Literature Collection

Suicide is a leading cause of death among active-duty military personnel. Although specialty mental health services are readily available, primary care clinics represent the most frequently accessed clinical setting immediately preceding suicide deaths and suicide attempts among service members. Primary care clinics offer a critical and unique opportunity to implement interventions targeting suicide prevention. Effective engagement and response to servicemembers with elevated suicide risk requires scalable alternatives to traditional mental health care. The central focus of this study is to test the efficacy of Aviva, a scalable, digital adaptation of Brief Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Suicide Prevention in three primary care clinics with active-duty military servicemembers in comparison to treatment as usual. This paper describes the design, methodology, and protocol of an active randomized controlled trial comparing Aviva to treatment as usual. The impact on subsequent suicidal ideation and behaviors during a year-long follow-up period will be evaluated. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT06318962.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that clinicians adopt universal alcohol screening and brief intervention as a routine preventive service for adults, and efforts are underway to support its widespread dissemination. The likelihood that healthcare systems will sustain this change, once implemented, is under-reported in the literature. This article identifies factors that were important to postimplementation sustainability of an evidence-based practice change to address alcohol misuse that was piloted within three diverse primary care organizations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded three academic teams to pilot and evaluate implementation of alcohol screening and brief intervention within multiclinic healthcare systems in their respective regions. Following the completion of the pilots, teams used the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool to retrospectively describe and compare differences across eight sustainability domains, identify strengths and potential threats to sustainability, and make recommendations for improvement. Health systems varied across all domains, with greatest differences noted for Program Evaluation, Strategic Planning, and Funding Stability. Lack of funding to sustain practice change, or data monitoring to promote fit and fidelity, was an indication of diminished Organizational Capacity in systems that discontinued the service after the pilot. Early assessment of sustainability factors may identify potential threats that could be addressed prior to, or during implementation to enhance Organizational Capacity. Although this study provides a retrospective assessment conducted by external academic teams, it identifies factors that may be relevant for translating evidence-based behavioral interventions in a way that assures that they are sustained within healthcare systems.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic and subsequent mortality is a national concern in the U.S. The burden of this problem is disproportionately high among low-income and uninsured populations who are more likely to experience unmet need for substance use services. We assessed the impact of two Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) substance use disorder (SUD) service capacity grants on SUD staffing and service use in HRSA -funded health centers (HCs). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted cross-sectional analyses of the Uniform Data System (UDS) from 2010 to 2017 to assess HC (n = 1,341) trends in capacity measured by supply of SUD and medication-assisted treatment (MAT) providers, utilization of SUD and MAT services, and panel size and visit ratio measured by the number of patients seen and visits delivered by SUD and MAT providers. We merged mortality and national survey data to incorporate SUD mortality and SUD treatment services availability, respectively. From 2010 to 2015, 20% of HC organizations had any SUD staff, had an average of one full-time equivalent SUD employee, and did not report an increase in SUD patients or SUD services. SUD capacity grew significantly in 2016 (43%) and 2017 (22%). MAT capacity growth was measured only in 2016 and 2017 and grew by 29% between those years. Receipt of both supplementary grants increased the probability of any SUD capacity by 35% (95% CI: 26%, 44%) and service use, but decreased the probability of SUD visit ratio by 680 visits (95% CI: -1,013, -347), compared to not receiving grants. CONCLUSIONS: The significant growth in HC specialized SUD capacity is likely due to supplemental SUD-specific HRSA grants and may vary by structure of grants. Expanding SUD capacity in HCs is an important step in increasing SUD access for low income and uninsured populations broadly and for patients of these organizations.

This executive summary highlights evidence-based recommendations for using lifestyle interventions in the treatment and remission of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and prediabetes in adults. The summary and guideline are intended for any clinician or healthcare professional in a community or non-inpatient healthcare setting involved in managing non-pregnant adults with T2D, prediabetes or a history of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The purpose of this executive summary is to provide a succinct overview of the key action statements (recommendations) from Lifestyle Interventions for Treatment and Remission of Type 2 Diabetes and Prediabetes in Adults: A Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine. This is the first diabetes guideline to emphasize lifestyle interventions as the foundation of management and is also the first to focus on all six pillars of lifestyle medicine (plant-predomination nutrition, regular physical activity, restorative sleep, stress reduction, social connectedness, and avoiding risky substances), including behavior change strategies. This summary is not intended to substitute for the full guideline, which should be read before taking the recommended actions. The guideline on which this summary is based was developed with a priori methodology that has been previously published, refined, and used in over 20 multidisciplinary, trustworthy, and evidence-based national guidelines. The guideline development group included 20 members representing consumers, advanced practice nursing, cardiology, clinical pharmacology, behavioral medicine, endocrinology, family medicine, lifestyle medicine, nutrition and dietetics, health education, health and wellness coaching, sleep medicine, sports medicine, and obesity medicine. We developed 14 key action statements and associated evidence profiles, each with a distinct quality improvement goal in the context of lifestyle interventions for T2D. Strong recommendations were made regarding advocacy for lifestyle interventions; assessing baseline lifestyle habits; establishing priorities for lifestyle change; prescribing aerobic and muscle strength physical activity; reducing sedentary time; identifying sleep disorders; prescribing nutrition plans for prevention and treatment; promoting peer/familial support and social connections; counseling regarding tobacco, alcohol, and recreational drugs, and establishing a plan for continuity of care. Recommendations were made regarding identifying the need for psychological interventions and for adjusting (deprescribing) pharmacologic therapy. We include numerous tables and figures to facilitate implementation, a plain-language summary for consumers, and an executive summary for clinicians as separate publications. Although not a substitute for the full clinical practice guideline, this executive summary can provide insight into the key guideline recommendations, to whom they apply, and to how they might alter care. These recommendations offer detailed, explicit, and evidence-based strategies for successful lifestyle behavior change, making them relevant not only to our guideline but to other guidelines and standards that advocate for lifestyle change in managing adults with T2D.