Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Certain health-related risk factors require legal interventions. Medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) are collaborations between clinics and lawyers that address these health-harming legal needs (HHLNs) and have been shown to improve health and reduce utilization. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to explore the impact, barriers, and facilitators of MLP implementation in primary care clinics. METHODS: A qualitative design using a semistructured interview assessed the perceived impact, barriers, and facilitators of an MLP, among clinicians, clinic and MLP staff, and clinic patients. Open AI software (otter.ai) was used to transcribe interviews, and NVivo was used to code the data. Braun & Clarke's framework was used to identify themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Sixteen (n = 16) participants were included in this study. Most respondents were women (81%) and white (56%). Four respondents were clinic staff, and 4 were MLP staff while 8 were clinic patients. Several primary themes emerged including: Patients experienced legal issues that were pernicious, pervasive, and complex; through trusting relationships, the MLP was able to improve health and resolve legal issues, for some; mistrust, communication gaps, and inconsistent staffing limited the impact of the MLP; and, the MLP identified coordination and communication strategies to enhance trust and amplify its impact. CONCLUSION: HHLNs can have a significant, negative impact on the physical and mental health of patients. Respondents perceived that MLPs improved health and resolved these needs, for some. Despite perceived successes, integration between the clinical and legal organizations was elusive.

BACKGROUND: The opioid overdose crisis in the USA has called for expanding access to evidence-based substance use treatment programs, yet many barriers limit the ability of people who inject drugs (PWID) to engage in these programs. Predominantly rural states have been disproportionately affected by the opioid overdose crisis while simultaneously facing diminished access to drug treatment services. The purpose of this study is to explore barriers and facilitators to engagement in drug treatment among PWID residing in a rural county in West Virginia. METHODS: From June to July 2018, in-depth interviews (n = 21) that explored drug treatment experiences among PWID were conducted in Cabell County, West Virginia. Participants were recruited from locations frequented by PWID such as local service providers and public parks. An iterative, modified constant comparison approach was used to code and synthesize interview data. RESULTS: Participants reported experiencing a variety of barriers to engaging in drug treatment, including low thresholds for dismissal, a lack of comprehensive support services, financial barriers, and inadequate management of withdrawal symptoms. However, participants also described several facilitators of treatment engagement and sustained recovery. These included the use of medications for opioid use disorder and supportive health care workers/program staff. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a range of barriers exist that may limit the abilities of rural PWID to successfully access and remain engaged in drug treatment in West Virginia. Improving the public health of rural PWID populations will require expanding access to evidence-based drug treatment programs that are tailored to participants' individual needs.

BACKGROUND: Despite the potential for community health worker (CHW)-led programs to improve the health of people with justice involvement (PWJI), little is known about the practical implementation of such models. We explored barriers and facilitators to implementation of a municipal CHW program, the Health Justice Network (NYC HJN), led by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) in partnership with three reentry-focused community-based organizations (CBOs) and three federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) that was designed to serve the health and social service needs of PWJI. METHODS: Eighteen in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of CHWs, partner site supervisors, and DOHMH staff. Interviews were conducted virtually and transcribed verbatim. Codes and themes were developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to understand facilitators and barriers to NYC HJN implementation. RESULTS: Important facilitators to implementation included: lived experience of CHWs, as well as NYC HJN's voluntary nature, lack of onerous eligibility criteria, and prioritization of participant needs. One barrier was the lack of a formal implementation protocol. Themes identified as facilitators in some instances and barriers in others were CHW integration into site partners, the expansive scope of work for CHWs, the integration of a trauma-informed approach, values alignment and existing infrastructure, leadership engagement, CHW training and support, and input, feedback, and communication. CONCLUSIONS: Findings will help inform how to successfully implement future CHW-led interventions for PWJI with municipal, health, and social service partners.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illness (SMI) are at greater risk of earlier mortality due to physical health problems including cardiovascular disease (CVD). There is limited work exploring whether physical health interventions for people with SMI can be embedded and/or adopted within specific healthcare settings. This information is necessary to optimise the development of services and interventions within healthcare settings. This study explores the barriers and facilitators of implementing a nurse-delivered intervention ('PRIMROSE') designed to reduce CVD risk in people with SMI in primary care, using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), a theory that explains the dynamics of embedding or 'normalising' a complex intervention within healthcare settings. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between April-December 2016 with patients with SMI at risk of CVD who received the PRIMROSE intervention, and practice nurses and healthcare assistants who delivered it in primary care in England. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Emergent themes were then mapped on to constructs of NPT. RESULTS: Fifteen patients and 15 staff participated. The implementation of PRIMROSE was affected by the following as categorised by the NPT domains: 1) Coherence, where both staff and patients expressed an understanding of the purpose and value of the intervention, 2) Cognitive participation, including mental health stigma and staff perceptions of the compatibility of the intervention to primary care contexts, 3) Collective action, including 3.1. Interactional workability in terms of lack of patient engagement despite flexible appointment scheduling. The structured nature of the intervention and the need for additional nurse time were considered barriers, 3.2. Relational integration i.e. whereby positive relationships between staff and patients facilitated implementation, and access to 'in-house' staff support was considered important, 3.3. Skill-set workability in terms of staff skills, knowledge and training facilitated implementation, 3.4. Contextual integration regarding the accessibility of resources sometimes prevented collective action. 4) Reflexive monitoring, where the staff commonly appraised the intervention by suggesting designated timeslots and technology may improve the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Future interventions for physical health in people with SMI could consider the following items to improve implementation: 1) training for practitioners in CVD risk prevention to increase practitioners knowledge of physical interventions 2) training in SMI to increase practitioner confidence to engage with people with SMI and reduce mental health stigma and 3) access to resources including specialist services, additional staff and time. Access to specialist behaviour change services may be beneficial for patients with specific health goals. Additional staff to support workload and share knowledge may also be valuable. More time for appointments with people with SMI may allow practitioners to better meet patient needs.