The collaborative assessment and management of suicidality (CAMS) versus enhanced care as usual (E-CAU) with suicidal soldiers: Moderator analyses from a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT

Given historically high rates of suicide among military personnel over the past decade the present study analyzed whether key demographic, military, and research-based variables moderated clinical treatment outcomes of 148 suicidal active duty US Army soldiers. This is a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial comparing the collaborative assessment and management of suicidality (CAMS) to enhanced care as usual (E-CAU; Jobes et al., 2017). Nine potential moderator variables were derived from the suicidology literature, military-specific considerations, and previous CAMS research; these were sex, age, marital status, race, lifetime suicide attempts, combat deployments, time in service, initial distress, and borderline personality disorder diagnosis. The clinical outcomes included six suicide- and mental health-related variables. Six of the eight significant moderator findings in this study showed CAMS outperforming E-CAU in certain subgroups with medium to large effect sizes ranging from 0.48 to 1.50. Collectively, the results suggest that CAMS was associated with the greatest improvement among lower complexity soldier patients, particularly those with lower initial distress and fewer deployments. Those who were married or older generally responded better to CAMS, although the results were not entirely consistent with respect to age. CAMS’s effectiveness for married soldiers and those with lower initial distress was a particularly robust finding that persisted when adjusting more stringently for multiple testing. This study sheds light on several factors associated with the success of CAMS among suicidal soldiers that can assist in matching the treatment to those that may benefit the most.

KEYWORDS:

• RCT
• moderators
• CAMS
• suicidal soldiers

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Department of the Army through the federal grant award W81XWH-11-1-0164, awarded and administered by the Military Operational Medicine Research Program. The views expressed in this presentation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the US Army Medical Department, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the United States Government.