* RUQ = right upper quadrant; WBC = white blood cell; AAC = acalculous cholecystitis; AST = aspartate aminotransferase; ALT = alanine aminotransferase; HIDA = hepatobiliary iminodiacetic acid.

No abstract

Introduction The Secretary of the U.S. Army issued two directives in late 2017 to directly combat the problem of suicide in the U.S. Army. The first was to develop an Army tool to assist commanders and first-line leaders in preventing suicide and improving behavioral health (BH) outcomes, which has been previously published as the BH Readiness and Risk Reduction Review (R4). The second was to conduct an evaluation study of the tool with Army units in the field. This study is the first to empirically examine the Army’s tool-based methods for identifying and caring for the health and welfare of soldiers at risk for suicide, and this article outlines the methodology employed to study the effectiveness of the R4 tools and accomplish the Secretary’s second directive. Methods The Walter Reed Army Institute of Research Institutional Review Board approved the R4 study. The study employed a repeated measurements in pre/post quasi-experimental design, including a nonequivalent but comparable business-as-usual control group. The R4 intervention consisted of the R4 tools, accompanying instructions, and an orientation. Samples were drawn from two geographically separated U.S. Army divisions in the continental United States, each composed of four comparable brigades. Study implementation consisted of three phases and three data collections over the course of 12 months. Soldiers completed anonymous survey instruments to assess a range of health factors, behaviors, characteristics, tool-related decision-making processes, and the frequency, type, and quality of interactions between soldiers and leaders. Results The R4 study commenced on May 6, 2019, and concluded on June 4, 2020. Sample size goals were achieved for both the divisions at all three data collection time points. Conclusions The methodology of the R4 study is critical for the U.S. Army from both a precedential and an outcome-based standpoint. Despite the use of many previous tools and programs for suicide prevention, this is the first time the Army has been able to empirically test the effectiveness of tool-supported decision-making among Army units in a rigorous fashion. The methodology of such a test is a critical marker for future interventional inquiries on the subject of suicide in the Army, and the results will allow for more informed decision-making by leaders when approaching these ongoing challenges.

Introduction Although numerous efforts have aimed to reduce suicides in the U.S. Army, completion rates have remained elevated. Army leaders play an important role in supporting soldiers at risk of suicide, but existing suicide-prevention tools tailored to leaders are limited and not empirically validated. The purpose of this article is to describe the process used to develop the Behavioral Health Readiness and Suicide Risk Reduction Review (R4) tools for Army leaders that are currently undergoing empirical validation with two U.S. Army divisions. Materials and Methods Consistent with a Secretary of the Army directive, approximately 76 interviews and focus groups were conducted with Army leaders and subject matter experts (SMEs) to obtain feedback regarding existing practices for suicide risk management, leader tools, and institutional considerations. In addition, reviews of the empirical literature regarding predictors of suicide and best practices for the development of practice guidelines were conducted. Qualitative feedback, empirical predictors of suicide, and design considerations were integrated to develop the R4 tools. A second series of 11 interviews and focus groups with Army leaders and SMEs was also conducted to validate the design and obtain feedback regarding the R4 tools. Results Leaders described preferences for tool processes (eg, incorporating engaged leadership, including multiple risk identification methods), formatting (eg, one page), organization (eg, low-intermediate-high risk scoring system), content (eg, excluding other considerations related to vehicle safety, including readiness implications), and implementation (eg, accounting for leadership judgment, tailoring process to specific leadership echelons, consideration of institutional barriers). Evidence-based predictors of suicide risk and practice guideline considerations (eg, design) were integrated with leadership feedback to develop the R4 tools that were tailored to specific leadership echelons. Leaders provided positive feedback regarding the R4 tools and described the importance of accounting for potential institutional barriers to implementation. This feedback was addressed by including recommendations regarding the implementation of standardized support meetings between different echelons of leadership. Conclusions The R4 development process entailed the simultaneous integration of leadership feedback with evidence-based predictors of suicide risk and design considerations. Thus, the development of these tools builds upon previous Army leadership tools by specifically tailoring elements of those tools to accommodate leader preferences, accounting for potential implementation barriers (eg, institutional factors), and empirically evaluating the implementation of those tools. Future studies should consider utilizing a similar process to develop empirically based resources that are more likely to be incorporated into the routine practice of leaders supporting soldiers at risk of suicide, very often located at the company level and below.

No abstract