Literature Collection

Nightmares, which are associated with various biopsychosocial issues, are common and often undertreated among veterans. To address the demand for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Nightmares (CBT-N) in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), experts have trained mental health clinicians in its delivery. Program evaluation data show positive clinician perceptions of CBT-N but reveal implementation barriers, including the incompatibility between CBT-N and certain practice settings. One such setting is Primary Care Mental Health Integration (PCMHI), where brief episodes of care may limit CBT-N feasibility. Survey results suggest PCMHI clinicians (n=13) perceive greater CBT-N benefits than clinicians in other settings (n=64) but face barriers such as scheduling constraints. A subanalysis showed that PCMHI clinicians (n=3) find CBT-N to be significantly less appropriate and feasible than clinicians in other settings (n=12). These preliminary findings support adapting CBT-N for PCMHI as a pathway to increased uptake and improved access to nightmare treatment within the VHA.

OBJECTIVES: People with type 1 diabetes may be at increased risk of disordered eating, which may increase risk of elevated poor outcomes and high-risk complications. Type 1 diabetes disordered eating (T1DE) services were set-up to integrate diabetes and mental healthcare to better support people with T1DE and improve longer-term outcomes. A rapid evaluation was conducted to explore the implementation of T1DE services. Specifically, we aimed to: describe service delivery models; investigate staff experiences of impact and delivery of implementation; explore patient experiences of T1DE services; and to report health outcomes and associated costs. DESIGN: Rapid evaluation using mixed methods (service mapping, staff and patient interviews, staff survey, analysis of clinical and economic data). Health outcome data was reported at baseline and 6 months. SETTING: This study explored the implementation of five new T1DE services and three existing services. PARTICIPANTS: Staff working within T1DE services and patients who received care from T1DE services. RESULTS: Assessment of our mixed methods study identified four key findings: (1) T1DE delivery models: The T1DE services displayed modest variation in models of delivery, but similarities were more evident, with a focus on direct delivery to patients involving joint meetings between diabetes and mental health staff. Nevertheless, some services also took on a 'consultation' role, providing advice and support to wider staff outside the service also managing these patients. Delayed implementation of the services slowed the formation of fully integrated teams and the ability of services to operate at scale. (2) Staff experience: Workforce issues were a crucial aspect of T1DE pilots. Managing this patient population is associated with high levels of anxiety for staff. Nevertheless, once formed, staff reported a very positive experience of working in integrated teams. (3) Patient experience: Although only a small sample of patients were interviewed, they reported a profoundly different experience to their previous care, which was now perceived as supportive and relationship focused. Although such improvements were aligned with the integrated care model underlying T1DE, it was less clear how such changes in patient experience would feature in decisions about commissioning. (4) Health outcomes and associated costs: There were 139 patients accepted onto the care pathway. Improvements were seen for all health outcomes. Compared with baseline measures, there was a mean 0.97% reduction in HbA1c (glycated haemoglobin) from 11.2% to 10.2% at 6 months. Improvements were also seen in other outcomes, including the diabetes eating problem scale and the diabetes distress scale. However, the number of patients on the care pathway with follow-up at 6 months was relatively small (n=29-47) and definitive statements about clinical or cost-effectiveness were not possible. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, T1DE services were well received by both staff and patients. Due to a number of logistical challenges, the implementation of services was slower than anticipated, resulting in a limited number of patients on the care pathway. Securing local funding for existing services, once national pilot funding ended, was identified as a significant challenge. In order to ensure services are sustainable and commissioned at a local level, consideration may need to be given to alternative service delivery models.

OBJECTIVES: Universal screening for depression during pregnancy and postpartum is recommended, yet mental health treatment and follow-up rates among screen-positive women in rural settings are low. We studied the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of perinatal depression treatment integrated into a rural obstetric setting. METHODS: We conducted an open treatment study of a screening and intervention program modified from the Depression Attention for Women Now (DAWN) Collaborative Care model in a rural obstetric clinic. Depression screen-positive pregnant and postpartum women received problem-solving therapy (PST) with or without antidepressants. A care manager coordinated communication between patient, obstetrician and psychiatric consultant. We measured change in the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) score. We used surveys and focus groups to measure patient and provider satisfaction and analyzed focus groups using qualitative analysis. RESULTS: The intervention was well accepted by providers and patients, based on survey and focus group data. Feasibility was also evidenced by recruitment (87.1%) and retention (92.6%) rates and depression outcomes (64% with >50% improvement in PHQ 9) which were comparable to clinical trials in similar urban populations. Conclusions for practice: DAWN Collaborative Care modified for treatment of perinatal depression in a rural obstetric setting is feasible and acceptable. Behavioral health services integrated into rural obstetric settings could improve care for perinatal depression.