Literature Collection

OBJECTIVE: Adults with serious mental illness have high rates of tobacco use disorder and underuse pharmacotherapy for tobacco cessation. In a previous randomized controlled trial, participants receiving community health worker (CHW) support and education for their primary care providers (PCPs) had higher tobacco abstinence rates at 2 years, partly because of increased initiation of tobacco-cessation pharmacotherapy. The authors aimed to determine the association between CHW-participant engagement and tobacco abstinence outcomes. METHODS: The authors conducted a secondary, mixed-methods analysis of 196 participants in the trial's intervention arm. Effects of the number and duration of CHW visits, number of smoking-cessation group sessions attended, and number of CHW-attended PCP visits on initiation of tobacco-cessation pharmacotherapy and tobacco abstinence were modeled via logistic regression. Interviews with 12 CHWs, 17 patient participants, and 17 PCPs were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Year 2 tobacco abstinence was significantly associated with CHW visit number (OR=1.85, 95% CI=1.29-2.66), visit duration (OR=1.51, 95% CI=1.00-2.28), and number of group sessions attended (OR=1.85, 95% CI=1.33-2.58); effects on pharmacotherapy initiation were similar. One to three CHW visits per month across 2 years were optimal for achieving abstinence. Interviews identified CHW-patient engagement facilitators (i.e., trust, goal accountability, skills reinforcement, assistance in overcoming barriers to treatment access, and adherence). Training and supervision facilitated CHW effectiveness; barriers included PCPs' and care teams' limited understanding of the CHW role. CONCLUSIONS: Greater CHW-participant engagement, within feasible dose ranges, was associated with tobacco abstinence among adults with serious mental illness. Implementation of CHW interventions may benefit from further CHW training and integration within clinical teams.

Integrated behavioral health care (IBHC) models in primary care are positioned to address the unmet needs of traditional behavioral health models. However, research support is limited to specific populations, settings, and behavioral health conditions. Empirical evidence is lacking for expansion to larger health systems and diverse behavioral health conditions. This study examines perspectives on IBHC implementation in a large medical center. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 health providers and administrators in two primary care clinics with IBHC. Thematic analysis demonstrated that participants had an overall favorable perception of IBHC, but also perceived implementation challenges, including difficulties with access, underutilization, team dynamics, and financial and interdepartmental issues. The findings suggest that IBHC implementation barriers in existing large health systems risk diminishing potential benefits and successful adoption. These barriers can be combated by incorporating systems change strategies into implementation frameworks, with a focus on barrier prevention and detection and long-term sustainability.

BACKGROUND: As an alternative to co-located integrated care, off-site integration (partnerships between primary care and non-embedded specialty mental health providers) can address the growing need for pediatric mental health services. Our goal is to review the existing literature on implementing off-site pediatric integrated care. METHODS: We systematically searched the literature for peer-reviewed publications on off-site pediatric integrated care interventions. We included studies that involved systematic data collection and analysis, both qualitative and quantitative, of implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability). RESULTS: We found 39 original articles from 24 off-site programs with a variety of study designs, most with secondary implementation outcomes. Models of off-site integration varied primarily along two dimensions: direct vs. indirect, and in-person vs. remote. Overall, off-site models were acceptable to providers, particularly when the following were present: strong interdisciplinary communication, timely availability and reliability of services, additional support beyond one-time consultation, and standardized care algorithms. Adoption and penetration were facilitated by enhanced program visibility, including on-site champions. Certain clinical populations (e.g., school-age, less complicated ADHD) seemed more amenable to off-site integrated models than others (e.g., preschool-age, conduct disorders). Lack of funding and inadequate reimbursement limited sustainability in all models. CONCLUSIONS: Off-site interventions are feasible, acceptable, and often adopted widely with adequate planning, administrative support, and interprofessional communication. Studies that focus primarily on implementation and that consider the perspectives of specialty providers and patients are needed.