Literature Collection

Integration of health and social care is increasingly central to improving outcomes, experience and sustainability; however, integrated care is not a single construct. This article presents a novel framework to categorize and conceptualize different approaches to integrated care, illustrating variations in attributes, context, complexity and impact. Drawing on international literature, three approaches to integration - condition-based, multi-condition and population-based - are examined along a continuum. Condition-based approaches focus on defined patient groups using standardized clinical pathways requiring limited coordination. Multi-condition integration supports populations with complex chronic conditions, requiring comprehensive, multi-sectoral coordination and interconnected structures. Population-based integration represents the broadest approach, organizing health and social care around community needs and social determinants of health and necessitating system-level governance with aligned policy and funding. While integrated care models can advance without explicitly delivering population health outcomes, population health cannot be advanced without integration as a foundational enabler.

BACKGROUND: Stigma is a barrier to the uptake of buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder. Harm reduction treatment models intend to minimize this stigma by organizing care around non-judgmental interactions with people who use drugs. There are few examples of implementing buprenorphine treatment using a harm reduction approach in a primary care setting in the USA. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study by interviewing leadership, staff, and external stakeholders at Respectful, Equitable Access to Compassionate Healthcare (REACH) Medical in Ithaca, NY. REACH is a freestanding medical practice that provides buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder since 2018. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 participants with the objective of describing REACH's model of care. We selected participants based on their position at REACH or in the community. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for themes using content analysis, guided by the CDC Evaluation Framework. RESULTS: REACH provided buprenorphine, primary care, and mental health services in a low-threshold model. We identified three themes related to delivery of buprenorphine treatment. First, an organizational mission to provide equitable and low-stigma healthcare, which was a key to organizational identity. Second, a low-threshold buprenorphine treatment approach that was critical, but caused concern about over-prescribing and presented logistical challenges. Third, creation and retention of a harm reduction-oriented workforce by offering value-based work and by removing administrative barriers providers may face elsewhere to providing buprenorphine treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A harm reduction primary care model can help reduce stigma for people who use drugs and engage in buprenorphine treatment. Further research is needed to evaluate whether this model leads to improved patient outcomes, can overcome community stakeholder concerns, and is sustainable.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) frequently present with co-occurring mental health conditions such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), along with other mental health substance use disorders, physical health conditions and social determinants that together comprise 'clinical complexity.' Collaborative care (CC), a primary care-based behavioral health integration model, aims to improve outcomes through coordinated, patient-centered treatment. This study examined heterogeneity in baseline clinical complexity among participants in the CLARO (Collaboration Leading to Addiction Treatment and Recovery from Other Stresses) trial and assessed whether the effects of CC versus enhanced usual care (EUC) differed across clinical complexity groups. METHODS: Secondary analysis of CLARO, a pragmatic randomized clinical trial (n = 797) of CC versus EUC for adults with OUD and depression and/or PTSD, conducted in 18 low-resourced primary care clinics in New Mexico and California, USA. Latent class analysis of baseline data identified subgroups defined by mental health and substance use as the main characteristics along with physical health and social challenges. Six-month treatment effects were estimated using one-step models that jointly estimated latent class membership and class-specific outcomes, incorporating class × treatment interactions. Outcomes included depression symptom severity, PTSD symptom severity, and buprenorphine utilization and prescribing duration. RESULTS: Three subgroups were identified: (1) low complexity (43%), with relative clinical and social stability; (2) mental health complexity (34%), with high psychiatric symptoms but lower substance use and moderate social adversity; and (3) high dual complexity (23%). Compared with EUC, CC was associated with lower depression severity at follow-up for the low-complexity class, but not for other classes. CC and EUC did not differ statistically significantly with respect to PTSD outcomes in any class. Buprenorphine utilization and prescribing duration outcomes were similar across CC and EUC treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of collaborative care may vary according to patients' baseline clinical complexity. Collaborative care appears to be associated with more favorable depression outcomes than enhanced usual care among participants with lower clinical complexity but not among those with higher clinical complexity.