Literature Collection

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged the ability of harm reduction programs to provide vital services to adolescents, young adults, and people who use drugs, thereby increasing the risk of overdose, infection, withdrawal, and other complications of drug use. To evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on harm reduction services for adolescents and young adults in Boston, we conducted a quantitative assessment of the Community Care in Reach (CCIR) youth pilot program to determine gaps in services created by its closure during the peak of the pandemic (March 19-June 21, 2020). We also conducted semistructured interviews with staff members at 6 harm reduction programs in Boston from April 27 through May 4, 2020, to identify gaps in harm reduction services, changes in substance use practices and patterns of engagement with people who use drugs, and how harm reduction programs adapted to pandemic conditions. During the pandemic, harm reduction programs struggled to maintain staffing, supplies, infection control measures, and regular connection with their participants. During the 3-month suspension of CCIR mobile van services, CCIR missed an estimated 363 contacts, 169 units of naloxone distributed, and 402 syringes distributed. Based on our findings, we propose the following recommendations for sustaining harm reduction services during times of crisis: pursuing high-level policy changes to eliminate political barriers to care and fund harm reduction efforts; enabling and empowering harm reduction programs to innovatively and safely distribute vital resources and build community during a crisis; and providing comprehensive support to people to minimize drug-related harms.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) synthesize high-quality information to support evidence-based clinical practice. In primary care, numerous CPGs must be integrated to address the needs of patients with multiple risks and conditions. The BETTER program aims to improve prevention and screening for cancer and chronic disease in primary care by synthesizing CPGs into integrated, actionable recommendations. We describe the process used to harmonize high-quality cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) CPGs to update the BETTER program. METHODS: A review of CPG databases, repositories, and grey literature was conducted to identify international and Canadian (national and provincial) CPGs for CCDPS in adults 40-69 years of age across 19 topic areas: cancers, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hepatitis C, obesity, osteoporosis, depression, and associated risk factors (i.e., diet, physical activity, alcohol, cannabis, drug, tobacco, and vaping/e-cigarette use). CPGs published in English between 2016 and 2021, applicable to adults, and containing CCDPS recommendations were included. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and a three-step process involving patients, health policy, content experts, primary care providers, and researchers was used to identify and synthesize recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 51 international and Canadian CPGs and 22 guidelines developed by provincial organizations that provided relevant CCDPS recommendations. Clinical recommendations were extracted and reviewed for inclusion using the following criteria: 1) pertinence to primary prevention and screening, 2) relevance to adults ages 40-69, and 3) applicability to diverse primary care settings. Recommendations were synthesized and integrated into the BETTER toolkit alongside resources to support shared decision-making and care paths for the BETTER program. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive care requires the ability to address a person's overall health. An approach to identify high-quality clinical guidance to comprehensively address CCDPS is described. The process used to synthesize and harmonize implementable clinical recommendations may be useful to others wanting to integrate evidence across broad content areas to provide comprehensive care. The BETTER toolkit provides resources that clearly and succinctly present a breadth of clinical evidence that providers can use to assist with implementing CCDPS guidance in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: Infancy is a critical period for preventing obesity and health disparities. This study reports on the acceptability of a responsive parenting obesity prevention intervention (THRIVE) delivered via integrated behavioral health in a pediatric primary care setting. Intervention participants were invited to participate in a focus group on the acceptability of THRIVE and suggestions for refinement with particular attention to cultural responsiveness and diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA). METHODS: Eleven of 32 (34.4%) mothers participated in a 45-60 minute focus group (three groups, 3-5 participants each). Sessions utilized a semi-structured interview guide, were transcribed verbatim, and analyzed according to a thematic analytic approach. RESULTS: Four themes emerged: (1) Lived Experience (e.g., lived experience as a mother, navigating systemic and healthcare-related barriers, and context that shaped personal experiences with THRIVE); (2) Therapeutic Processes and Cultural Responsiveness (e.g., an appreciation of families' strengths and values by the THRIVE interventionist that facilitated engagement with THRIVE); (3) Tailored Strategy Implementation (e.g., implementation of THRIVE skills and strategies by families and how strategies were adapted or tailored to meet families' needs); (4) Future Improvements to THRIVE (e.g., proposed strategies for increased attention to DEIA and reducing participant burden). CONCLUSIONS: Conducting qualitative research prior to Phase 2-3 trials is vital to ensuring the interventions developed, implemented, and tested are not only empirically-based, but also culturally-responsive, attentive to DEIA, acceptable and relevant. Mothers provided valuable insights surrounding participation in THRIVE, highlighting important DEIA elements of THRIVE and suggested ways to decrease burden and increase access.

Insomnia is prevalent in primary care and associated with co-morbid physical and mental health conditions and poor health outcomes. While there are effective treatments for insomnia in specialty mental health care, many patients have difficulty accessing these interventions. To begin, patients do not always report their sleep challenges to physicians; meanwhile, primary care providers often do not screen for insomnia symptoms. Furthermore, patients may experience several barriers to accessing specialty care for insomnia treatment, such as a limited number of available providers, financial burden, lack of transportation, and low perceptions of treatment effectiveness. Primary care behavioral health (PCBH) is well-equipped to address the challenges of accessing evidence-based care for insomnia through (1) identifying sleep issues, (2) providing psychoeducation on the possible treatments for insomnia, (3) intervening with poor sleep habits and acute insomnia early to prevent chronic insomnia, and (4) delivering appropriate evidence-based interventions for chronic insomnia. Primary care clinics should leverage behavioral health providers to increase screening and embed interventions into routine care for the benefit of improved outcomes for patients with insomnia and other sleep challenges.