Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Amid the ongoing U.S. opioid crisis, achieving safe and effective chronic pain management while reducing opioid-related morbidity and mortality is likely to require multi-level efforts across health systems, including the Military Health System (MHS), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and civilian sectors. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a series of qualitative panel discussions with national experts to identify core challenges and elicit recommendations toward improving the safety of opioid prescribing in the U.S. DESIGN: We invited national experts to participate in qualitative panel discussions regarding challenges in opioid risk mitigation and how best to support providers in delivery of safe and effective opioid prescribing across MHS, VA, and civilian health systems. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen experts representing primary care, emergency medicine, psychology, pharmacy, and public health/policy participated. APPROACH: Six qualitative panel discussions were conducted via teleconference with experts. Transcripts were coded using team-based qualitative content analysis to identify key challenges and recommendations in opioid risk mitigation. KEY RESULTS: Panelists provided insight into challenges across multiple levels of the U.S. health system, including the technical complexity of treating chronic pain, the fraught national climate around opioids, the need to integrate surveillance data across a fragmented U.S. health system, a lack of access to non-pharmacological options for chronic pain care, and difficulties in provider and patient communication. Participating experts identified recommendations for multi-level change efforts spanning policy, research, education, and the organization of healthcare delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing opioid risk while ensuring safe and effective pain management, according to participating experts, is likely to require multi-level efforts spanning military, veteran, and civilian health systems. Efforts to implement risk mitigation strategies at the patient level should be accompanied by efforts to increase education for patients and providers, increase access to non-pharmacological pain care, and support use of existing clinical decision support, including state-level prescription drug monitoring programs.

Background: Major efforts are underway to improve access to mental health care in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) including systematic training of non-specialized health professionals and other care providers to identify and help individuals with mental disorders. In many LMIC, this effort is guided by the mental health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP) established by the World Health Organization, and commonly centres around one tool in this program: the mhGAP-Intervention Guide. Objective: To identify cultural and contextual challenges in mhGAP training and implementation and potential strategies for mitigation. Method: An informal consultative approach was used to analyze the authors' combined field experience in the practice of mhGAP implementation and training. We employed iterative thematic analysis to consolidate and refine lessons, challenges and recommendations through multiple drafts. Findings were organized into categories according to specific challenges, lessons learned and recommendations for future practice. We aimed to identify cross-cutting and recurrent issues. Results: Based on intensive fieldwork experience with a focus on capacity building, we identify six major sets of challenges: (i) cultural differences in explanations of and attitudes toward mental disorder; (ii) the structure of the local health-care system; (iii) the level of supervision and support available post-training; (iv) the level of previous education, knowledge and skills of trainees; (v) the process of recruitment of trainees; and (vi) the larger socio-political context. Approaches to addressing these problems include: (1) cultural and contextual adaptation of training activities, (2) meaningful stakeholder and community engagement, and (3) processes that provide support to trainees, such as ongoing supervision and Communities of Practice. Conclusion: Contextual and cultural factors present major barriers to mhGAP implementation and sustainability of improved services. To enable trainees to effectively apply their local cultural knowledge, mhGAP training needs to: (1) address assumptions, biases and stigma associated with mental health symptoms and problems; (2) provide an explicit framework to guide the integration of cultural knowledge into assessment, treatment negotiation, and delivery; and (3) address the specific kinds of problems, modes of clinical presentations and social predicaments seen in the local population. Continued research is needed to assess the effectiveness these strategies.