Literature Collection

Opioid use during pregnancy is rising, with an estimated 14-22% of women obtaining an opioid prescription during pregnancy. Methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) has been the gold standard for treatment of opioid use disorders during pregnancy; however, its use is limited in clinical practice due to availability, stigma, and reluctance on the part of clinicians. The present study compared against medical advice (AMA) treatment dropout from seven days of residential care between pregnant women diagnosed with opioid dependence who elected either MMT (n = 119) or non-pharmacological treatment (NPT) (n = 91) within the same treatment program in Baltimore, Maryland from 1996 to 1998. Multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to compare the rate of AMA drop out between the two modalities. Patients who elected NPT were 2.77 times as likely to leave residential treatment as patients who elected MMT (adjusted odds ratio [OR = 2.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23-6.17]. AMA was associated with interviewer-assessed drug severity and patient's rating of the importance of psychiatric treatment. The present findings further support the clinical utility of MMT and suggest that policies that facilitate the implementation of MMT in clinical practice would be beneficial to the engagement and retention of pregnant women with opioid use disorders.

Substance-using men who have sex with men (MSM), especially those in rural areas, face a heightened risk of HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Despite increased risk, uptake of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), and doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (Doxy-PEP) remains low among rural MSM. The multi-domain factors influencing past-year use of oral PrEP, PEP, and Doxy-PEP among substance-using MSM in the rural southern US remain unknown. A cross-sectional study of rural substance-using MSM (n = 345) in the Southern US was conducted from February 29 to March 23, 2024. Three series of bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted. Past-year PrEP use was significantly associated with HIV-negative status (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-5.80, p = 0.025), past-year STI diagnosis (aOR = 2.23, 95% CI: 1.19-4.15, p = 0.012), past-year HIV testing (aOR = 3.40, 95% CI: 1.05-10.9, p = 0.040), and past-year STI testing (aOR = 10.09, 95% CI: 2.25-45.37, p = 0.003). Past-year PEP use was significantly associated with past-year STI diagnosis (aOR = 3.70, 95% CI: 1.33-10.32, p = 0.012) and oral sex (aOR = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01-0.63, p = 0.015). Finally, past-year Doxy-PEP use was significantly associated with past year-STI diagnosis (aOR = 4.44, 95% CI: 2.03-9.71, p < 0.001). Results underscore the need for integrated care across primary care, pharmacy, and substance use treatment settings to improve screening, education, and prescription of HIV/STI preventative biomedical pharmaceuticals for substance-using MSM.

BACKGROUND: Behavioral health integration is uncommon among U.S. physician practices despite recent policy changes that may encourage its adoption. OBJECTIVE: To describe factors influencing physician practices' implementation of behavioral health integration. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews with leaders and clinicians from physician practices that adopted behavioral health integration, supplemented by contextual interviews with experts and vendors in behavioral health integration. SETTING: 30 physician practices, sampled for diversity on specialty, size, affiliation with parent organizations, geographic location, and behavioral health integration model (collaborative or co-located). PARTICIPANTS: 47 physician practice leaders and clinicians, 20 experts, and 5 vendors. MEASUREMENTS: Qualitative analysis (cyclical coding) of interview transcripts. RESULTS: Four overarching factors affecting physician practices' implementation of behavioral health integration were identified. First, practices' motivations for integrating behavioral health care included expanding access to behavioral health services, improving other clinicians' abilities to respond to patients' behavioral health needs, and enhancing practice reputation. Second, practices tailored their implementation of behavioral health integration to local resources, financial incentives, and patient populations. Third, barriers to behavioral health integration included cultural differences and incomplete information flow between behavioral and nonbehavioral health clinicians and billing difficulties. Fourth, practices described the advantages and disadvantages of both fee-for-service and alternative payment models, and few reported positive financial returns. LIMITATION: The practice sample was not nationally representative and excluded practices that did not implement or sustain behavioral health integration, potentially limiting generalizability. CONCLUSION: Practices currently using behavioral health integration face cultural, informational, and financial barriers to implementing and sustaining behavioral health integration. Tailored, context-specific technical support to guide practices' implementation and payment models that improve the business case for practices may enhance the dissemination and long-term sustainability of behavioral health integration. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American Medical Association and The Commonwealth Fund.

CONTEXT AND AIMS: In the United States, access to evidence-based behavioral health treatment remains limited, contributing to inadequate treatment for individuals with depression and anxiety disorders. The Collaborative care model (CoCM), the integration of behavioral healthcare into primary care, has been shown to be effective in addressing this issue, particularly when delivered virtually through telehealth platforms. While collaborative care has been shown to be effective, little has been studied to understand the impact of patient treatment factors on patient improvement. This study aims to analyze factors associated with patient improvement, measured by PHQ-9 and GAD-7 score changes, in patients with depression and anxiety disorders from Concert Health, a national behavioral medical group offering collaborative care across 18 states. METHODS AND MATERIAL: Stepwise logistic regression models were utilized to identify factors influencing patient improvement in standardized symptom screener scores (PHQ-9 and GAD-7). Relevant patient-level data, including demographics, clinical engagement, insurance type, clinical touchpoints, and other variables, were analyzed. Results are presented as odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We find that increased clinical touchpoints were associated with improved outcomes in both depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7) populations. Commercial insurance was linked to a greater likelihood of improvement relative to Medicaid, and the use of C-SSRS suicide screeners had varied effects on patient outcomes depending on the diagnosis. The duration of time spent in appointments showed a nuanced impact, suggesting an optimal length for touchpoints. Psychiatric consults also impact patient outcomes in both populations. This study sheds light on factors influencing patient outcomes in virtual collaborative care for depression and anxiety disorders, which may be used to inform and motivate further research and allow providers to better optimize and understand the impacts of treatment choices in collaborative care settings.

In Australia and internationally there is a strong policy commitment to the redesign of health services toward integrated physical and mental health care. When executed well, integrated care has been demonstrated to improve the access to, clinical outcomes from, and quality of care while reducing overtreatment and duplication. Despite the demonstrated effectiveness and promise of integrated care, exactly how integrated care is best achieved remains less clear. The aim of this review study was to identify factors that support the implementation of integrated care between physical and mental health services. An integrative review was conducted following the framework developed by Whittemore and Knafl, with quantitative and qualitative evidence systematically considered. To identify studies, Medline, PubMed, PsychINFO, CINAHL were searched for the period from 2003 to 2018, and reference lists of included studies and review articles were examined. Nineteen studies were included. Synthesis of study findings identified seven key factors supporting the implementation of integrated care between physical and mental health services: (a) adequate resourcing, (b) shared values, (c) effective communication, (d) information technology (IT) infrastructure, (e) flexible administrative organizations, (f) role clarity and accountability, and (g) staff engagement and training. There was little theoretical development in included studies, with little insight into the contextual factors or underlying mechanism required to support the implementation of integrated care initiatives. This review identified a set of inter-related barriers and facilitators which, if addressed, can improve the implementation and sustainability of truly integrated care.

BACKGROUND: Integrated care uses inter-professional and inter-organisational collaboration to ensure quality care for those with complex healthcare needs. Whilst inter-organisational collaboration is seen as a facilitator of integration, it has its own complexities and challenges. This study sought to investigate barriers to and facilitators of inter-organisational integration between the partnered organisations of an integrated care initiative in Luton, UK, as perceived by healthcare professionals. METHODS: Face to face semi – structured interviews were conducted between November 2019 and March 2020 with twenty service providers of an integrated service for physical and mental health. Thematic analysis was used to explore the experiences and perceptions of service providers on the integration of healthy lifestyle and mental health services of “Total Wellbeing Luton”. RESULTS: Five primary themes were identified: (1) Culture, (2) Communication Structures, (3) Strategic alignment, (4) Workforce dynamics, and (5) Expectation and reality of the integration. The majority of the identified themes reflect factors that facilitate or impede the integration between the participating organisations. Excellent relationships between healthcare professionals and staff’s motivation have been identified as facilitators to inter-organisational integration, while high staff turnover, lack of shared IT system and absence of co-location have been identified as barriers. Also, a theme reveals that often there was a discrepancy between the expected and the actual implementation and outcomes of integration. CONCLUSIONS: As a part of a larger evaluation programme, this study attempts a comprehensive understanding of the inter-organisational integration in the specific context of Total Wellbeing Luton. The findings and recommendations can support the inter-organisational integration of current and future integrated care initiatives in the UK and elsewhere. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-025-13051-7.