The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×

Abstract

Objective:

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of Homefront, a six-session, peer-taught family education program by the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), delivered in person or online, for families or support persons of military service members or of veterans with mental illness.

Methods:

Program participants completed online surveys at baseline, at the end of the program (postprogram), and at 3-month follow-up, which measured subjective empowerment, burden, coping, psychological distress, family functioning, experience of caregiving, and knowledge of mental illness. A mixed-effects model examined change over time.

Results:

A total of 119 individuals (in person, N=63 [53%]; online, N=56 [47%]) enrolled. Participants showed statistically significant improvement on all dimensions between baseline, postprogram, and follow-up, except for subjective burden, which improved between baseline and follow-up. Results for in-person and online formats did not differ.

Conclusions:

The six-session NAMI Homefront program was associated with benefits for military and veteran family members and support persons.

HIGHLIGHTS

  • The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Homefront program is a six-session, peer-taught family education program, delivered in person or online, for families or support persons of military service members or of veterans with mental illness.

  • Individuals who took the class improved from baseline to 6 weeks after class completion on measures of empowerment, coping, distress, family functioning, experience of caregiving, and knowledge of mental illness.

  • There was no difference in outcomes between individuals who took the online and in-person classes.

Family members play an important role in the lives of people with mental illness and often seek information and support regarding available treatments, resources, and coping skills (1). Services specifically for family members often use the peer-to-peer model to deliver psychoeducation and support to families of persons with mental illness. The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) offers the 12-session, in-person Family-to-Family Education Program (FTF). Previous research has documented the effectiveness of FTF for improving coping, empowerment, problem solving, experience of caregiving, and knowledge about mental illness (24). This study examines the efficacy of a modified FTF program titled NAMI Homefront, which is tailored for families of military service members or of veterans and is offered in person and online.

In the wake of increased military action following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the need for resources to help families of service members and of veterans has increased. In response, NAMI adapted the FTF program to create NAMI Homefront specifically for military and veteran families. This six-session program focuses on topics most relevant to military and veteran families, who often seek information specifically related to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, and traumatic brain injury (5). NAMI solely operates the Homefront program, but it often works with the U.S. Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs for referrals, help promoting the classes, and classroom space.

Like FTF, NAMI Homefront is a highly structured, standardized curriculum, conducted by family members who have completed extensive training. In six 2.5-hour sessions, program participants receive information about mental illnesses, medication and other treatments, advocacy skills, and ways to develop emotional insight into their responses to mental illness. They also learn coping mechanisms including self-care, communication skills, problem-solving strategies, and crisis planning. To increase access to rural families, NAMI has adapted the program for online delivery (see online supplement to this article for course format descriptions).

A primary goal of NAMI Homefront is to fight stigma surrounding mental illness, which is especially prevalent in the military community (6) and which often leaves family members feeling isolated and alone. The group atmosphere provides family members with a safe space to share their stories, exchange support and advice with peers, and better understand the shared experiences of military and veteran families. For some, the online option may offer a sense of anonymity and protection from stigma, allowing the program to reach active-duty military families while eliminating barriers presented by transportation, childcare, and caregiving for wounded veterans.

While the 12-session FTF program has established effectiveness, the impact of a six-session program for military and veteran families is unknown. This study aimed to determine whether family members or support persons who participate in the NAMI Homefront program experience benefits and whether the program benefits extend 3 months after program completion. A third exploratory aim was to determine whether the course format (in person versus online) moderated program effectiveness.

Methods

Participants were recruited from NAMI Homefront in-person and online classes being offered across the United States. In-person classes spanned 15 states (see the online supplement) in all U.S. regions. Program teachers were asked to inform program participants about the study and provide a copy of the study flyer to participants. Study participants enrolled from 22 in-person classes (N=63) and 12 online classes (N=56). (More detailed information about enrollment is in the online supplement.)

Inclusion criteria included being a family member or support person of a military service member or of a veteran with mental illness, speaking English, and being age 18 years or older. Participants provided verbal informed consent over the phone or online consent. Online questionnaires were administered at baseline, 6 weeks (postprogram), and 18 weeks (3-month follow-up) via the online survey platform Qualtrics. Interested individuals were encouraged to complete the consent and baseline questionnaire before or after the first class of the program. Participants could skip any questions on the surveys or indicate preference not to answer. Participants were given $20 to compensate for their time for each questionnaire completed. All study procedures were approved by the New York State Psychiatric Institute Institutional Review Board.

Questionnaires included validated instruments used in previous FTF studies (24). Demographic characteristics of participants and their service member or veteran family members were obtained at baseline, using the Family Experiences Interview Schedule (FEIS) (7). Empowerment was assessed at all time points using the Family Empowerment Scale, which has three subscales: family, community, and service system empowerment (8). We adapted a measure of knowledge from the FTF study and added four items related to military-specific content of the curriculum (3). Family member subjective burden was evaluated with the FEIS worry and displeasure subscales (7). Coping, specifically, emotional acceptance, was measured with the Brief COPE Inventory’s acceptance subscale (9). We assessed family member psychological distress with the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-18) Global Severity Index, and subscales of anxiety, depression, and somatization (10). The item “thoughts of ending your life” from the BSI-18 was removed from the questionnaire out of concern that the research team was not equipped to provide necessary support given that these surveys were distributed online and completed by individuals across the country. The scales that included this item were calculated using the formula for missing data described in the BSI-18 scoring and procedures manual. Family functioning was evaluated with the Family Assessment Device general functioning and problem-solving subscales (11). Caregiving experience was measured with the Experience of Caregiving Inventory (ECI) overall positive scale, and subscales for positive personal experience and good aspects of relationship (12). The surveys also provided information about class format, how many classes they had completed, and class location.

We applied descriptive statistics to characterize dependent measures at baseline, 6 weeks, and 18 weeks. We used chi squares and t tests to determine whether demographic and baseline outcome scores differed between participants who completed only a baseline assessment with those who completed one or more follow-up assessments. We conducted a mixed-effects model to examine change over time for each of the dependent measures. In an exploratory analysis, we examined the influence of class format (in person versus online) on outcomes by including a time × class format interaction term in models. We had 77% power to detect a medium (d=0.5) difference between the groups, prior to attrition. Analyses were conducted by using IBM SPSS Statistics version 25. To the extent we had overlapping measures, we compared the baseline characteristics of individuals participating in NAMI Homefront to those participating in the full 12-week FTF trial using t tests and chi-square statistics (see the online supplement) (2, 4).

Results

A total of 119 individuals (in person, N=63 [53%]; online, N=56 [47%]) enrolled in the study and completed a baseline questionnaire between March 2015 and October 2017. Of those, 105 (88%) completed a postprogram assessment (in person, N=53 [50%]; online, N=52 [50%]). A total of 99 participants (94% of those who completed a postprogram assessment, or 83% of those who completed a baseline assessment) completed the 3-month follow-up assessment. Of these participants, 48 (48%) were from in-person classes and 51 (52%) were from online classes. There were no significant differences between characteristics of participants who completed only a baseline assessment and those of participants who completed one or more follow-up assessments. Table 1 shows demographic characteristics for the total sample and subgroups.

TABLE 1. Characteristics of 119 participants who were enrolled in Homefront, by in-person or online class format

In person (N=63)Online (N=56)Total (N=119)
CharacteristicN%N%N%
Age (M±SD)53.6±14.647.6±11.650.8±13.6
Gender
 Male71147119
 Female5689529310891
Race-ethnicitya
 Asian231233
 American Indian/Alaska Native01211
 Black/African American15268152321
 Hispanic or Latino7122498
 White or Caucasian305234636457
 ≥1478151211
Educationb
 High school or GED354776
 Some college16269162521
 College graduate274426475345
 Postgraduate162616293227
Incomec
 ≤$50,000255425515053
 > $50,000214624494547
Relationship to service member or veterand
 Parent2032352319
 Child464787
 Sibling462465
 Spouse/partner284436656454
 Other kin465998
 Nonkin/friend355987
Relative is active duty military
 Yes123544
 No6298539511596
Participant report of relative’s diagnosese
 Posttraumatic stress disorder406341738168
 Depression or anxiety disorder274335636252
 Bipolar disorder152410182521
 Traumatic brain injury81312212017
 Schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder7117131412
 Problems with substance use23814108
 Personality disorder462465
 Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder232443

aPreferred not to answer (N=6), missing (N=1).

bPreferred not to answer (N=1), missing (N=1).

cPreferred not to answer (N=21), missing (N=2).

dPreferred not to answer (N=1).

eParticipants could report all diagnoses known to them, and, therefore, the denominator for each diagnosis is the total sample. Preferred not to answer (N=3), don’t know (N=6), missing (N=2).

TABLE 1. Characteristics of 119 participants who were enrolled in Homefront, by in-person or online class format

Enlarge table

Homefront program outcomes over time are shown in Table 2. All Family Empowerment Scale subscales, knowledge about mental illness, the COPE acceptance subscale, the BSI depression and anxiety subscales, Family Assessment Device subscales, and the ECI positive personal experience subscale showed statistically significant improvement between baseline and postprogram and between baseline and 3-month follow-up. The BSI Global Severity Index scale and FEIS displeasure subscale did not change from baseline to postprogram, but improvements were seen from baseline to 3-month follow-up. The BSI Somatization, FEIS worry, and ECI good aspect of relationship subscales did not change. Exploratory analyses revealed no differences between online and in-person formats. Therefore, in Table 2 we report the more parsimonious model including only time.

TABLE 2. Outcomes of 119 participants in the National Alliance on Mental Illness Homefront program over time

Baseline(N=119)Postprogram(6 weeks)(N=105)3-month follow-up (18 weeks) (N=99)
MeasureItemsPossible scoring rangeMSDMSDMSDFdfpa
Empowerment
 Family Empowerment Scale
  Family subscale121–5b3.4.83.8.73.9.723.942, 119<.001c,d
  Service system subscale101–5b3.2.93.6.93.7.918.872, 110<.001c,d
  Community subscale121–5b2.91.03.31.03.41.029.232, 103<.001c,d
Knowledge test160–100b57.425.070.020.971.717.821.182,106<.001c,d
Subjective burden
 FEISe
  Worry subscale70–4f2.4.92.4.82.3.82.692, 114.072
  Displeasure subscale71–5f2.71.12.71.02.41.04.122, 119.019d
Coping
 Brief COPE Inventory
  Acceptance subscale44–16b12.33.213.22.813.33.25.602, 131.005c,d
Psychological distress
 BSI (T score)g
  Global Severity Index1833–81f57.012.054.712.353.511.53.852, 139.024d
  Somatization scale633–81f53.311.152.710.651.99.7.812, 140.446
  Depression scale633–81f58.111.155.511.154.611.04.062, 140.019c,d
  Anxiety scale633–81f56.512.154.011.552.911.04.22, 128.017c,d
Family functioning
 Family Assessment Device
  General Functioning scale1212–48f28.67.126.86.926.37.07.742, 114.001c,d
  Problem-solving scale66–24f14.43.513.63.413.63.74.62, 119.012c,d
Caregiving experience
 ECIh
  Positive personal experience subscale80–32b20.55.422.35.021.65.07.282, 134.001c,d
  Good aspect of relationship subscale60–24b14.65.415.15.214.65.41.712, 125.186
  Positive scale (both of the above)140–56b35.29.637.59.336.29.15.042, 130.008c

aThe test of significance is for the overall effect of time.

bHigher scores indicate better outcomes (better knowledge, better coping).

cStatistically significant change from baseline to postprogram (6 weeks).

dStatistically significant change from baseline to 3-month follow-up (18 weeks).

eFEIS, Family Experiences Interview Schedule.

fHigher scores indicate worse outcomes (more worry, more depression symptoms, worse functioning).

gBSI, Brief Symptom Inventory.

hECI, Experience of Caregiving Inventory.

TABLE 2. Outcomes of 119 participants in the National Alliance on Mental Illness Homefront program over time

Enlarge table

Discussion and Conclusions

This study showed that the positive multidimensional effects of the 12-session FTF program observed in previous studies (24) were replicated in this study of the abbreviated NAMI Homefront program for military and veteran families. Although the absence of a control group precludes drawing conclusions about causation, NAMI Homefront was associated with statistically significant improvements in empowerment, coping, psychological distress, family functioning, experience of caregiving, and knowledge about mental illness, consistent with previous FTF studies. NAMI Homefront was also associated with improvements in depression and general family functioning (2). It is interesting that the NAMI Homefront group did not improve on worry and positive aspects of caregiving, dimensions that were rated as more problematic among participants in the 12-week FTF trial but not among participants in this sample (2, 4).

The finding that a six-session class produced results consistent with the 12-session format is notable. While the abbreviated format was effective for military and veteran families, we cannot assume it would be similarly effective for individuals who participate in the 12-session FTF program. In this study, participants were primarily spouses, and the most commonly reported diagnosis of their ill family member was PTSD. In contrast, our previous FTF study included primarily parents whose family members were most commonly reported to have bipolar disorder or schizophrenia; no FTF participants reported that a family member had PTSD (13). The groups also differed in race, gender, and some key baseline characteristics—with the Homefront group experiencing not only more distress, less acceptance, and more problems with family functioning, but also more empowerment and less worry than the FTF participants. The preponderance of spouses participating in NAMI Homefront underscores the need to develop a greater understanding of the experiences and needs of these partners and the extent to which they are “caregiving” or coping with other stresses in the relationship (14).

Another need of military and veteran families was an online course option to reach families in rural areas and allow families some anonymity if they have concerns about stigma in the military community. This study had an equal distribution of participants from in-person and online classes and found that outcomes were the same regardless of delivery. Online psychoeducation and support interventions for families of people with mental illness are understudied. The few published studies have focused on feasibility, usability, and acceptability of such online interventions (15). Given that our study was not powered to detect small differences between formats, a larger study is needed to provide more definitive results. Furthermore, the lack of difference between groups could reflect that people chose the format most optimal for them.

Study limitations include the lack of control group and knowledge about individuals who took the class but did not participate in the study. It is possible that research participants were more likely to respond to NAMI Homefront than general program participants. Nevertheless, this study provides initial data that a six-session peer-taught family education program delivered in person or online is associated with a range of benefits for family members and support persons of service members or of veterans.

New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York (Haselden, Covell, Pauselli); National Alliance on Mental Illness, Arlington, Virginia (Brister, Robinson); Department of Psychiatry, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University (Covell, Pauselli, Dixon). Editor Emeritus Howard H. Goldman, M.D., Ph.D., served as decision editor on the manuscript.
Send correspondence to Dr. Dixon ().

The research was conducted with a grant from the National Alliance on Mental Illness to the Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene.

The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

References

1 Drapalski AL, Marshall T, Seybolt D, et al.: Unmet needs of families of adults with mental illness and preferences regarding family services. Psychiatr Serv 2008; 59:655–662LinkGoogle Scholar

2 Dixon LB, Lucksted A, Medoff DR, et al.: Outcomes of a randomized study of a peer-taught Family-to-Family Education Program for mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2011; 62:591–597LinkGoogle Scholar

3 Lucksted A, Medoff D, Burland J, et al.: Sustained outcomes of a peer-taught family education program on mental illness. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2013; 127:279–286Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

4 Toohey MJ, Muralidharan A, Medoff D, et al.: Caregiver positive and negative appraisals: effects of the National Alliance on Mental Illness Family-to-Family Intervention. J Nerv Ment Dis 2016; 204:156–159Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

5 Seal KH, Metzler TJ, Gima KS, et al.: Trends and risk factors for mental health diagnoses among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans using Department of Veterans Affairs health care, 2002–2008. Am J Public Health 2009; 99:1651–1658Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

6 Kim PY, Thomas JL, Wilk JE, et al.: Stigma, barriers to care, and use of mental health services among active duty and National Guard soldiers after combat. Psychiatr Serv 2010; 61:582–588LinkGoogle Scholar

7 Tessler R, Gamache G: Family Experiences Interview Schedule (FEIS); in Toolkit on Evaluating Family Experiences With Severe Mental Illness. Edited by Tessler, R, Gamache, G. Cambridge, MA, Human Services Research Institute, Evaluation Center, 1995Google Scholar

8 Koren PE, DeChillo N, Friesen BJ: Measuring empowerment in families whose children have emotional disorders: a brief questionnaire. Rehabil Psychol 1992; 37:305–321CrossrefGoogle Scholar

9 Carver CS, Scheier MF, Weintraub JK: Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. J Pers Soc Psychol 1989; 56:267–283Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

10 Derogatis LR: BSI-18: Administration, Scoring and Procedures Manual. Minneapolis, MN, NCS Pearson, Incorporated, 2001Google Scholar

11 Epstein NB, Baldwin LM, Bishop DS: The McMaster Family Assessment Device. J Marital Fam Ther 1983; 9:171–180CrossrefGoogle Scholar

12 Szmukler GI, Burgess P, Herrman H, et al.: Caring for relatives with serious mental illness: the development of the Experience of Caregiving Inventory. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 1996; 31:137–148Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

13 Smith ME, Lindsey MA, Williams CD, et al.: Race-related differences in the experiences of family members of persons with mental illness participating in the NAMI Family to Family Education Program. Am J Community Psychol 2014; 54:316–327Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

14 Dekel R, Monson CM: Military-related post-traumatic stress disorder and family relations: current knowledge and future directions. Aggress Violent Behav 2010; 15:303–309CrossrefGoogle Scholar

15 Onwumere J, Amaral F, Valmaggia LR: Digital technology for caregivers of people with psychosis: systematic review. JMIR Ment Health 2018; 5:e55Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar