to 8.9 among nonabstainers.

Notably, the investigators observed that individuals who remained abstinent showed greater reductions in several core symptom clusters, including avoidance, negative alterations in mood, cognition, and hyperarousal — domains that are often cited as targets for cannabis-based self-medication among individuals with PTSD. 

“However, in this comorbid PTSD and CUD sample, sustained cannabis abstinence was associated with symptom improvement, thereby challenging assumptions about its clinical utility in this population,” they wrote. 

Interestingly, they added that there were no differential effects on reexperiencing symptoms such as flashbacks, intrusive memories, and nightmares. Both abstinent and nonabstinent participants reported similar improvements in reexperiencing, suggesting that factors unrelated to cannabis use may have contributed to symptom change or insufficient power, the authors said. 

The researchers called for larger randomized trials to “replicate and extend” these preliminary findings and to investigate mechanisms through which abstinence may relate to symptom changes in PTSD with CUD.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New research challenges the assumption that long-term cannabis use improves symptoms or functioning in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

On the contrary, researchers found that abstaining from cannabis for 3 months was associated with significantly greater reductions in PTSD symptoms in adults with PTSD and comorbid cannabis use disorder (CUD).

The data suggest that continued cannabis use could limit recovery in some domains — underscoring the need to routinely assess cannabis use during PTSD treatment and to educate patients on the potential consequences of continued use, the researchers said. 

The study was published online February 18 in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 

Helpful or Harmful? 

PTSD is a debilitating psychiatric condition marked by intrusive memories, avoidance, negative changes in mood and cognition, and hyperarousal. Many patients turn to cannabis to ease symptoms. In one recent study, roughly 28% of individuals with PTSD reported past-year cannabis use and 9% met criteria for CUD. 

Although some studies have suggested PTSD symptom reduction with cannabis or cannabinoid-based treatments, others have identified potential risks, such as disrupted fear-extinction learning and worse clinical and treatment outcomes. 

A recent systematic review found mixed evidence overall, with six studies suggesting benefits, five reporting worsening of symptoms, and three showing no significant impact of cannabis use in the setting of PTSD.

Led by Ahmed Hassan, MD, University of Toronto, Ontario, the researchers recruited adults aged 18-65 years with confirmed PTSD and CUD through the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto and asked them to discontinue cannabis for 12 weeks.

Abstinence was defined as a urine 11-nor-9-carboxy-tetrahydrocannabinol level of 50 ng/mL or lower with no self-reported use, verified at multiple timepoints. Participants received escalating cash incentives for remaining abstinent at weeks 4, 8, and 12.

Eleven (52%) of the 21 participants who completed the 12-week protocol achieved biochemically verified abstinence, while 10 did not.

Those who achieved abstinence reported significantly greater reductions in total PTSD symptom severity and symptom count compared to those who did not. 

Total severity scores on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 dropped from 36.2 at baseline to 10.5 at week 12 among abstainers vs 34.6 to 21.8 among those who did not maintain abstinence (P = .001).

A similar pattern emerged for total symptom count, with abstinent participants dropping from 14.3 symptoms at baseline to 4.1 at week 12, compared to a decrease from 13.5 to 8.9 among nonabstainers.

Notably, the investigators observed that individuals who remained abstinent showed greater reductions in several core symptom clusters, including avoidance, negative alterations in mood, cognition, and hyperarousal — domains that are often cited as targets for cannabis-based self-medication among individuals with PTSD. 

“However, in this comorbid PTSD and CUD sample, sustained cannabis abstinence was associated with symptom improvement, thereby challenging assumptions about its clinical utility in this population,” they wrote. 

Interestingly, they added that there were no differential effects on reexperiencing symptoms such as flashbacks, intrusive memories, and nightmares. Both abstinent and nonabstinent participants reported similar improvements in reexperiencing, suggesting that factors unrelated to cannabis use may have contributed to symptom change or insufficient power, the authors said. 

The researchers called for larger randomized trials to “replicate and extend” these preliminary findings and to investigate mechanisms through which abstinence may relate to symptom changes in PTSD with CUD.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New research challenges the assumption that long-term cannabis use improves symptoms or functioning in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

On the contrary, researchers found that abstaining from cannabis for 3 months was associated with significantly greater reductions in PTSD symptoms in adults with PTSD and comorbid cannabis use disorder (CUD).

The data suggest that continued cannabis use could limit recovery in some domains — underscoring the need to routinely assess cannabis use during PTSD treatment and to educate patients on the potential consequences of continued use, the researchers said. 

The study was published online February 18 in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 

Helpful or Harmful? 

PTSD is a debilitating psychiatric condition marked by intrusive memories, avoidance, negative changes in mood and cognition, and hyperarousal. Many patients turn to cannabis to ease symptoms. In one recent study, roughly 28% of individuals with PTSD reported past-year cannabis use and 9% met criteria for CUD. 

Although some studies have suggested PTSD symptom reduction with cannabis or cannabinoid-based treatments, others have identified potential risks, such as disrupted fear-extinction learning and worse clinical and treatment outcomes. 

A recent systematic review found mixed evidence overall, with six studies suggesting benefits, five reporting worsening of symptoms, and three showing no significant impact of cannabis use in the setting of PTSD.

Led by Ahmed Hassan, MD, University of Toronto, Ontario, the researchers recruited adults aged 18-65 years with confirmed PTSD and CUD through the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto and asked them to discontinue cannabis for 12 weeks.

Abstinence was defined as a urine 11-nor-9-carboxy-tetrahydrocannabinol level of 50 ng/mL or lower with no self-reported use, verified at multiple timepoints. Participants received escalating cash incentives for remaining abstinent at weeks 4, 8, and 12.

Eleven (52%) of the 21 participants who completed the 12-week protocol achieved biochemically verified abstinence, while 10 did not.

Those who achieved abstinence reported significantly greater reductions in total PTSD symptom severity and symptom count compared to those who did not. 

Total severity scores on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 dropped from 36.2 at baseline to 10.5 at week 12 among abstainers vs 34.6 to 21.8 among those who did not maintain abstinence (P = .001).

A similar pattern emerged for total symptom count, with abstinent participants dropping from 14.3 symptoms at baseline to 4.1 at week 12, compared to a decrease from 13.5 to 8.9 among nonabstainers.

Notably, the investigators observed that individuals who remained abstinent showed greater reductions in several core symptom clusters, including avoidance, negative alterations in mood, cognition, and hyperarousal — domains that are often cited as targets for cannabis-based self-medication among individuals with PTSD. 

“However, in this comorbid PTSD and CUD sample, sustained cannabis abstinence was associated with symptom improvement, thereby challenging assumptions about its clinical utility in this population,” they wrote. 

Interestingly, they added that there were no differential effects on reexperiencing symptoms such as flashbacks, intrusive memories, and nightmares. Both abstinent and nonabstinent participants reported similar improvements in reexperiencing, suggesting that factors unrelated to cannabis use may have contributed to symptom change or insufficient power, the authors said. 

The researchers called for larger randomized trials to “replicate and extend” these preliminary findings and to investigate mechanisms through which abstinence may relate to symptom changes in PTSD with CUD.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

US service members and veterans were less likely to die than the general population from most causes of death over a 17-year period, a population-based, prospective analysis found. But there was a glaring exception: suicide by firearm.

Among 201,618 subjects tracked from 2001 to 2018 by the Millennium Cohort Study, the overall death rate was less than half that of a comparable group of US adults (standardized mortality ratios [SMR], 0.44), reported Edward J. Boyko, MD, MPH, staff physician with the Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System and professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues in BMC Public Health. However, suicides by firearm—while rare—were more common overall (SMR, 1.42), among military men only (SMR, 1.33), and among military women only (SMR, 2.83) than civilians. 

The findings about the overall death rate may reflect the better health of those who join the military and have access to health care during and after service, Boyko told Federal Practitioner. The suicide data may reflect higher access to firearms, he said, although “more research is needed to identify what types of military exposures or physical and mental health predictors are associated with increased mortality risk due to suicide.”

The ongoing Millennium Cohort Study began in 2001 to track the health of military personnel over time. The study has spawned > 180 reports “used to inform and guide policy, guidelines, and health promotion efforts within the military and VA,” Boyko said. “As the Millennium Cohort Study approaches its 25-year anniversary, it seemed like an ideal time to assess mortality, especially cause-specific mortality, as a way to measure the impact of military service on long-term health.”

The analysis tracks 4 panels of subjects enrolled at various times between 2001 and 2013. Of the 201,619 participants, 3018 (1.5%) died by 2018. Of the 198,01 nondeceased participants, 69.2% were male; 8.1% were born before 1960, 16.1% were born from 1960 to 1969, 24.4% were born from 1970 to 1979, and 51.5% were born in or after 1980. The racial/ethnic makeup was 72.7% non-Hispanic White, 12.2% non-Hispanic Black, 7.9% Hispanic, and 7.1% other. Two-thirds (66.4%) were active duty, and 33.6% were in the Reserve or National Guard.

Of the 3018 deceased participants, 81.2% were male. In terms of birth year, 32.4% were born before 1960, 22.1% were born from 1960 to 1969, 18.2% were born from 1970 to 1979, and 27.3% were born in or after 1980. The racial/ethnic makeup was 77.7% non-Hispanic White, 11.9% non-Hispanic Black, 5.5% Hispanic, and 4.9% other. About half (51.0%) were active duty, and 49.0% were in the Reserve or National Guard.

Most deaths were due to natural causes (57.0%), followed by accident (20.1%), suicide (17.1%), operations of war (3.0%), homicide (2.1%), and other causes (1.2%). The new report noted that the Millennium Cohort Study and other research have identified a “healthy soldier effect, in which military populations tend to be healthier than the general US population.”

Boyko explained that “the fitness requirements for joining the military may favor the selection of healthier individuals from the general population. Another benefit of military service is free access to health care, especially among those on active duty, as well as eligibility for VA health care and other benefits after leaving service. This would allow for greater access to preventive care and treatments, as well as routine screening for health conditions such as cancer, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.”

Overall suicide rates were higher among female subjects than among civilians (SMR, 1.65), but no statistically significant difference was seen in men (SMR, 0.96) or across all participants (SMR, 1.03). Regarding the large gaps in firearm suicide rates in military subjects vs civilians, Boyko said, “accessibility and familiarity with firearms, a highly lethal means of suicide, may be driving the elevated risk of suicide by firearms … prior research has found that unsecure firearms storage—such as unlocked, loaded firearms—increases the risk of suicide by firearms.”

Rachel Sayko Adams, PhD, MPH, a research associate professor with the Department of Health Law, Policy and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, is familiar with the study findings. Adams, a principal investigator at the VA Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center for Suicide Prevention, told Federal Practitioner that “efforts to further develop suicide prevention programs that consider the unique needs and preferences of female service members and veterans are critical to prevent future suicide mortality in this population.”

Adams added: “Just because service members and veterans have a lower all-cause mortality rate compared to the general US population, we should not assume that they are universally low risk or that we can reduce our public health prevention efforts targeting this population.”

Boyko highlighted KeepItSecure.net, which “helps veterans and service members protect themselves and their families by making it easier to store firearms securely during stressful or high-risk periods.” The site offers practical, judgment-free guidance with powerful storytelling and public outreach, with clear, actionable steps—such as using a cable gun lock or lockbox—to lower suicide risk long before a crisis occurs. The VA, Boyko said, provides free cable gun locks nationwide.

The Millennium Cohort Study is funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense Military Operational Medicine Research Program and Defense Health Program. The report authors and Adams have no disclosures. 

US service members and veterans were less likely to die than the general population from most causes of death over a 17-year period, a population-based, prospective analysis found. But there was a glaring exception: suicide by firearm.

Among 201,618 subjects tracked from 2001 to 2018 by the Millennium Cohort Study, the overall death rate was less than half that of a comparable group of US adults (standardized mortality ratios [SMR], 0.44), reported Edward J. Boyko, MD, MPH, staff physician with the Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System and professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues in BMC Public Health. However, suicides by firearm—while rare—were more common overall (SMR, 1.42), among military men only (SMR, 1.33), and among military women only (SMR, 2.83) than civilians. 

The findings about the overall death rate may reflect the better health of those who join the military and have access to health care during and after service, Boyko told Federal Practitioner. The suicide data may reflect higher access to firearms, he said, although “more research is needed to identify what types of military exposures or physical and mental health predictors are associated with increased mortality risk due to suicide.”

The ongoing Millennium Cohort Study began in 2001 to track the health of military personnel over time. The study has spawned > 180 reports “used to inform and guide policy, guidelines, and health promotion efforts within the military and VA,” Boyko said. “As the Millennium Cohort Study approaches its 25-year anniversary, it seemed like an ideal time to assess mortality, especially cause-specific mortality, as a way to measure the impact of military service on long-term health.”

The analysis tracks 4 panels of subjects enrolled at various times between 2001 and 2013. Of the 201,619 participants, 3018 (1.5%) died by 2018. Of the 198,01 nondeceased participants, 69.2% were male; 8.1% were born before 1960, 16.1% were born from 1960 to 1969, 24.4% were born from 1970 to 1979, and 51.5% were born in or after 1980. The racial/ethnic makeup was 72.7% non-Hispanic White, 12.2% non-Hispanic Black, 7.9% Hispanic, and 7.1% other. Two-thirds (66.4%) were active duty, and 33.6% were in the Reserve or National Guard.

Of the 3018 deceased participants, 81.2% were male. In terms of birth year, 32.4% were born before 1960, 22.1% were born from 1960 to 1969, 18.2% were born from 1970 to 1979, and 27.3% were born in or after 1980. The racial/ethnic makeup was 77.7% non-Hispanic White, 11.9% non-Hispanic Black, 5.5% Hispanic, and 4.9% other. About half (51.0%) were active duty, and 49.0% were in the Reserve or National Guard.

Most deaths were due to natural causes (57.0%), followed by accident (20.1%), suicide (17.1%), operations of war (3.0%), homicide (2.1%), and other causes (1.2%). The new report noted that the Millennium Cohort Study and other research have identified a “healthy soldier effect, in which military populations tend to be healthier than the general US population.”

Boyko explained that “the fitness requirements for joining the military may favor the selection of healthier individuals from the general population. Another benefit of military service is free access to health care, especially among those on active duty, as well as eligibility for VA health care and other benefits after leaving service. This would allow for greater access to preventive care and treatments, as well as routine screening for health conditions such as cancer, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.”

Overall suicide rates were higher among female subjects than among civilians (SMR, 1.65), but no statistically significant difference was seen in men (SMR, 0.96) or across all participants (SMR, 1.03). Regarding the large gaps in firearm suicide rates in military subjects vs civilians, Boyko said, “accessibility and familiarity with firearms, a highly lethal means of suicide, may be driving the elevated risk of suicide by firearms … prior research has found that unsecure firearms storage—such as unlocked, loaded firearms—increases the risk of suicide by firearms.”

Rachel Sayko Adams, PhD, MPH, a research associate professor with the Department of Health Law, Policy and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, is familiar with the study findings. Adams, a principal investigator at the VA Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center for Suicide Prevention, told Federal Practitioner that “efforts to further develop suicide prevention programs that consider the unique needs and preferences of female service members and veterans are critical to prevent future suicide mortality in this population.”

Adams added: “Just because service members and veterans have a lower all-cause mortality rate compared to the general US population, we should not assume that they are universally low risk or that we can reduce our public health prevention efforts targeting this population.”

Boyko highlighted KeepItSecure.net, which “helps veterans and service members protect themselves and their families by making it easier to store firearms securely during stressful or high-risk periods.” The site offers practical, judgment-free guidance with powerful storytelling and public outreach, with clear, actionable steps—such as using a cable gun lock or lockbox—to lower suicide risk long before a crisis occurs. The VA, Boyko said, provides free cable gun locks nationwide.

The Millennium Cohort Study is funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense Military Operational Medicine Research Program and Defense Health Program. The report authors and Adams have no disclosures. 

US service members and veterans were less likely to die than the general population from most causes of death over a 17-year period, a population-based, prospective analysis found. But there was a glaring exception: suicide by firearm.

Among 201,618 subjects tracked from 2001 to 2018 by the Millennium Cohort Study, the overall death rate was less than half that of a comparable group of US adults (standardized mortality ratios [SMR], 0.44), reported Edward J. Boyko, MD, MPH, staff physician with the Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System and professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues in BMC Public Health. However, suicides by firearm—while rare—were more common overall (SMR, 1.42), among military men only (SMR, 1.33), and among military women only (SMR, 2.83) than civilians. 

The findings about the overall death rate may reflect the better health of those who join the military and have access to health care during and after service, Boyko told Federal Practitioner. The suicide data may reflect higher access to firearms, he said, although “more research is needed to identify what types of military exposures or physical and mental health predictors are associated with increased mortality risk due to suicide.”

The ongoing Millennium Cohort Study began in 2001 to track the health of military personnel over time. The study has spawned > 180 reports “used to inform and guide policy, guidelines, and health promotion efforts within the military and VA,” Boyko said. “As the Millennium Cohort Study approaches its 25-year anniversary, it seemed like an ideal time to assess mortality, especially cause-specific mortality, as a way to measure the impact of military service on long-term health.”

The analysis tracks 4 panels of subjects enrolled at various times between 2001 and 2013. Of the 201,619 participants, 3018 (1.5%) died by 2018. Of the 198,01 nondeceased participants, 69.2% were male; 8.1% were born before 1960, 16.1% were born from 1960 to 1969, 24.4% were born from 1970 to 1979, and 51.5% were born in or after 1980. The racial/ethnic makeup was 72.7% non-Hispanic White, 12.2% non-Hispanic Black, 7.9% Hispanic, and 7.1% other. Two-thirds (66.4%) were active duty, and 33.6% were in the Reserve or National Guard.

Of the 3018 deceased participants, 81.2% were male. In terms of birth year, 32.4% were born before 1960, 22.1% were born from 1960 to 1969, 18.2% were born from 1970 to 1979, and 27.3% were born in or after 1980. The racial/ethnic makeup was 77.7% non-Hispanic White, 11.9% non-Hispanic Black, 5.5% Hispanic, and 4.9% other. About half (51.0%) were active duty, and 49.0% were in the Reserve or National Guard.

Most deaths were due to natural causes (57.0%), followed by accident (20.1%), suicide (17.1%), operations of war (3.0%), homicide (2.1%), and other causes (1.2%). The new report noted that the Millennium Cohort Study and other research have identified a “healthy soldier effect, in which military populations tend to be healthier than the general US population.”

Boyko explained that “the fitness requirements for joining the military may favor the selection of healthier individuals from the general population. Another benefit of military service is free access to health care, especially among those on active duty, as well as eligibility for VA health care and other benefits after leaving service. This would allow for greater access to preventive care and treatments, as well as routine screening for health conditions such as cancer, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.”

Overall suicide rates were higher among female subjects than among civilians (SMR, 1.65), but no statistically significant difference was seen in men (SMR, 0.96) or across all participants (SMR, 1.03). Regarding the large gaps in firearm suicide rates in military subjects vs civilians, Boyko said, “accessibility and familiarity with firearms, a highly lethal means of suicide, may be driving the elevated risk of suicide by firearms … prior research has found that unsecure firearms storage—such as unlocked, loaded firearms—increases the risk of suicide by firearms.”

Rachel Sayko Adams, PhD, MPH, a research associate professor with the Department of Health Law, Policy and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, is familiar with the study findings. Adams, a principal investigator at the VA Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center for Suicide Prevention, told Federal Practitioner that “efforts to further develop suicide prevention programs that consider the unique needs and preferences of female service members and veterans are critical to prevent future suicide mortality in this population.”

Adams added: “Just because service members and veterans have a lower all-cause mortality rate compared to the general US population, we should not assume that they are universally low risk or that we can reduce our public health prevention efforts targeting this population.”

Boyko highlighted KeepItSecure.net, which “helps veterans and service members protect themselves and their families by making it easier to store firearms securely during stressful or high-risk periods.” The site offers practical, judgment-free guidance with powerful storytelling and public outreach, with clear, actionable steps—such as using a cable gun lock or lockbox—to lower suicide risk long before a crisis occurs. The VA, Boyko said, provides free cable gun locks nationwide.

The Millennium Cohort Study is funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense Military Operational Medicine Research Program and Defense Health Program. The report authors and Adams have no disclosures. 

Fewer veterans died by suicide in 2023 than 2022, according to the recently released 2025 National Veteran Suicide Prevention Annual Report from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

More than half of suicides, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) found, were driven by pain (52.3%) or sleep problems (51.5%). Increased health problems were factors in 43.1% of cases, particularly traumatic brain injury (TBI) and cancer diagnosis. The suicide rate was 77.6 per 100,000 for veterans with a recent diagnosis of TBI, 94.3% higher than the rate of individuals without such a diagnosis. The suicide rate following a cancer diagnosis was 10.3% higher than for other veterans in VHA care—emphasizing the need, according to the VHA, to continue to expand efforts to integrate suicide prevention resources across all areas serving high-risk veteran groups.

VA has published the National Veteran Suicide Prevention report annually since 2016, with its release typically occurring in December. Release of the 2025 report was delayed until February 2026. The VA attributed the delay, however, due to the federal government shutdown from October 1 to November 12, 2025. At a January 2026 Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing, VA Secretary Doug Collins denied that there was an effort to halt its release.

Veteran deaths by suicide have often been called an epidemic, with the suicide rate having risen faster for veterans than it has for nonveterans since 2005. Veterans are 1.5 times more likely to die by suicide, a statistic that led Collins, veteran advocates, and members of Congress to identify veteran suicide prevention as a top priority.

The report indicates that the number of veteran suicides per year has remained relatively constant in the 6 most recent years of available data: 6738 in 2018, 6510 in 2019, 6347 in 2020, 6429 in 2021, 6442 in 2022, and 6398 in 2023. The fewest veteran suicides in the last 25 years happened both in 2001 and 2004 (6021), while the most (6738) came in 2018.

Although the overall veteran population has declined over time, more veterans are enrolling in VHA care, increasing from 3.8 million in 2001 to 6.1 million in 2023. However, the VHA found that 61% of veterans who died by suicide in 2023 were not receiving VHA care in the final year of their life.

The suicide rate among veterans in VHA care with mental health or substance use disorder diagnoses fell 34.7%, highlighting “the importance of both strengthening VA’s direct care system and expanding outreach and suicide prevention efforts for veterans who are not engaged in VHA health care,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Ranking Member on the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said in a Feb. 5 statement about the report. 

Aligning with previous VA data, the report presented information suggesting VHA services such as the Veterans Crisis Line (VCL) may reduce veteran suicide rates. Twelve months after the first contact with the VCL, the suicide rate for veterans in VHA care in 2022 was 16.1% lower than for those in 2021. 

More than 2800 local and state coalitions are “actively working to meet community needs, expand available resources, and raise awareness” about suicide risks and prevention, the report says. The Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grants Program, for example, provides community-based services for veterans, service members, and their families.

“Veteran suicide has been a scourge on our nation for far too long,” Collins said in a press release. “Most veterans who die by suicide were not in recent VA care, so making it easier for those who have worn the uniform to access the VA benefits they have earned is key.”

Fewer veterans died by suicide in 2023 than 2022, according to the recently released 2025 National Veteran Suicide Prevention Annual Report from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

More than half of suicides, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) found, were driven by pain (52.3%) or sleep problems (51.5%). Increased health problems were factors in 43.1% of cases, particularly traumatic brain injury (TBI) and cancer diagnosis. The suicide rate was 77.6 per 100,000 for veterans with a recent diagnosis of TBI, 94.3% higher than the rate of individuals without such a diagnosis. The suicide rate following a cancer diagnosis was 10.3% higher than for other veterans in VHA care—emphasizing the need, according to the VHA, to continue to expand efforts to integrate suicide prevention resources across all areas serving high-risk veteran groups.

VA has published the National Veteran Suicide Prevention report annually since 2016, with its release typically occurring in December. Release of the 2025 report was delayed until February 2026. The VA attributed the delay, however, due to the federal government shutdown from October 1 to November 12, 2025. At a January 2026 Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing, VA Secretary Doug Collins denied that there was an effort to halt its release.

Veteran deaths by suicide have often been called an epidemic, with the suicide rate having risen faster for veterans than it has for nonveterans since 2005. Veterans are 1.5 times more likely to die by suicide, a statistic that led Collins, veteran advocates, and members of Congress to identify veteran suicide prevention as a top priority.

The report indicates that the number of veteran suicides per year has remained relatively constant in the 6 most recent years of available data: 6738 in 2018, 6510 in 2019, 6347 in 2020, 6429 in 2021, 6442 in 2022, and 6398 in 2023. The fewest veteran suicides in the last 25 years happened both in 2001 and 2004 (6021), while the most (6738) came in 2018.

Although the overall veteran population has declined over time, more veterans are enrolling in VHA care, increasing from 3.8 million in 2001 to 6.1 million in 2023. However, the VHA found that 61% of veterans who died by suicide in 2023 were not receiving VHA care in the final year of their life.

The suicide rate among veterans in VHA care with mental health or substance use disorder diagnoses fell 34.7%, highlighting “the importance of both strengthening VA’s direct care system and expanding outreach and suicide prevention efforts for veterans who are not engaged in VHA health care,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Ranking Member on the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said in a Feb. 5 statement about the report. 

Aligning with previous VA data, the report presented information suggesting VHA services such as the Veterans Crisis Line (VCL) may reduce veteran suicide rates. Twelve months after the first contact with the VCL, the suicide rate for veterans in VHA care in 2022 was 16.1% lower than for those in 2021. 

More than 2800 local and state coalitions are “actively working to meet community needs, expand available resources, and raise awareness” about suicide risks and prevention, the report says. The Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grants Program, for example, provides community-based services for veterans, service members, and their families.

“Veteran suicide has been a scourge on our nation for far too long,” Collins said in a press release. “Most veterans who die by suicide were not in recent VA care, so making it easier for those who have worn the uniform to access the VA benefits they have earned is key.”

Fewer veterans died by suicide in 2023 than 2022, according to the recently released 2025 National Veteran Suicide Prevention Annual Report from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

More than half of suicides, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) found, were driven by pain (52.3%) or sleep problems (51.5%). Increased health problems were factors in 43.1% of cases, particularly traumatic brain injury (TBI) and cancer diagnosis. The suicide rate was 77.6 per 100,000 for veterans with a recent diagnosis of TBI, 94.3% higher than the rate of individuals without such a diagnosis. The suicide rate following a cancer diagnosis was 10.3% higher than for other veterans in VHA care—emphasizing the need, according to the VHA, to continue to expand efforts to integrate suicide prevention resources across all areas serving high-risk veteran groups.

VA has published the National Veteran Suicide Prevention report annually since 2016, with its release typically occurring in December. Release of the 2025 report was delayed until February 2026. The VA attributed the delay, however, due to the federal government shutdown from October 1 to November 12, 2025. At a January 2026 Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing, VA Secretary Doug Collins denied that there was an effort to halt its release.

Veteran deaths by suicide have often been called an epidemic, with the suicide rate having risen faster for veterans than it has for nonveterans since 2005. Veterans are 1.5 times more likely to die by suicide, a statistic that led Collins, veteran advocates, and members of Congress to identify veteran suicide prevention as a top priority.

The report indicates that the number of veteran suicides per year has remained relatively constant in the 6 most recent years of available data: 6738 in 2018, 6510 in 2019, 6347 in 2020, 6429 in 2021, 6442 in 2022, and 6398 in 2023. The fewest veteran suicides in the last 25 years happened both in 2001 and 2004 (6021), while the most (6738) came in 2018.

Although the overall veteran population has declined over time, more veterans are enrolling in VHA care, increasing from 3.8 million in 2001 to 6.1 million in 2023. However, the VHA found that 61% of veterans who died by suicide in 2023 were not receiving VHA care in the final year of their life.

The suicide rate among veterans in VHA care with mental health or substance use disorder diagnoses fell 34.7%, highlighting “the importance of both strengthening VA’s direct care system and expanding outreach and suicide prevention efforts for veterans who are not engaged in VHA health care,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Ranking Member on the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said in a Feb. 5 statement about the report. 

Aligning with previous VA data, the report presented information suggesting VHA services such as the Veterans Crisis Line (VCL) may reduce veteran suicide rates. Twelve months after the first contact with the VCL, the suicide rate for veterans in VHA care in 2022 was 16.1% lower than for those in 2021. 

More than 2800 local and state coalitions are “actively working to meet community needs, expand available resources, and raise awareness” about suicide risks and prevention, the report says. The Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grants Program, for example, provides community-based services for veterans, service members, and their families.

“Veteran suicide has been a scourge on our nation for far too long,” Collins said in a press release. “Most veterans who die by suicide were not in recent VA care, so making it easier for those who have worn the uniform to access the VA benefits they have earned is key.”

Spending time in a war zone can lead to chronic mental and physical pain. Now, research points to a link between two common disorders that can leave service members struggling.

Published in the journal Arthritis Care & Research, a longitudinal cohort study of 1761 US military service members found that those who had posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) before deployment were nearly 3times more likely to develop fibromyalgia after returning home (odds ratio, 2.96; 95% CI, 2.08-4.22). Those with fibromyalgia before deployment had more than threefold greater likelihood of developing PTSD after deployment (odds ratio, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.63-5.95).

This is the largest prospective study to date linking the stress of combat deployment to the onset of fibromyalgia.

“We had the advantage of observing a large population before and after exposure to an environment that often involves significant stress,” said lead study author Jay Higgs, MD, a retired rheumatologist with Brooke Army Medical Center and the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.

Here’s what the team found and why it matters.

Significant Increase in Fibromyalgia After Development

Service members were checked for fibromyalgia using the 2011 questionnaire modification of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology preliminary diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia. They were assessed for PTSD using the PTSD Checklist Stressor-Specific Version.

Before deployment, service members had similar rates of fibromyalgia as the general population: 2.2% in men and 2.0% in women. After deployment, fibromyalgia rates increased significantly to 8.0% in men and 11.1% in women.

While fibromyalgia tends to be underreported in men, the findings suggest it should not be overlooked in this population. “Our results are consistent with the notion that there should be no gender bias when considering the possibility of fibromyalgia in an individual patient,” Higgs said.

Before deployment, 20.7% of men and 18.3% of women had PTSD symptoms. After deployment, the PTSD rate increased slightly to 22.7% in men and 25.5% in women.

The Link Between Fibromyalgia and PTSD

The researchers said the results suggest that PTSD and fibromyalgia might be linked through central nervous system mechanisms such as central sensitization, elevated hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activity, elevated cortisol, and proinflammatory cytokines. However, shared causation, associated risk factors, selection bias, or alternative mechanisms within the central and peripheral neuroendocrine and cytokine systems could also be part of the story.

“What we do not know is how much of what we see clinically represents central nervous system pathology, peripheral problems, or a combination of the 2,” Higgs said. “Neurotransmission in the central nervous system is highly complex, and may not only involve specific structures, but a web of communications between them.”

Loci in the midbrain appear especially important, he said.

Elizabeth Hoge, MD, professor and director of the Anxiety Disorders Research Program at Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, said that patients with PTSD often have pain, headaches, sleep disturbances, and other symptoms that are part of the picture of fibromyalgia. It’s plausible that pain syndromes could be manifestations of PTSD or groupings of symptoms that suggest a subtype.

“Pain is one way that people experience distress, and we know that in PTSD, sometimes the trauma memories are encoded too strongly, more stressful and more alarming to the body system,” she said.

When patients have symptoms such as chronic pain, headaches, fatigue, or cognitive brain fog, clinicians should remember to ask about trauma exposure, Hoge said. You might be the first to broach the subject.

“I’ve certainly seen patients in clinic who never get asked about the exposure to trauma, including sexual trauma, so sometimes that can be the first pathway to helping people feel better is just to have their trauma recognized,” Hoge said.

If a patient has experienced or witnessed violence, consider a referral to a psychiatrist or psychologist to evaluate them for PTSD. Higgs said he collaborated closely with a psychologist to complement his treatment plans for active duty and retired military service members and families.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense (DoD) recommend trauma-focused psychotherapy as the first line of treatment for PTSD. This form of therapy deliberately focuses on bringing trauma memories into the open, Hoge said.

“When a person talks about their trauma, and it comes into direct consciousness, somehow it’s malleable, and so when it goes back down into the memory banks, it’s changed somewhat,” she said.

This study was supported by the DoD through awards from the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs, and Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury Research Program. The funding organizations played 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.

Higgs’s comments are his own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Defense Health Agency, Brooke Army Medical Center, Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center, the DoD, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or any agencies under the US government. Hoge had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Spending time in a war zone can lead to chronic mental and physical pain. Now, research points to a link between two common disorders that can leave service members struggling.

Published in the journal Arthritis Care & Research, a longitudinal cohort study of 1761 US military service members found that those who had posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) before deployment were nearly 3times more likely to develop fibromyalgia after returning home (odds ratio, 2.96; 95% CI, 2.08-4.22). Those with fibromyalgia before deployment had more than threefold greater likelihood of developing PTSD after deployment (odds ratio, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.63-5.95).

This is the largest prospective study to date linking the stress of combat deployment to the onset of fibromyalgia.

“We had the advantage of observing a large population before and after exposure to an environment that often involves significant stress,” said lead study author Jay Higgs, MD, a retired rheumatologist with Brooke Army Medical Center and the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.

Here’s what the team found and why it matters.

Significant Increase in Fibromyalgia After Development

Service members were checked for fibromyalgia using the 2011 questionnaire modification of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology preliminary diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia. They were assessed for PTSD using the PTSD Checklist Stressor-Specific Version.

Before deployment, service members had similar rates of fibromyalgia as the general population: 2.2% in men and 2.0% in women. After deployment, fibromyalgia rates increased significantly to 8.0% in men and 11.1% in women.

While fibromyalgia tends to be underreported in men, the findings suggest it should not be overlooked in this population. “Our results are consistent with the notion that there should be no gender bias when considering the possibility of fibromyalgia in an individual patient,” Higgs said.

Before deployment, 20.7% of men and 18.3% of women had PTSD symptoms. After deployment, the PTSD rate increased slightly to 22.7% in men and 25.5% in women.

The Link Between Fibromyalgia and PTSD

The researchers said the results suggest that PTSD and fibromyalgia might be linked through central nervous system mechanisms such as central sensitization, elevated hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activity, elevated cortisol, and proinflammatory cytokines. However, shared causation, associated risk factors, selection bias, or alternative mechanisms within the central and peripheral neuroendocrine and cytokine systems could also be part of the story.

“What we do not know is how much of what we see clinically represents central nervous system pathology, peripheral problems, or a combination of the 2,” Higgs said. “Neurotransmission in the central nervous system is highly complex, and may not only involve specific structures, but a web of communications between them.”

Loci in the midbrain appear especially important, he said.

Elizabeth Hoge, MD, professor and director of the Anxiety Disorders Research Program at Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, said that patients with PTSD often have pain, headaches, sleep disturbances, and other symptoms that are part of the picture of fibromyalgia. It’s plausible that pain syndromes could be manifestations of PTSD or groupings of symptoms that suggest a subtype.

“Pain is one way that people experience distress, and we know that in PTSD, sometimes the trauma memories are encoded too strongly, more stressful and more alarming to the body system,” she said.

When patients have symptoms such as chronic pain, headaches, fatigue, or cognitive brain fog, clinicians should remember to ask about trauma exposure, Hoge said. You might be the first to broach the subject.

“I’ve certainly seen patients in clinic who never get asked about the exposure to trauma, including sexual trauma, so sometimes that can be the first pathway to helping people feel better is just to have their trauma recognized,” Hoge said.

If a patient has experienced or witnessed violence, consider a referral to a psychiatrist or psychologist to evaluate them for PTSD. Higgs said he collaborated closely with a psychologist to complement his treatment plans for active duty and retired military service members and families.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense (DoD) recommend trauma-focused psychotherapy as the first line of treatment for PTSD. This form of therapy deliberately focuses on bringing trauma memories into the open, Hoge said.

“When a person talks about their trauma, and it comes into direct consciousness, somehow it’s malleable, and so when it goes back down into the memory banks, it’s changed somewhat,” she said.

This study was supported by the DoD through awards from the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs, and Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury Research Program. The funding organizations played 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.

Higgs’s comments are his own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Defense Health Agency, Brooke Army Medical Center, Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center, the DoD, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or any agencies under the US government. Hoge had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Spending time in a war zone can lead to chronic mental and physical pain. Now, research points to a link between two common disorders that can leave service members struggling.

Published in the journal Arthritis Care & Research, a longitudinal cohort study of 1761 US military service members found that those who had posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) before deployment were nearly 3times more likely to develop fibromyalgia after returning home (odds ratio, 2.96; 95% CI, 2.08-4.22). Those with fibromyalgia before deployment had more than threefold greater likelihood of developing PTSD after deployment (odds ratio, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.63-5.95).

This is the largest prospective study to date linking the stress of combat deployment to the onset of fibromyalgia.

“We had the advantage of observing a large population before and after exposure to an environment that often involves significant stress,” said lead study author Jay Higgs, MD, a retired rheumatologist with Brooke Army Medical Center and the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.

Here’s what the team found and why it matters.

Significant Increase in Fibromyalgia After Development

Service members were checked for fibromyalgia using the 2011 questionnaire modification of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology preliminary diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia. They were assessed for PTSD using the PTSD Checklist Stressor-Specific Version.

Before deployment, service members had similar rates of fibromyalgia as the general population: 2.2% in men and 2.0% in women. After deployment, fibromyalgia rates increased significantly to 8.0% in men and 11.1% in women.

While fibromyalgia tends to be underreported in men, the findings suggest it should not be overlooked in this population. “Our results are consistent with the notion that there should be no gender bias when considering the possibility of fibromyalgia in an individual patient,” Higgs said.

Before deployment, 20.7% of men and 18.3% of women had PTSD symptoms. After deployment, the PTSD rate increased slightly to 22.7% in men and 25.5% in women.

The Link Between Fibromyalgia and PTSD

The researchers said the results suggest that PTSD and fibromyalgia might be linked through central nervous system mechanisms such as central sensitization, elevated hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activity, elevated cortisol, and proinflammatory cytokines. However, shared causation, associated risk factors, selection bias, or alternative mechanisms within the central and peripheral neuroendocrine and cytokine systems could also be part of the story.

“What we do not know is how much of what we see clinically represents central nervous system pathology, peripheral problems, or a combination of the 2,” Higgs said. “Neurotransmission in the central nervous system is highly complex, and may not only involve specific structures, but a web of communications between them.”

Loci in the midbrain appear especially important, he said.

Elizabeth Hoge, MD, professor and director of the Anxiety Disorders Research Program at Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, said that patients with PTSD often have pain, headaches, sleep disturbances, and other symptoms that are part of the picture of fibromyalgia. It’s plausible that pain syndromes could be manifestations of PTSD or groupings of symptoms that suggest a subtype.

“Pain is one way that people experience distress, and we know that in PTSD, sometimes the trauma memories are encoded too strongly, more stressful and more alarming to the body system,” she said.

When patients have symptoms such as chronic pain, headaches, fatigue, or cognitive brain fog, clinicians should remember to ask about trauma exposure, Hoge said. You might be the first to broach the subject.

“I’ve certainly seen patients in clinic who never get asked about the exposure to trauma, including sexual trauma, so sometimes that can be the first pathway to helping people feel better is just to have their trauma recognized,” Hoge said.

If a patient has experienced or witnessed violence, consider a referral to a psychiatrist or psychologist to evaluate them for PTSD. Higgs said he collaborated closely with a psychologist to complement his treatment plans for active duty and retired military service members and families.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense (DoD) recommend trauma-focused psychotherapy as the first line of treatment for PTSD. This form of therapy deliberately focuses on bringing trauma memories into the open, Hoge said.

“When a person talks about their trauma, and it comes into direct consciousness, somehow it’s malleable, and so when it goes back down into the memory banks, it’s changed somewhat,” she said.

This study was supported by the DoD through awards from the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs, and Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury Research Program. The funding organizations played 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.

Higgs’s comments are his own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Defense Health Agency, Brooke Army Medical Center, Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center, the DoD, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or any agencies under the US government. Hoge had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.