Skip to content

Patient and Provider Outcomes of E-Learning Training in Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality

Patient and Provider Outcomes of E-Learning Training in Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00905827
Acronym
CAMS
Enrollment
212
Registered
2009-05-21
Start date
2010-07-31
Completion date
2013-12-31
Last updated
2015-04-24

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Suicide

Keywords

suicide, assessment, management, Provider Training, health services

Brief summary

Suicide prevention among military Veterans has become a national priority; yet, there is a gap in suicide-specific intervention training for mental health students and professionals. The need for training in this area has become even more acute with the recent hiring by the Veterans Health Affairs (VHA) of thousands of clinicians to address the mental health needs of Veterans from all war eras. Since e-learning (online) education is more effective than traditional in-person (face-to-face) education for adult learners when methods, such as blended learning, are used, this mode of delivery may more easily meet the training and continuing education needs of busy medical professionals who may find it easier to fit online education into their daily schedules. A well developed in-person training approach known as the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (or CAMS) has been recommended in systematic reviews as an effective tool for assessing and managing suicidality, as well as decreasing providers' fears, improving their attitudes, increasing their knowledge, confidence, and competence, and dispelling myths. The overall aims of this project were to develop an e-learning alternative for the CAMS program, determine its effectiveness relative to in-person CAMS training, and assess factors that may relate to adoption and implementation of CAMS in general and specifically through e-learning and in-person modalities.

Detailed description

There were four specific aims: 1. Refine a Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (or CAMS) e-learning course that covers the same material and meets the same learning objectives of CAMS in-person training. 2. Test the effectiveness of the CAMS e-learning modality compared to the CAMS in-person modality and a concurrent non-intervention control in terms of provider evaluation and behavior. HO: Providers in each of the two CAMS arms will demonstrate higher levels of content mastery and confidence in acquired skills than providers in the no CAMS arm. H2: In the 12 months post-training, suicidal patients of providers in each of the two CAMS arms will receive higher rates of CAMS guideline concordant treatment, compared with providers in the no CAMS arm. 3. Test the effectiveness of the CAMS e-Learning delivery compared to the CAMS in-person delivery and a concurrent non-intervention control in terms of patient outcomes. H3, 4, 5: In the 12 months post-training, suicidal patients of CAMS e-learning providers and CAMS in-person providers will be similar for health services use patterns, duration of high risk episodes, and number of high risk episodes per patient. H6: In the 12 months post training, suicidal patients of providers in the no CAMS arm will have higher rates of emergency room use and inpatient mental health admissions, have a longer average duration of high risk episodes, and have more high risk episodes per patient. 4. Assess factors that facilitate or inhibit adoption of CAMS through e-Learning or In-person. Of the 309 providers who met eligibility criteria, 230 consented and 212 completed the baseline assessments and were randomized. A total of 261 patients met eligibility criteria and information was abstracted on them. We developed the CAMS-e, conducted a pilot, revised the e-CAMS, delivered the training in the first site, and again revised it. There is little difference in satisfaction ratings between the two types of training deliveries on the VA Evaluation of Training. Findings show that there were some modest immediate improvements due to the two training conditions; however, the effects were only sustainable at three months for one question related to hospitalization beliefs. To date, the project has had the following impacts: 1. success in obtaining 6.5 continuing education units (CEUs) for the e-learning version 2. invitations to place e-CAMS on the Department of Defense learning platforms 3. VA Central Office has purchased a license to use the Suicide Status Form (SSF) as a clinical tool and template in the computerized electronic patient record system throughout the national VA. The template is in the developmental process. 4. Efforts are underway to move the CAMS e-learning on to the VA Training Management System (TMS) which will facilitate system wide dissemination and has the potential to increase adoption in VAMC's or by providers. Additional impacts may be evident with regard to improved care once we complete analysis of the patient outcomes and provider adherence data. We have also considered a short manuscript on economic analysis

Interventions

BEHAVIORALCAMS

Collaborative assessment management in suicidality

Sponsors

Medical University of South Carolina
CollaboratorOTHER
Washington Psychological Center
CollaboratorUNKNOWN
US Department of Veterans Affairs
Lead SponsorFED

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
22 Years to 80 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Mental health providers, psychiatrist, social workers, psychologist, advanced practice nurses and case managers

Exclusion criteria

* Previous CAMS Training

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Provider Self-efficacy and Beliefs About Suicidalitypost-trainingAssessed beliefs and confidence in managing suicidal individuals. Using a 5-point Likert scale, there were 11 items that addressed the following: competence, reactions, beliefs, motivations, and CAMS as it relates to their practice. Scores ranged from 11-55 with questions were phrased so higher scores indicated more positive views.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Satisfaction With Trainingpost-trainingEvaluation included 20 standard items assessing providers satisfaction with training, including items similar to other published satisfaction surveys. Survey items were rated using a five-point Likert scale indicating the degree to which respondents agreed or disagreed. Questions were always phrased positively so that agree or strongly agree is equivalent to a positive response.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Intervention 1: In-person CAMS
Intervention: in-person CAMS training for providers
70
Intervention: E-training CAMS
Intervention: e-training CAMS training for providers
69
Control
Control: no training
73
Total212

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicIntervention 1: In-person CAMSIntervention: E-training CAMSControlTotal
Age, Customized
20-29 years
4 participants4 participants6 participants14 participants
Age, Customized
30-39 years
22 participants22 participants23 participants67 participants
Age, Customized
40-49 years
15 participants13 participants22 participants50 participants
Age, Customized
50-59 years
19 participants22 participants18 participants59 participants
Age, Customized
60-69 years
10 participants8 participants4 participants22 participants
Profession
Midlevel Provider
42 participants44 participants43 participants129 participants
Profession
Psychiatrist
12 participants12 participants12 participants36 participants
Profession
Psychologist
16 participants13 participants18 participants47 participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
African American
15 participants19 participants14 participants48 participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Hispanic
0 participants2 participants1 participants3 participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Other
6 participants1 participants4 participants11 participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
White
45 participants45 participants46 participants136 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
47 Participants49 Participants59 Participants155 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
23 Participants20 Participants14 Participants57 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 700 / 690 / 73
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 700 / 690 / 73

Outcome results

Primary

Provider Self-efficacy and Beliefs About Suicidality

Assessed beliefs and confidence in managing suicidal individuals. Using a 5-point Likert scale, there were 11 items that addressed the following: competence, reactions, beliefs, motivations, and CAMS as it relates to their practice. Scores ranged from 11-55 with questions were phrased so higher scores indicated more positive views.

Time frame: post-training

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Intervention 1: In-person CAMSProvider Self-efficacy and Beliefs About Suicidality45.6 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.5
Intervention 2: E-learning CAMSProvider Self-efficacy and Beliefs About Suicidality44.9 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.5
ControlProvider Self-efficacy and Beliefs About Suicidality43.0 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.6
Comparison: Pairwise comparisons (ANOVA simple effect comparisons) adjusted for baseline scoresp-value: <0.01ANOVA
Comparison: Pairwise comparisons (ANOVA simple effect comparisons) adjusted for baseline scoresp-value: 0.01ANOVA
Secondary

Satisfaction With Training

Evaluation included 20 standard items assessing providers satisfaction with training, including items similar to other published satisfaction surveys. Survey items were rated using a five-point Likert scale indicating the degree to which respondents agreed or disagreed. Questions were always phrased positively so that agree or strongly agree is equivalent to a positive response.

Time frame: post-training

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Intervention 1: In-person CAMSSatisfaction With TrainingAgree66 participants
Intervention 1: In-person CAMSSatisfaction With TrainingNeutral3 participants
Intervention 1: In-person CAMSSatisfaction With TrainingDisagree1 participants
Intervention 2: E-learning CAMSSatisfaction With TrainingAgree62 participants
Intervention 2: E-learning CAMSSatisfaction With TrainingNeutral2 participants
Intervention 2: E-learning CAMSSatisfaction With TrainingDisagree5 participants

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026