Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial vulnerabilities (e.g. inadequate social support, financial insecurity, stress) and substance use elevate risks for adverse perinatal outcomes and maternal mental health morbidities. However, various barriers, including paucity of validated, simple and usable comprehensive instruments, impede execution of the recommendations to screen for such vulnerabilities in the first antenatal care visit. The current study presents findings from a newly implemented self-report tool created to overcome screening barriers in outpatient antenatal clinics. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart-review of 904 women who completed the Profile for Maternal & Obstetric Treatment Effectiveness (PROMOTE) during their first antenatal visit between June and December 2019. The PROMOTE includes the 4-item NIDA Quick Screen and 15 additional items that each assess a different psychosocial vulnerability. Statistical analysis included evaluation of missing data, and exploration of missing data patterns using univariate correlations and hierarchical clustering. RESULTS: Three quarters of women (70.0%) had no missing items. In the entire sample, all but four PROMOTE items (opioid use, planned pregnancy, educational level, and financial state) had < 5% missing values, suggesting good acceptability and feasibility. Several respondent-related characteristics such as lower education, less family support, and greater stress were associated with greater likelihood of missing items. Instrument-related characteristics associated with missing values were completing the PROMOTE in Spanish or question positioning at the end of the instrument. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Conducting a comprehensive screening of theoretically and clinically meaningful vulnerabilities in an outpatient setting is feasible. Study findings will inform modifications of the PROMOTE and subsequent digitisation.

BACKGROUND: In Baltimore, MD, as in many cities throughout the USA, overdose rates are on the rise due to both the increase of prescription opioid abuse and that of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids in the drug market. Supervised injection facilities (SIFs) are a widely implemented public health intervention throughout the world, with 97 existing in 11 countries worldwide. Research has documented the public health, social, and economic benefits of SIFs, yet none exist in the USA. The purpose of this study is to model the health and financial costs and benefits of a hypothetical SIF in Baltimore. METHODS: We estimate the benefits by utilizing local health data and data on the impact of existing SIFs in models for six outcomes: prevented human immunodeficiency virus transmission, Hepatitis C virus transmission, skin and soft-tissue infection, overdose mortality, and overdose-related medical care and increased medication-assisted treatment for opioid dependence. RESULTS: We predict that for an annual cost of $1.8 million, a single SIF would generate $7.8 million in savings, preventing 3.7 HIV infections, 21 Hepatitis C infections, 374 days in the hospital for skin and soft-tissue infection, 5.9 overdose deaths, 108 overdose-related ambulance calls, 78 emergency room visits, and 27 hospitalizations, while bringing 121 additional people into treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that a SIF would be both extremely cost-effective and a significant public health and economic benefit to Baltimore City.

BACKGROUND: Patients with mental illness are frequently treated in primary care, where Primary Care Providers (PCPs) report feeling ill-equipped to manage their care. Team-based models of care improve outcomes for patients with mental illness, but multiple barriers limit adoption. Barriers include practical issues and psychosocial factors associated with the reorganization of care. Practice facilitation can improve implementation, but does not directly address the psychosocial factors or gaps in PCP skills in managing mental illness. To address these gaps, we developed Relational Team Development (RELATED). METHODS: RELATED is an implementation strategy combining practice facilitation and psychology clinical supervision methodologies to improve implementation of team-based care. It includes PCP-level clinical coaching and a team-level practice change activity. We performed a preliminary assessment of RELATED with a convergent parallel mixed method study in 2 primary care clinics in an urban Federally Qualified Health Center in Southwest, USA, 2017-2018. Study participants included PCPs, clinic staff, and patient representatives. Clinic staff and patients were recruited for the practice change activity only. Primary outcomes were feasibility and acceptability. Feasibility was assessed as ease of recruitment and implementation. Acceptability was measured in surveys of PCPs and staff and focus groups. We conducted semi-structured focus groups with 3 participant groups in each clinic: PCPs; staff and patients; and leadership. Secondary outcomes were change in pre- post- intervention PCP self-efficacy in mental illness management and team-based care. We conducted qualitative observations to better understand clinic climate. RESULTS: We recruited 18 PCPs, 17 staff members, and 3 patient representatives. We ended recruitment early due to over recruitment. Both clinics developed and implemented practice change activities. The mean acceptability score was 3.7 (SD=0.3) on a 4-point Likert scale. PCPs had a statistically significant increase in their mental illness management self-efficacy [change = 0.9, p-value= <.01]. Focus group comments were largely positive, with PCPs requesting additional coaching. CONCLUSIONS: RELATED was feasible and highly acceptable. It led to positive changes in PCP self-efficacy in Mental Illness Management. If confirmed as an effective implementation strategy, RELATED has the potential to significantly impact implementation of evidence-based interventions for patients with mental illness in primary care.

PURPOSE: Practice transformation initiatives have the potential to promote collaborations between public health, primary care, and behavioral health, but limited empirical evidence is available on how these programs affect participating clinical practices. OBJECTIVE: To report the findings from a mixed-methods program evaluation of the Washington Practice Transformation Support Hub (Hub), a publicly funded, multicomponent practice transformation initiative in Washington State. DESIGN: We used quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate the impact of Hub activities on participating primary care and behavioral health practices. Pre- and posttest survey data were combined with administrative program data to understand the effect of program components. Qualitative interviews contextualized findings. SETTING: Urban and rural primary care and behavioral health practices in Washington State. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred seventy-five practices that were recruited to receive Hub coaching and facilitation from 8 coaches; of these, 13 practices and all coaches participated in key informant interviews. INTERVENTION: Practice coaching and facilitation supported by an online resource portal, from January 2017 through January 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported progress in specific activities in 3 practice-level domains: bidirectional integration of physical and behavioral health care (care integration); alignment with community-based services for whole-person care (clinical-community linkages); and value-based payment. RESULTS: Participation in Hub activities was associated with improvements in care integration and clinical-community linkages but not with progress toward value-based payment. Qualitative results indicated that practice progress was influenced by communication with practices, the culture of the practice, resource constraints (particularly in rural areas), and perceptions about sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: This statewide practice transformation initiative was successful in strengthening primary care and behavioral health integration and clinical-community linkages among participating practices but not value-based payment. Future practice transformation efforts may benefit from addressing barriers posed by communication, limited application of value-based payment, culture change, competing priorities, and resource limitations, particularly for rural communities.