Literature Collection

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine racial-ethnic differences in engagement with and clinical outcomes of a collaborative care model (CoCM) implemented in primary care outpatient clinics in an urban academic medical center. METHODS: Adult patients (N=4,911) who screened positive for symptoms of depression, anxiety, or both on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 or the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale and who identified as non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, or non-Hispanic White were offered participation in a CoCM implementation. The primary outcome was treatment engagement, defined as receipt of any follow-up visit, minimally adequate 4-week follow-up (at least one visit), and minimally adequate 16-week follow-up (at least three visits) after initial assessment. Secondary outcomes were response and remission of depression or anxiety. RESULTS: After adjustment of analyses for sociodemographic covariates, Black and Hispanic participants were significantly less likely than White participants to have received any or minimally adequate follow-up. Black and Hispanic participants who received any or minimally adequate 16-week follow-up were more likely than White participants to demonstrate depression symptom response and remission of anxiety symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: This CoCM implementation appears to have been effective in treating depression and anxiety among Black and Hispanic patients. However, significant disparities in receipt of follow-up care were observed. Efforts must be made to improve the retention of patients from racial-ethnic minority groups in collaborative care.

BACKGROUND: Health policy in many countries directs treatment to the lowest effective care level and encourages collaboration between primary and specialist mental health care. A number of models for collaborative care have been developed, and patient benefits are being reported. Less is known about what enables and prevents implementation and sustainability of such models regarding the actions and attitudes of stakeholders on the ground. This article reports from a qualitative sub-study of a cluster-RCT testing a model for collaborative care in Oslo, Norway. The model involved the placement of psychologists and psychiatrists from a community mental health centre in each intervention GP practice. GPs could seek their input or advice when needed and refer patients to them for assessment (including assessment of the need for external services) or treatment. METHODS: We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with GPs (n = 7), CMHC specialists (n = 6) and patients (n = 11) in the intervention arm. Sample specific topic guides were used to investigate the experience of enablers and barriers to the collaborative care model. Data were subject to stepwise deductive-inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants reported positive experiences of how the model improved accessibility. First, co-location made GPs and CMHC specialists accessible to each other and facilitated detailed, patient-centred case collaboration and learning through complementary skills. The threshold for patients' access to specialist care was lowered, treatment could commence early, and throughput increased. Treatment episodes were brief (usually 5-10 sessions) and this was too brief according to some patients. Second, having experienced mental health specialists in the team and on the front line enabled early assessment of symptoms and of the type of treatment and service that patients required and were entitled to, and who could be treated at the GP practice. This improved both care pathways and referral practices. Barriers revolved around the organisation of care. Logistical issues could be tricky but were worked out. The biggest obstacle was the funding of health care at a structural level, which led to economic losses for both the GP practices and the CMHC, making the model unsustainable. CONCLUSIONS: Participants identified a range of benefits of collaborative care for both patients and services. However, the funding system in effect penalises collaborative work. It is difficult to see how policy aiming for successful, sustainable collaboration can be achieved without governments changing funding structures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03624829.

IMPORTANCE: The criterion-standard treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) is medications for OUD (MOUD). However, less than a quarter of people with OUD receive MOUD. The collaborative care model (CCM) is an evidence-based practice that integrates mental and physical health treatment in primary care settings. Expanding CCM to include patients with OUD could improve MOUD initiation. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of CCM for OUD and co-occurring mental health symptoms (intervention) with CCM for mental health symptoms only (active control). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This hybrid type 2a trial cluster-randomized 24 US primary care clinics to intervention or control. Participants included patients with OUD and mental health symptoms who were not receiving specialty mental health care or specialty substance use treatment. Study data were analyzed from February 2024 to January 2025. INTERVENTIONS: The control care team included primary care practitioners, care managers, and psychiatric consultants. Primary care practitioners prescribed psychotropic medications with psychiatric consultation. Care manager activities included patient education, engagement and self-management, shared decision-making, measurement-based care for mental health symptoms, and brief psychotherapy for mental health. The intervention had the same components as the control, with additional MOUD training and psychiatric consultation for primary care practitioners, measurement-based care for OUD, and brief psychotherapy for OUD. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Participants completed research assessments at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. The multiple primary outcomes were past-month number of days of using opioids and the Veterans RAND 12 Mental Health Component Summary score. RESULTS: A total of 254 patients (mean [SD] age, 40.9 [12.4] years; 139 women [59.9%]) participated in the trial. Most participants (172 of 212 [81.1%]) were taking MOUD at baseline. Days using opioids decreased in both the control and intervention groups. The intervention significantly reduced opioid use more than the control with a medium effect size (adjusted ratio of odds ratio, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.03-0.38; Cohen d = -0.44; P < .001). Mental Health Component Summary scores improved slightly in both the control and intervention groups. The intervention did not significantly improve scores more than control (adjusted difference in change, -1.20; 95% CI, -4.97 to 2.57; Cohen d = -0.09; P = .53). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Findings of this cluster randomized clinical trial indicate that OUD can be successfully managed in primary care with CCM, especially CCM for OUD and mental health symptoms. Primary care clinics with MOUD prescribers should consider implementing CCM for OUD and mental health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04600414.