BackgroundSome veterans face multiple barriers to VA mental healthcare service use. However, there is limited understanding of how veterans’ experiences and meaning systems shape their perceptions of barriers to VA mental health service use. In 2015, a participatory, mixed-methods project was initiated to elicit veteran-centered barriers to using mental healthcare services among a diverse sample of US rural and urban veterans. We sought to identify veteran-centric barriers to mental healthcare to increase initial engagement and continuation with VA mental healthcare services.MethodsCultural Domain Analysis, incorporated in a mixed methods approach, generated a cognitive map of veterans’ barriers to care. The method involved: 1) free lists of barriers categorized through participant pile sorting; 2) multi-dimensional scaling and cluster analysis for item clusters in spatial dimensions; and 3) participant review, explanation, and interpretation for dimensions of the cultural domain. Item relations were synthesized within and across domain dimensions to contextualize mental health help-seeking behavior.ResultsParticipants determined five dimensions of barriers to VA mental healthcare services: concern about what others think; financial, personal, and physical obstacles; confidence in the VA healthcare system; navigating VA benefits and healthcare services; and privacy, security, and abuse of services.ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate the value of participatory methods in eliciting meaningful cultural insight into barriers of mental health utilization informed by military veteran culture. They also reinforce the importance of collaborations between the VA and Department of Defense to address the role of military institutional norms and stigmatizing attitudes in veterans’ mental health-seeking behaviors.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3346-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundMental health smartphone apps provide support, skills, and symptom tracking on demand and come at minimal to no additional cost to patients. Although the Department of Veterans Affairs has established itself as a national leader in the creation of mental health apps, veterans’ attitudes regarding the use of these innovations are largely unknown, particularly among rural and aging populations who may benefit from increased access to care.ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to examine veterans’ attitudes toward smartphone apps and to assess whether openness toward this technology varies by age or rurality.MethodsWe conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with 66 veterans from rural and urban areas in Maine, Arkansas, and California. Eligible veterans aged 18 to 70 years had screened positive for postraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), alcohol use disorder, or major depressive disorder, but a history of mental health service utilization was not required. Interviews were digitally recorded, professionally transcribed, and coded by a research team using an established codebook. We then conducted a thematic analysis of segments pertaining to smartphone use, informed by existing theories of technology adoption.ResultsInterviews revealed a marked division regarding openness to mental health smartphone apps, such that veterans either expressed strongly positive or negative views about their usage, with few participants sharing ambivalent or neutral opinions. Differences emerged between rural and urban veterans’ attitudes, with rural veterans tending to oppose app usage, describe smartphones as hard to navigate, and cite barriers such as financial limitations and connectivity issues, more so than urban populations. Moreover, rural veterans more often described smartphones as being opposed to their values. Differences did not emerge between younger and older (≥50) veterans regarding beliefs that apps could be effective or compatible with their culture and identity. However, compared with younger veterans, older veterans more often reported not owning a smartphone and described this technology as being difficult to use.ConclusionsOpenness toward the use of smartphone apps in mental health treatment may vary based on rurality, and further exploration of the barriers cited by rural veterans is needed to improve access to care. In addition, findings indicate that older patients may be more open to integrating technology into their mental health care than providers might assume, although such patients may have more trouble navigating these devices and may benefit from simplified app designs or smartphone training. Given the strong opinions expressed either for or against smartphone apps, our findings suggest that apps may not be an ideal adjunctive treatment for all patients, but it is important to identify those who are open to and may greatly benefit from this technology.

There is growing concern among US-based clinicians, patients, policy makers, and in the media about the personal and community health risks associated with opioids. Perceptions about the efficacy and appropriateness of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) have dramatically transformed in recent decades. Yet, there is very little social scientific research identifying the factors that have informed this transformation from the perspectives of prescribing clinicians. As part of an on-going ethnographic study of CNCP management among clinicians and their patients with co-occurring substance use, we interviewed 23 primary care clinicians who practice in safety-net clinical settings. In this paper, we describe the clinical and social influences informing three historic periods: (1) the escalation of opioid prescriptions for CNCP; (2) an interim period in which the efficacy of and risks associated with opioids were re-assessed; and (3) the current period of “opioid pharmacovigilance,” characterized by the increased surveillance of opioid prescriptions. Clinicians reported that interpretations of the evidence-base in favor of and opposing opioid prescribing for CNCP evolved within a larger clinical-social context. Historically, pharmaceutical marketing efforts and clinicians’ concerns about racialized healthcare disparities in pain treatment influenced opioid prescription decision-making. Clinicians emphasized how patients’ medical complexity (e.g. multiple chronic health conditions) and structural vulnerability (e.g. poverty, community violence) impacted access to opioids within resource-limited healthcare settings. This clinical-social history of opioid prescribing practices helps to elucidate the ongoing challenges of CNCP treatment in the US healthcare safety net and lends needed specificity to the broader, nationwide conversation about opioids.

As the VA moves to cultivate community partnerships in order to personalize and expand access to care for rural veterans, pre-implementation processes with engaged stakeholders, such as those described here, can help guide other researchers and clinicians to achieve proactive and veteran-centered health care services.

Background-Patients with a history of substance use are more likely than those without substance use to experience chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), to be prescribed opioids, and to experience opioid misuse or overdose. Primary care practitioners (PCPs) in safety-net settings care for low-income patients with CNCP and substance use, usually without specialist consultation. To inform communication related to opioid risk, we explored PCPs' and patients' perceptions of the risks of chronic opioid therapy.