Background: Most states have legalized medical cannabis, yet little is known about how medical cannabis use is documented in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs). We used natural language processing (NLP) to calculate the prevalence of clinician-documented medical cannabis use among adults in an integrated health system in Washington State where medical and recreational use are legal. Methods: We analyzed EHRs of patients ≥18 years old screened for past-year cannabis use (November 1, 2017–October 31, 2018), to identify clinician-documented medical cannabis use. We defined medical use as any documentation of cannabis that was recommended by a clinician or described by the clinician or patient as intended to manage health conditions or symptoms. We developed and applied an NLP system that included NLP-assisted manual review to identify such documentation in encounter notes. Results: Medical cannabis use was documented for 16,684 (5.6%) of 299,597 outpatient encounters with routine screening for cannabis use among 203,489 patients seeing 1,274 clinicians. The validated NLP system identified 54% of documentation and NLP-assisted manual review the remainder. Language documenting reasons for cannabis use included 125 terms indicating medical use, 28 terms indicating non-medical use and 41 ambiguous terms. Implicit documentation of medical use (e.g., “edible THC nightly for lumbar pain”) was more common than explicit (e.g., “continues medical cannabis use”). Conclusions: Clinicians use diverse and often ambiguous language to document patients’ reasons for cannabis use. Automating extraction of documentation about patients’ cannabis use could facilitate clinical decision support and epidemiological investigation but will require large amounts of gold standard training data.

IMPORTANCE Patients who use cannabis for medical reasons may benefit from discussions with clinicians about health risks of cannabis and evidence-based treatment alternatives. However, little is known about the prevalence of medical cannabis use in primary care and how often it is documented in patient electronic health records (EHR). OBJECTIVE To estimate the primary care prevalence of medical cannabis use according to confidential patient survey and to compare the prevalence of medical cannabis use documented in the EHR with patient report. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This study is a cross-sectional survey performed in a large health system that conducts routine cannabis screening in Washington state where medical and nonmedical cannabis use are legal. Among 108 950 patients who completed routine cannabis screening (between March 28, 2019, and September 12, 2019), 5000 were randomly selected for a confidential survey about cannabis use, using stratified random sampling for frequency of past-year use and patient race and ethnicity. Data were analyzed from November 2020 to December 2021. EXPOSURES Survey measures of patient-reported past-year cannabis use, medical cannabis use (ie, explicit medical use), and any health reason(s) for use (ie, implicit medical use). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Survey data were linked to EHR data in the year before screening. EHR measures included documentation of explicit and/or implicit medical cannabis use. Analyses estimated the primary care prevalence of cannabis use and compared EHR-documented with patient-reported medical cannabis use, accounting for stratified sampling and nonresponse. RESULTS Overall, 1688 patients responded to the survey (34% response rate; mean [SD] age, 50.7 [17.5] years; 861 female [56%], 1184 White [74%], 1514 non-Hispanic [97%], and 1059 commercially insured [65%]). The primary care prevalence of any past-year patient-reported cannabis use on the survey was 38.8% (95% CI, 31.9%-46.1%), whereas the prevalence of explicit and implicit medical use were 26.5%(95% CI, 21.6%-31.3%) and 35.1%(95% CI, 29.3%-40.8%), respectively. The prevalence of EHR-documented medical cannabis use was 4.8%(95% CI, 3.45%-6.2%). Compared with patient-reported explicit medical use, the sensitivity and specificity of EHR-documented medical cannabis use were 10.0%(95% CI, 4.4%-15.6%) and 97.1%(95% CI, 94.4%-99.8%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These findings suggest that medical cannabis use is common among primary care patients in a state with legal use, and most use is not documented in the EHR. Patient report of health reasons for cannabis use identifies more medical use compared with explicit questions about medical use.

ABSTRACT:Chronic pain is associated with mental and physical health difficulties and is prevalent among veterans. Cannabis has been put forth as a treatment for chronic pain, and changes in laws, attitudes, and use patterns have occurred over the past 2 decades. Differences in prevalence of nonmedical cannabis use and cannabis use disorder (CUD) were examined across 2 groups: veterans or nonveterans and those reporting or not reporting recent pain. Data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (2012-2013; n = 36,309) were analyzed using logistic regression. Prevalence differences (PDs) for 3 cannabis outcomes (1) past-year nonmedical cannabis use, (2) frequent (≥3 times a week) nonmedical use, and (3) DSM-5 CUD were estimated for those reporting recent moderate to severe pain (veterans or nonveterans) and veterans reporting or not reporting recent pain. Difference in differences was calculated to investigate PDs on outcomes associated with residence in a state with medical cannabis laws (MCLs). Associations between physical and mental health and cannabis variables were tested. The results indicated that the prevalence of recent pain was greater among veterans (PD = 7.25%, 95% confidence interval (CI) [4.90-9.60]). Among veterans, the prevalence of frequent cannabis use was greater among those with pain (PD = 1.92%, 98% CI [0.21-3.63]), and among veterans residing in a state with MCLs, the prevalence of CUD was greater among those reporting recent pain (PD = 3.88%, 98% CI [0.36-7.39]). Findings failed to support the hypothesis that cannabis use improves mental or physical health for veterans with pain. Providers treating veterans with pain in MCL states should monitor such patients closely for CUD.

INTRODUCTION:Trauma-related guilt is common, associated with posttraumatic mental health problems, and can persist after posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment. We compared the efficacy of two six-session psychotherapies, Trauma-Informed Guilt Reduction (TrIGR) and Supportive Care Therapy (SCT), for reducing trauma-related guilt. TrIGR helps patients accurately appraise their role in the trauma and re-engage in values. In SCT, patients guide session content.METHODS:A total of 184 veterans seeking VA mental health services were enrolled across two sites; 145 veterans (mean age: 39.2 [8.1]; 92.4% male; 84.8% with PTSD) who endorsed guilt related to a traumatic event that occurred during a post 9/11 Iraq or Afghanistan deployment were randomized and assessed at baseline, posttreatment, 3- and 6-month follow-up.RESULTS:Linear mixed models using intent-to-treat analyses showed guilt decreased in both conditions with a greater decrease for TrIGR (treatment × time, -0.22; F 1, 455.2  = 18.49, p = .001; d = 0.92) than supportive therapy. PTSD and depressive symptoms showed the same pattern. TrIGR had significantly higher likelihood of PTSD treatment response (67% vs. 40%), loss of PTSD diagnosis (50% vs. 14%), and meaningful change in depression (54% vs. 27%) than supportive therapy. Psychological distress and trait shame improved in both conditions. Quality of life did not change.CONCLUSIONS:Targeting guilt appears to be an effective means for reducing posttraumatic symptoms and distress.

OBJECTIVE:This study examined past-year cannabis use prevalence and sociodemographic and clinical correlates of cannabis use among Veterans Health Administration (VHA) primary care patients in a state with legalized medical cannabis. METHOD:Participants were 1,072 predominantly white, male, VHA primary care patients enrolled in a drug screening validation study (2012-2014). Sociodemographic and clinical correlates were examined by past-year cannabis use status. Multivariate regression models, adjusted for demographics, estimated cannabis use prevalence and clinical correlates among recreational, medical, and both medical and recreational users. RESULTS:Nearly one in five (18.7%) veterans endorsed past-year cannabis use, with 14.1% of the total sample reporting any recreational use and 7.0% reporting any medical use. Correlates of any past-year use included younger age, period of service, being unmarried, lower education, lower income, other substance use, meeting criteria for an alcohol or drug use disorder or posttraumatic stress disorder, higher pain rating, and lower self-reported well-being. Compared to veterans endorsing only recreational use, veterans endorsing only medical use reported more cannabis use days but had lower odds of other drug use, alcohol or drug-related problems, or alcohol or drug use disorders. Differences between recreational only users and those using medical and recreational cannabis were minimal. CONCLUSIONS:Veterans enrolled in VHA in states with legalized cannabis may be particularly likely to use cannabis. Veterans identifying as recreational users may be at increased risk for adverse clinical outcomes compared to medical-only users. Prevalence monitoring, assessment, and intervention services should be considered, particularly in states with legalized cannabis. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Over the past 20 years, numerous treatments addressing comorbid Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Substance Use Disorder (SUD) have been developed and tested. The current meta-analysis examined the efficacy and acceptability of the two central treatment types-trauma-focused and non-trauma-focused - compared with all comparators and with cognitive-behavioral manualized SUD treatments immediately post-treatment and at longest follow-up. Twenty-eight randomized clinical trials (N = 3247) were included. There were small to large within-group effects for all forms of active treatment (gs = 0.30-1.11). Trauma-focused but not non-trauma focused treatments outperformed all comparators on PTSD outcomes at post-treatment. Neither trauma focused nor non-trauma-focused treatment outperformed all comparators on SUD outcomes at post-treatment. Neither trauma-nor non-trauma-focused treatment outperformed manualized SUD treatments on PTSD outcomes at either time point. Manualized SUD treatments outperformed trauma-focused treatments on SUD outcomes at post-treatment and non-trauma-focused treatments on PTSD outcomes at follow-up. Regarding treatment retention, neither trauma-focused nor non-trauma-focused treatments significantly differed from all comparators or from manualized SUD treatments. Between-group results were largely unchanged in trim-and-fill analyses, but were not robust to fail-safe N. Few moderators were detected. Taken together, results suggest that trauma-focused, non-trauma-focused, and manualized SUD interventions are sound options for individuals with comorbid PTSD/SUD.

OBJECTIVE:The authors sought to estimate the prevalence of past-12-month and lifetime cannabis use and cannabis use disorder among U.S. veterans; to describe demographic, substance use disorder, and psychiatric disorder correlates of nonmedical cannabis use and cannabis use disorder; and to explore differences in cannabis use and cannabis use disorder prevalence among veterans in states with and without medical marijuana laws.METHODS:Participants were 3,119 respondents in the 2012-2013 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (NESARC-III) who identified as U.S. veterans. Weighted prevalences were calculated. Logistic regression analyses tested associations of nonmedical cannabis use and cannabis use disorder with demographic and clinical correlates and examined whether prevalence differed by state legalization status.RESULTS:The prevalences of any past-12-month cannabis use and cannabis use disorder were 7.3% and 1.8%, respectively. Lifetime prevalences were 32.5% and 5.7%, respectively. Past-12-month and lifetime cannabis use disorder prevalence estimates among nonmedical cannabis users were 24.4% and 17.4%, respectively. Sociodemographic correlates of nonmedical cannabis use and use disorder included younger age, male gender, being unmarried, lower income, and residing in a state with medical marijuana laws. Nonmedical cannabis use and use disorder were associated with most psychiatric and substance use disorders examined.CONCLUSIONS:Among veterans, the odds of nonmedical cannabis use and use disorder were elevated among vulnerable subgroups, including those with lower income or psychiatric disorders and among survey participants residing in states with medical marijuana laws. The study findings highlight the need for clinical attention (e.g., screening, assessment) and ongoing monitoring among veterans in the context of increasing legalization of cannabis.

Importance Many people use cannabis for medical reasons despite limited evidence of therapeutic benefit and potential risks. Little is known about medical practitioners’ documentation of medical cannabis use or clinical characteristics of patients with documented medical cannabis use. Objectives To estimate the prevalence of past-year medical cannabis use documented in electronic health records (EHRs) and to describe patients with EHR-documented medical cannabis use, EHR-documented cannabis use without evidence of medical use (other cannabis use), and no EHR-documented cannabis use. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study assessed adult primary care patients who completed a cannabis screen during a visit between November 1, 2017, and October 31, 2018, at a large health system that conducts routine cannabis screening in a US state with legal medical and recreational cannabis use. Exposures Three mutually exclusive categories of EHR-documented cannabis use (medical, other, and no use) based on practitioner documentation of medical cannabis use in the EHR and patient report of past-year cannabis use at screening. Main Outcomes and Measures Health conditions for which cannabis use has potential benefits or risks were defined based on National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s review. The adjusted prevalence of conditions diagnosed in the prior year were estimated across 3 categories of EHR-documented cannabis use with logistic regression. Results A total of 185 565 patients (mean [SD] age, 52.0 [18.1] years; 59% female, 73% White, 94% non-Hispanic, and 61% commercially insured) were screened for cannabis use in a primary care visit during the study period. Among these patients, 3551 (2%) had EHR-documented medical cannabis use, 36 599 (20%) had EHR-documented other cannabis use, and 145 415 (78%) had no documented cannabis use. Patients with medical cannabis use had a higher prevalence of health conditions for which cannabis has potential benefits (49.8%; 95% CI, 48.3%-51.3%) compared with patients with other cannabis use (39.9%; 95% CI, 39.4%-40.3%) or no cannabis use (40.0%; 95% CI, 39.8%-40.2%). In addition, patients with medical cannabis use had a higher prevalence of health conditions for which cannabis has potential risks (60.7%; 95% CI, 59.0%-62.3%) compared with patients with other cannabis use (50.5%; 95% CI, 50.0%-51.0%) or no cannabis use (42.7%; 95% CI, 42.4%-42.9%). Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional study, primary care patients with documented medical cannabis use had a high prevalence of health conditions for which cannabis use has potential benefits, yet a higher prevalence of conditions with potential risks from cannabis use. These findings suggest that practitioners should be prepared to discuss potential risks and benefits of cannabis use with patients.

Objective: To determine latent classes of treatment receipt among people with comorbid posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance use disorder (SUD) and describe each class by demographics, disease characteristics, and psychiatric diagnoses. Method: Participants were National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III respondents with lifetime PTSD and SUD (n = 1,349; mean age 40.3; 62.5% female; 30.9% non-White or Hispanic-White). Cross-sectional data were collected using the DSM-5 Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule. Latent class analysis was used to identify subgroups of participants with different patterns of treatment receipt. Results: Of the patients, 36% received at least 1 SUD treatment while 84% received at least 1 mental health (MH) treatment. Six latent classes were identified: no treatment (17.3%), outpatient MH (34.0%), outpatient + inpatient MH (17.9%), SUD (7.3%), SUD + outpatient MH (15.7%), and SUD + outpatient MH + inpatient MH (7.7%). The SUD treatment classes evidenced greater social instability, had higher alcohol use disorder symptom severity, and used more drug types than the non-SUD classes. Classes receiving inpatient MH treatment had a greater incidence of additional comorbid conditions and suicidal behaviors. Across all 6 classes, most respondents met diagnostic criteria for chronic PTSD (overall: 68.9%) while fewer met diagnostic criteria for chronic SUD (overall: 38.7%). Conclusions: Most people with lifetime PTSD and SUD have sought either SUD or MH treatment or both, with substantially greater receipt of MH treatment. This comorbid group has complex clinical presentations that differ depending upon treatment subgroup, and for most, their PTSD persisted despite high rates of treatment engagement.

Guilt, shame, and moral injury (MI) are common reactions following exposure to traumatic events and are associated with greater severity of several mental health problems, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, increased risk of suicidal ideation and poorer psychosocial functioning. Trauma-Informed Guilt Reduction (TrIGR) is a transdiagnostic psychotherapy to address guilt, shame, and MI stemming from traumatic events. The primary goals of TrIGR are to help patients accurately appraise their trauma and to reengage with their values in order to lead a more meaningful life. This paper presents the rationale, design, and methodology of a two-site randomized controlled trial (RCT) examining the efficacy of TrIGR compared to Supportive Care Therapy (SCT) in a sample of U.S. veterans (N = 145) who endorse guilt related to a traumatic event that occurred during military deployment. This study is the first RCT powered to investigate TrIGR's efficacy on reducing posttraumatic guilt, as measured by the Trauma Related Guilt Inventory (TRGI), in comparison to an active control condition. In addition, the study will examine a range of secondary and exploratory outcomes including shame, quality of life, suicidal ideation, substance use, and PTSD and depression symptoms. Findings from this efficacy study will be essential in informing future efficacy and effectiveness trials.

During the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic, people around the world have faced a myriad of heart-rending and ethically difficult scenarios (e.g., not being able to tend to a sick or dying loved one) that may lead to subsequent guilt, shame, or moral injury. Trauma-informed guilt reduction therapy is a brief intervention that helps clients accurately appraise their role in a stressful event (such as those experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic) and find positive ways to express important values going forward. Future studies of trauma-informed guilt reduction therapy with those affected by COVID-19 will be helpful for clarifying its effectiveness with this population. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Trauma-focused psychotherapies for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are not widely utilized. Clinicians report concerns that direct discussion of traumatic experiences could undermine the therapeutic alliance, which may negatively impact retention and outcome. Studies among adolescents with PTSD found no difference in alliance between trauma-focused and non-trauma-focused psychotherapies, but this has not been tested among adults. The present study is a secondary analysis of a randomized trial of collaborative care, also known as care management, for PTSD. We examined patient-reported therapeutic alliance among 117 veterans with PTSD who participated in cognitive processing therapy (CPT, now called CPT + A; n = 54) or non-trauma-focused supportive psychotherapy for PTSD (n = 73) at VA community outpatient clinics. We tested the hypothesis that alliance in CPT would be noninferior to (i.e., not significantly worse than) non-trauma-focused psychotherapy using patient ratings on the Revised Helping Alliance Questionnaire. Patients' therapeutic alliance scores were high across both groups (CPT: M = 5.13, SD = 0.71, 95% CI [4.96, 5.30]; non-trauma-focused psychotherapy: M = 4.89, SD = 0.64, 95% CI [4.73, 5.05]). The difference between groups (0.23, 95% CI [0.01, 0.48]) was less than the "noninferiority margin" based on suggested clinical cutoffs (0.58 points on a 1-6 scale). These results held even after adjusting for veterans' demographic and clinical characteristics and change in PTSD symptoms from baseline to follow-up. Although there are concerns that direct discussion of traumatic experiences could worsen therapeutic alliance, patients report similar levels of alliance in CPT and non-trauma-focused supportive psychotherapy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

In this chapter, we explore the concepts of guilt and shame from trauma and talk about how they relate to common mental health problems, including PTSD, depression, substance use, and suicidality. We talk about how guilt and shame can result from traumas that involve moral injury in combat. We then present our model of why people suffer from guilt and shame related to trauma called the Nonadaptive Guilt and Shame (NAGS) model. The model ties together the role of avoidance in perpetuating guilt and shame and related distress following trauma, which then contribute to the development and maintenance of mental health problems.

Trauma Informed Guilt Reduction (TrIGR) therapy was developed for clients who experience trauma-related guilt and shame, or Nonadaptive Guilt and Shame (NAGS), and posttraumatic distress including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, substance misuse, suicidality, and impaired functioning. Clients who stand to benefit from TrIGR often have persistent, intrusive, unwanted thoughts and ruminations about something they think they should or should not have done during the trauma. They may have a sense of "badness" or of deserving bad things. Some may have experienced moral injury and feel NAGS as a result. Many good candidates for TrIGR also engage in substantial avoidance strategies so as not to experience any intrusive symptoms. A client who does not engage in any avoidant coping and does not feel guilt, regret, or shame about the trauma is generally not a good candidate for TrIGR. It is not feasible to do TrIGR with clients who have almost no memory of their trauma, severe cognitive impairment, active psychosis or mania, or other conditions that make it very difficult to track what the therapist is saying and engage with external reality. Any acute safety issues, such as risk of harming oneself or others, should always be addressed first.

Trauma Informed Guilt Reduction (TrIGR) therapy is most often delivered in individual therapy sessions but may be offered in a group format as well. In this chapter, we provide an overview of the rationale for providing TrIGR in a group and how to adapt the content to be delivered as a group therapy experience. We describe considerations including the particular setting, resources, and training of the therapist and then outline adaptations to each of the TrIGR modules. We offer additional suggestions for successfully implementing TrIGR in a group and provide sample rules for group therapy.

Assessment plays a critical role in the delivery of Trauma Informed Guilt Reduction (TrIGR) therapy. Assessment prior to treatment helps build understanding of the client's problems and informs the treatment plan. Assessment during treatment helps the therapist understand if clients are benefiting from the intervention and what other needs they may have. For these reasons, we recommend assessment as part of the intake/treatment planning process prior to beginning TrIGR and using a short assessment battery of measures at the beginning of every other session during therapy. In this chapter, we suggest strategies and validated measures to assess guilt, shame, moral injury, and commonly related symptoms and problems such as PTSD, depression, substance use, and suicidality. The goal is to assess if TrIGR is right for your client and if your client is benefitting from TrIGR.

AIMS:To compare individuals with comorbid life-time post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol use disorders [AUD; i.e. no drug use disorders (DUD)] with those with comorbid PTSD and DUD on past-year prevalence of these disorders, social functioning, life-time psychiatric comorbidities, and treatment receipt. The comorbid groups were also compared with their single diagnosis counterparts.DESIGN AND SETTING:Cross-sectional cohort study using data from the National Epidemiologic Survey of Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC-III).PARTICIPANTS:The total sample size was 36 309. Six groups were established: PTSD/AUD, PTSD/DUD, AUD, DUD, PTSD, and neither PTSD nor AUD/DUD. Life-time prevalence of AUD among those with PTSD/DUD was 80.2% and among those with DUD was 73.8%.MEASUREMENTS:The Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-DSM-5 version assessed life-time and past-year psychiatric disorders and treatment receipt. Demographics and social stability indicators were queried. Group characteristics were summarized using weighted means. Prevalences and estimates for adjusted differences in means and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were derived from multiple linear regression and logistic regression models, respectively. Analyses were conducted in R and accounted for the NESARC-III's complex survey design, clustering, and non-response.FINDINGS:Compared with those with life-time PTSD/AUD, those with life-time PTSD/DUD were significantly less likely to have neither disorder in the past year (PTSD/AUD = 16.1%; PTSD/DUD = 8.5%; aOR = 0.54), and were more likely to report worse social and psychiatric functioning, and to have received both addiction and mental health treatment (PTSD/AUD = 18.4%; PTSD/DUD = 43.2%; aOR = 3.88). Compared with their single disorder counterparts, those with PTSD/DUD reported greater impairment than both groups, whereas the comorbid PTSD/AUD group differed more from the AUD than the PTSD group.CONCLUSIONS:People with comorbid PTSD and drug use disorder have greater social and psychiatric impairment and may require different types and intensity of intervention than people with comorbid post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol use disorder.

In this chapter, we discuss themes and issues that may arise when treating guilt and shame among specific traumatized populations and strategies for working with such issues. These populations include military service members and Veterans, survivors of interpersonal trauma such as sexual and intimate partner abuse, clients who believe they cannot discuss their trauma for external reasons (e.g., they took part in a secret mission), and clients who perpetrated harm. We also discuss how to proceed with clients who are using alcohol or substances. Finally, we talk about how religious and spiritual beliefs may play a role in guilt and shame and how to help clients who want to make amends or take reparative action do so in a positive way.

Clients struggling with guilt and shame following trauma often have sophisticated strategies to avoid talking about and thinking about their traumatic events. They are often ambivalent about engaging in treatment for a number of reasons. These include wanting to avoid facing their distress head on and sometimes not believing they deserve to get better. Because TrIGR asks clients to address their trauma, guilt, and shame, directly, it is important to address possible ambivalence about doing so prior to beginning the therapy. This chapter covers strategies to help clients engage in TrIGR by helping them decrease avoidance and other sources of ambivalence and increase motivation for treatment. We suggest strategies to use before starting TrIGR and also during TrIGR if it seems like a client's motivation for treatment is faltering.

INTRODUCTIONPost-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been linked to a variety of adverse mental and physical health outcomes including distressed relationships. Involving romantic partners in PTSD treatment appears to be a promising new avenue for PTSD treatment; however, additional research is necessary to clarify veteran preferences for inclusion of significant others in treatment and relationship characteristics that may influence such preferences. Accordingly, the present study was designed to evaluate Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn (OEF/OIF/OND) veterans' desire to include romantic partners in trauma-focused care (n = 74) and to explore psychological and relationship variables associated with preference for partner inclusion in PTSD treatment.MATERIALS AND METHODSThis study surveyed male (N = 74) OEF/OIF/OND combat veterans seeking mental health services at a Veterans Health Administration PTSD treatment program. Relationships between PTSD symptoms, romantic relationship functioning, and interest in including their romantic partner in PTSD treatment were examined.RESULTSConsistent with previous research, OEF/OIF/OND veterans seeking treatment at a specialty PTSD program report low relationship satisfaction. The majority of participants reported that PTSD symptoms interfere with relationship functioning; specifically, numbing symptoms were a significant predictor of PTSD-related relationship impairment. A minority (26%) of participants reported a desire to include their romantic partner in PTSD treatment. Greater behavioral avoidance and communication difficulties were associated with increased interest in including a romantic partner in PTSD treatment.CONCLUSIONWe confirmed that OEF/OIF/OND veterans seeking PTSD treatment experience PTSD-related problems in romantic relationships, low-relationship satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction was positively associated with perceived communication and problem-solving skills. A minority of veterans were interested in involving significant others in their PTSD treatment; however, in the present study, veterans were not given information about the various ways that a romantic partner might be involved in treatment, and they were not presented with specific conjoint therapies (e.g., Cognitive-Behavioral Conjoint Therapy for PTSD, Strategic Approach Therapy). For veterans with PTSD, relationship distress, and communication difficulties, conjoint psychotherapies may offer a way of increasing engagement in PTSD treatment by parsimoniously addressing multiple treatment targets at once (PTSD symptoms, relationship distress, communication problems) and providing veteran-centered care.