Literature Collection

The goal of this report is to provide an overview of shared decision making as a healthcare practice and related policy options for the state of New Hampshire. Through evaluation of current research and salient case studies, this report seeks to highlight the opportunities and challenges of implementing shared decision making in a variety of settings. There are a number of policy options for New Hampshire to consider should the legislature wish to pursue the support and development of shared decision making in the state. They include endorsing shared decision making practices, developing partnerships with other stakeholders, creating new incentives for physicians and mandating the use of shared decision making.

BACKGROUND: Mental health legislation (MHL) is required to ensure a regulatory framework for mental health services and other providers of treatment and care, and to ensure that the public and people with a mental illness are afforded protection from the often-devastating consequences of mental illness. AIMS: To provide an overview of evidence on the significance of MHL for successful primary care for mental health and community mental health servicesMethod: A qualitative review of the literature on the significance of MHL for successful primary care for mental health and community mental health services was conducted. RESULTS: In many countries, especially in those who have no MHL, people do not have access to basic mental health care and treatment they require. One of the major aims of MHL is that all people with mental disorders should be provided with treatment based on the integration of mental health care services into the primary healthcare (PHC). In addition, MHL plays a crucial role in community integration of persons with mental disorders, the provision of care of high quality, the improvement of access to care at community level. Community-based mental health care further improves access to mental healthcare within the city, to have better health and mental health outcomes, and better quality of life, increase acceptability, reduce associated social stigma and human rights abuse, prevent chronicity and physical health comorbidity will likely to be detected early and managed. CONCLUSION: Mental health legislation plays a crucial role in community integration of persons with mental disorders, integration of mental health at primary health care, the provision of care of high quality and the improvement of access to care at community level. It is vital and essential to have MHL for every country.

IMPORTANCE: Health-related social risks are increasingly recognized as important contributors to health. Compared with individual screening, neighborhood measures are potentially a lower cost, scalable strategy for identifying social risk. OBJECTIVE: To inform health resource planning and social risk screening strategies by comparing self-reported vs neighborhood-level social risk with inpatient, emergency department (ED), and outpatient care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional analysis of self-reported social risks measured during Medicaid enrollment and neighborhood-level social risk in relation to health care use was conducted. Members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a large integrated health care delivery system, who completed the Medicaid Integrated Outcomes Questionnaire from January 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020, were included. Analysis took place from January 8 to November 29, 2024. EXPOSURE: Neighborhood-level social risk (living in the least-resourced Neighborhood Deprivation Index quartile) and self-reported social risk (indicating a need or wanting help with finances, food, housing, or transportation domains). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hospital and ED admissions, primary care, specialty care, mental health, and social work visits in the year prior to questionnaire completion. Multivariable negative binomial regression models were analyzed for each type of health care use, controlling for demographic characteristics and several health conditions (eg, asthma, hypertension, and chronic pain). RESULTS: Among 13 527 respondents (8631 [63.8%] female; 5289 [39.1%] aged 25-44 years; 2846 [21.0%] Asian, 1986 [14.7%] Black or African American, 3040 [22.5%] Hispanic, 4602 [34.0%] White, and 1053 [7.8%] other race or ethnicity), 33.8% in the most-resourced neighborhood reported at least 1 social risk vs 40.1% in the least-resourced quartile (P < .001). Individual- and neighborhood-level measures were each associated with ED visits (marginal effect estimate for both measures: 0.23; 95% CI, 0.17-0.29). Neither measure was associated with hospital admissions. Individual risk was associated with greater use of all outpatient services (ranging from primary care visit marginal effect estimate: 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.31 to mental health visit marginal effect estimate: 1.21; 95% CI, 0.67-1.75). Neighborhood-level risk was not associated with most outpatient visits and was negatively associated with mental health visits. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study, associations were found for hospital and ED use but not outpatient visits, especially mental health visits. These findings suggest that individual social risk screening appears to provide distinct information compared with neighborhood social risk.