Literature Collection

OBJECTIVE: To examine how depression screening rates changed after implementation of electronic health record (EHR) clinical decision support tools and medical assistant (MA)-led depression screening at an outpatient pediatric practice. METHODS: We assessed changes in depression screening rates at an urban academic pediatric clinic between September 2016 and December 2020 using interrupted time series analysis. During this time, we implemented 1) EHR clinical decision support tools for depression screening and management (November 2017) and 2) training of MAs to screen for depression (July 2019). RESULTS: Over the study period, 3963 patients received care in the pediatric clinic. Their mean age was 14.9 years (standard deviation, 2.6) and about half were female (n = 2011, 51%). The majority were Black/African American (n = 2852, 72%) and had private insurance (n = 2860, 72%). Depression screening rates increased from 3% to >80%. Preintervention, depression screening rates were not increasing (0.9% per month, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.3% to 2.1%; P = .15). After implementing EHR clinical decision support tools, there was a 15.6% (95% CI: 2.5%-28.6%, P = .02) increase in the screening rate. Also, MA-led screening was associated with a 24.6% (95% CI: 9.9%-39.2%, P = .002) screening rate increase. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that EHR clinical decision support tools and MA-led screening are likely to increase adolescent depression screening and management in pediatric clinics.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) receive pharmacological and psychosocial interventions; however, the most appropriate psychosocial intervention is not known. In collaboration with people with lived experience, clinicians, and policy makers, we sought to assess the relative benefits of psychosocial interventions as an adjunct to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) among persons with OUD. METHODS: A review protocol was registered a priori (CRD42018090761), and a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) was conducted from database inception to June 2020 in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Established methods for study selection and data extraction were used. Primary outcomes were treatment retention and opioid use (measured by urinalysis for opioid use and opioid abstinence outcomes). Odds ratios were estimated using network meta-analyses (NMA) as appropriate based on available evidence, and in remaining cases alternative approaches to synthesis were used. RESULTS: Seventy-two RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias evaluations commonly identified study limitations and poor reporting with regard to methods used for allocation concealment and selective outcome reporting. Due to inconsistency in reporting of outcome measures, only 48 RCTs (20 unique interventions, 5,404 participants) were included for NMA of treatment retention, where statistically significant differences were found when psychosocial interventions were used as an adjunct to OAT as compared to OAT-only. The addition of rewards-based interventions such as contingency management (alone or with community reinforcement approach) to OAT was superior to OAT-only. Few statistically significant differences between psychosocial interventions were identified among any other pairwise comparisons. Heterogeneity in reporting formats precluded an NMA for opioid use. A structured synthesis was undertaken for the remaining outcomes which included opioid use (n = 18 studies) and opioid abstinence (n = 35 studies), where the majority of studies found no significant difference between OAT plus psychosocial interventions as compared to OAT-only. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review offers a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence and the limitations of current trials of psychosocial interventions applied as an adjunct to OAT for OUD. Clinicians and health services may wish to consider integrating contingency management in addition to OAT for OUD in their settings to improve treatment retention. Aside from treatment retention, few differences were consistently found between psychosocial interventions adjunctive to OAT and OAT-only. There is a need for high-quality RCTs to establish more definitive conclusions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42018090761.

Objective: To evaluate changes in health and health care utilization outcomes for Latinx adults with substance use and mental disorders receiving integrated behavioral and primary health care.Design: Study sample included enrollees who completed baseline, 6-month and 12-month assessments (n = 107). Study outcomes were depression symptom severity, anxiety symptom severity, illicit drug use, emergency department utilization and homelessness status. Pre-post analyses were conducted using paired t-test and McNemar test to examine changes in study outcomes. Multivariable regression model estimated through generalized estimating equations explored the influence of the intervention on study outcomes. Results were presented in adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results: Participants were less likely to report depressive symptoms (AOR: 0.496, 95%CI: 0.296-0.832), less likely to report anxiety symptoms (AOR: 0.539, 95%CI: 0.329-0.884), and less likely to experience homelessness (AOR: 0.556, 95%CI: 0.328-0.943) at 6-month assessment compared to baseline. Participants were also less likely to report depressive symptoms (AOR: 0.378, 95%CI: 0.209-0.684), less likely to report anxiety symptoms (AOR: 0.471, 95%CI: 0.270-0.821), less likely to experience homelessness (AOR: 0.333, 95%CI: 0.189-0.587), and less likely to utilize the emergency department in the past 30 days (AOR: 0.397, 95%CI: 0.188-0.837) at 12-month assessment compared to baseline.Conclusions: Integrating culturally responsive behavioral and primary health care services is critical for addressing the needs of Latinx adults with mental and substance use disorders, and other chronic diseases. This initiative has the potential to reduce disparities in access to and engagement in care for Latinx adults.

Objective: To evaluate changes in health and health care utilization outcomes for Latinx adults with substance use and mental disorders receiving integrated behavioral and primary health care.Design: Study sample included enrollees who completed baseline, 6-month and 12-month assessments (n = 107). Study outcomes were depression symptom severity, anxiety symptom severity, illicit drug use, emergency department utilization and homelessness status. Pre-post analyses were conducted using paired t-test and McNemar test to examine changes in study outcomes. Multivariable regression model estimated through generalized estimating equations explored the influence of the intervention on study outcomes. Results were presented in adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results: Participants were less likely to report depressive symptoms (AOR: 0.496, 95%CI: 0.296-0.832), less likely to report anxiety symptoms (AOR: 0.539, 95%CI: 0.329-0.884), and less likely to experience homelessness (AOR: 0.556, 95%CI: 0.328-0.943) at 6-month assessment compared to baseline. Participants were also less likely to report depressive symptoms (AOR: 0.378, 95%CI: 0.209-0.684), less likely to report anxiety symptoms (AOR: 0.471, 95%CI: 0.270-0.821), less likely to experience homelessness (AOR: 0.333, 95%CI: 0.189-0.587), and less likely to utilize the emergency department in the past 30 days (AOR: 0.397, 95%CI: 0.188-0.837) at 12-month assessment compared to baseline.Conclusions: Integrating culturally responsive behavioral and primary health care services is critical for addressing the needs of Latinx adults with mental and substance use disorders, and other chronic diseases. This initiative has the potential to reduce disparities in access to and engagement in care for Latinx adults.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the differences in curriculum structure and content and observe commonalities across various Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) programs in the United States. METHODS: This research involves the collection of course content and credit hour data from the curricula and course descriptions, course catalogs, and student handbooks of all the PharmD programs available on their websites and categorization based on the content areas outlined in the Accreditation Council of Pharmacy Education. The core courses, elective offerings, and experiential education (eg, Introductory and Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experience) were evaluated using Excel® for credit hours, integration, non-integration, program duration (3-year vs 4-year), and online offerings. RESULTS: Of 142 accredited schools/colleges, 135 were included in the study, which met the inclusion criteria. In total, 85 of these schools have an integrated curriculum, 19 have a 3-year curriculum, and 15 offer a distance learning pathway for a PharmD degree. Fourteen of the 37 required content areas from the Accreditation Council of Pharmacy Education Appendix 1 were identified, with more than 50% of schools listing no credit hours allocated. Only 9 areas had 90% or more of pharmacy schools allocating credit hours. On average, biomedical, pharmaceutical, social/administrative/behavioral, clinical sciences, experiential education, and electives allocate 10.6, 25.3, 17.1, 40.5, 45.5, and 7.0 credit hours, respectively. CONCLUSION: Each school's curriculum has a significant variation in credit hours, and there is an opportunity to simplify the curricular structure and content by reducing redundancy and increasing flexibility based on health care needs.

ObjectivesBetter integrated health and social or long-term care is high on government policy agendas in many countries. In England, successive pilot programmes, with related national evaluations, have been introduced to better integrate care to meet the needs of people requiring multi-agency help. However, researchers evaluating such programmes both in England and internationally face a daunting number of challenges produced by service delivery and research regulatory systems. This paper analyses the challenges encountered in seeking to undertake a prospective quasi-experimental evaluation of the impacts of community based multi-disciplinary teams (MDTs) on patient experience and outcomes, as part of a wider evaluation of the Integrated Care and Support Pioneers programme. The paper also identifies a number of general lessons for research commissioners, study site participants, and those tasked with undertaking such evaluative research.MethodsWe reviewed our research activities and timelines from the start of the evaluation. We created a narrative history - using reports to the funder, applications to research and ethics regulatory bodies and correspondence with Pioneer sites, regulatory bodies and data providers - to describe the challenges faced and our approaches to attempting to mitigate them.ResultsWe experienced four key challenges: (1) unrealistic commissioner research specifications; (2) negotiating with and recruiting multiple organisations and services at potential study sites; (3) navigating research ethics and governance systems; and (4) recruiting participants for primary data collection and obtaining (with their consent) their linked routine service use data. The first two challenges resulted from the lack of shared understanding of evaluation feasibility and constraints between local health and care system actors and national level commissioners of evaluation, plus no clear incentive for local sites to participate. The third and fourth challenges were the product of multiple, protracted, and unnecessarily risk-averse research approval processes which affected both the nature and quantity of the data we could collect.ConclusionsWe recommend that major changes are made to the regulation of policy research to enable more robust evaluation to take place and that disproportionately high levels of risk aversion in approval processes for non-interventional, low-risk studies are addressed. In addition, the evaluation commissioning process needs to be far better informed at an early stage about which elements in programmes can feasibly be evaluated before research specifications are advertised.