Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Substance use disorders (SUDs) result in individual and societal burden. However, most individuals with SUD receive no treatment. Implementing SUD interventions in primary care could address this population's treatment needs. In the USA, reSET(®) and reSET-O(®) were the first prescription digital therapeutics (PDTs) for SUDs and opioid use disorder (OUD), respectively. The Digital Treatments for Substance Use Disorder (DIGITS) study tested the effectiveness of practice facilitation and health coaching strategies to support reSET and reSET-O implementation into primary care. A formative evaluation was conducted to monitor implementation, inform adaptations, and learn what promotes PDT sustainment. METHOD: The Dynamic Sustainability Framework and the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies guided the evaluation. Using rapid qualitative methods, we collected and analyzed observational fieldnotes, key informant interviews, and document sources (e.g., meeting minutes) for synthesis and dissemination to clinical partners and the study team via formative reports. We analyzed the reports to generate evaluation results. RESULTS: Twenty-four primary care clinics participated. Evaluation data included 98 observational fieldnotes, 16 interviews, and 253 document sources. We produced nine formative reports. The study encountered barriers and facilitators in each DSF domain (ecological system, practice setting, and intervention). In the ecological system, the PDT vendor enabled the study, but the COVID-19 pandemic, laws, regulations, and contracting delayed implementation. In the practice setting, staff shortages and low clinic capacity were implementation challenges, while electronic health record capabilities were both barriers and facilitators. At the intervention level, non-routine workflows, clinician burden, and low patient engagement were barriers despite clinicians' efforts. CONCLUSIONS: Digital therapeutics are promising SUD and OUD treatments, but integration into primary care requires conducive laws and regulations, organizational capacity, and patient and clinician engagement. Formative evaluation identified important lessons for future PDT implementation.; Evaluation of the integration of digital treatments for opioid and other substance use disorders in primary care . Most people with substance use disorders (SUDs) receive no treatment. In the USA, two smartphone app-based digital treatments for SUD and opioid use disorders (OUDs) became available by prescription. The Digital Treatments for Substance Use Disorder (DIGITS) study, a randomized implementation trial, tested how best to integrate these digital treatments for SUD and OUD into primary care. Throughout the study, we conducted a formative evaluation to observe progress, recommend implementation improvements, and understand how digital treatments could be offered to patients after the study ended. For this evaluation, we collected qualitative data through observing study meetings and interviewing primary care leaders, clinicians, and clinical and study staff. The data were regularly summarized and reported to our clinical partners and the study team. We used two implementation frameworks to interpret the data: the Dynamic Sustainability Framework and the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies. The evaluation revealed factors that helped and hindered implementation. Obstacles from outside the health care system included the COVID-19 pandemic, laws, regulations, and delays in setting up contractual agreements, whereas a partnership with the digital treatment vendor proved helpful. Clinics had difficulties with clinician burden, staff shortages, lack of time and available appointments, and performing new and unfamiliar tasks. The electronic health record system both supported and impended implementation. Last, few patients accepted the offered digital treatment, or used it persistently. Formative evaluation results suggest that digital treatments for SUD and OUD in primary care are promising, however their successful use requires supportive laws and regulations, health system resources, and increased patient and clinician engagement.; eng

Integrated behavioral healthcare interventions have increased access to care for people with behavioral health conditions in primary care settings. However, they have not been widely implemented in low-barrier HIV care settings where undertreated behavioral health needs remain high. We conducted a formative qualitative evaluation, using in-depth interviews with purposively selected stakeholders (n = 13) and patients (n = 16), to identify anticipated barriers and facilitators to integrating care for depression and opioid use disorder for people with HIV via the Collaborative Care Model at a low-barrier HIV clinic. Patients and stakeholders expressed their enthusiasm for the Collaborative Care Model based on its perceived relative advantage over the standard of care referral system. Availability of resources, practical concerns about perceived fit with low-barrier HIV care, and anticipated suitability given other behavioral health comorbidities and patients' complex socioeconomic needs partially tempered stakeholder perceptions of appropriateness for the Collaborative Care Model. Patients and service delivery stakeholders were receptive to the Collaborative Care Model, but felt it was moderately appropriate in the context of low-barrier HIV care, which necessitated key adaptations to core model components to improve its contextual fit.

BACKGROUND: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders in primary care (PC). GAD has low remission and high relapse rates over long follow-up periods. Qualitative evidence was synthesized to understand the implementation of care and treatment options for people with GAD in PC. METHODS: Research published from 2008 to September 2020 was searched in five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, WOS and PsycArticles). Studies that used qualitative methods for data collection and analysis to investigate the implementation of care and treatment options for people with GAD in PC and outpatient settings were included. Non-qualitative studies, mixed methods studies that did not separately report qualitative findings and studies in languages other than English or Spanish were excluded. We used the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) framework to assess the overall confidence in the findings. RESULTS: The results with a moderate level of confidence showed that the trajectory of care for people with GAD in PC and outpatient settings is long and fluctuates over time, involving multiple difficulties in accessing and maintaining initial treatment or successive treatment options. In addition, there are wide variations in the preferences for and acceptability of different treatment options. The results with a high level of confidence indicated that more information on GAD and its treatment options is needed for PC practitioners, GAD patients and their carers. The results with a low level of confidence suggested that patients use antidepressants for longer than recommended and that the interruption of treatment is not usually planned. CONCLUSIONS: Initial resistance to new treatments among people with GAD can make access and adherence to treatment difficult. Improving care may require patients to be informed of possible trajectories in stepped care pathways before the initiation of treatment so they are aware that they may need to try a number of options until the most effective treatment for them is found. Increased awareness of and information materials on GAD may facilitate both appropriate diagnosis and long-term care.