Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Integrated behavioral health care (IBH), a team-based approach to care, involves behavioral health providers (BHP) to be utilized in primary care settings. Unfortunately, many BHP and primary care advanced practice nursing students do not receive IBH content in their educational curriculum. This article describes an innovative interprofessional simulation project (ISP) in a virtual IBH setting with primary care nurse practitioner and master's level counseling students. METHOD: The ISP involved students role-playing using case studies while enacting the roles exemplified in the Collaborative Care model (CoCM). Interprofessional faculty collaborated in developing the project and training facilitators and interprofessional students. RESULTS: Of the students and faculty who completed a postsurvey, 87.7% reported an increase in preparedness in learning the CoCM, and 92.6% responded the preparation time for the project was "appropriate." CONCLUSION: The ISP project resulted in high satisfaction and perceived increased preparedness for students and faculty to practice and teach IBH. [J Nurs Educ. 2024; 63(X):XXX-XXX.].

INTRODUCTION: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are evidence-based treatments, yet can be controversial among some populations. This study provides a systematic review of prejudice and discrimination toward MOUD, a form of "intervention stigma," or stigma associated with a particular medical treatment. METHODS: A systematic search strategy was used in PsychInfo and PubMed to identify studies published between 1998 and 2018. Studies that empirically examined stigma toward MOUD were included if the manuscript was of moderate or high quality. Studies were analyzed using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: The search yielded 972 studies, of which 28 were included. Most studies utilized qualitative methods to examine intervention stigma toward methadone or buprenorphine, with one including naltrexone. Studies demonstrated that intervention stigma among healthcare providers was influenced by lack of training and abstinent treatment preferences. Providers equated MOUD with illicit substance use and at times refused to care for MOUD patients. Stigma among peer patients seeking treatment was also influenced by abstinent treatment preferences, and among the general public stigma was influenced by lack of MOUD knowledge. Intervention stigma was also driven at the policy level by high regulation of methadone, which fueled diversion and hindered social functioning among patients. Few studies indicated how to reduce intervention stigma toward MOUD. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention stigma affects both provision and perceptions of methadone and buprenorphine, decreasing access and utilization of MOUD. Future research should further develop and test MOUD stigma reduction interventions in a variety of social contexts to improve access to care and reduce patient barriers.

BACKGROUND: This proof-of-concept study tested the feasibility and acceptability of INTEGRATE-D, an implementation support intervention for primary care clinics to improve the psychosocial care of patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Cluster randomized controlled pragmatic trial, with a parallel, convergent mixed methods design. Two Intervention Clinics (ICs) were offered tailored training on American Diabetes Association (ADA)-recommended psychosocial care and facilitation to identify and support clinical change. Two Control Clinics (CCs) received no intervention. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: intervention acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: process-of-care metrics (eg, depression screening, diabetes management) and clinical outcomes measures (PHQ-9 and A1C). Qualitative data were collected to assess implementation and experience with the intervention. RESULTS: ICs were offered training and received 15-months of facilitation. To accommodate COVID-19-related safety restrictions, the intervention was changed to be delivered virtually (eg, remote facilitation and training sessions). Despite an adapted delivery and COVID-19 and staffing stressors, clinics exposed to INTEGRATE-D found it to be acceptable, well-aligned with clinics' needs, and feasible. Qualitative data suggest COVID-19 stressors tempered feasibility. The effect of INTEGRATE-D on process and clinical outcome measures were mixed. Several factors, including differences in ICs and CCs not addressed in randomization and delivery of a less intensive intervention due to the pandemic, may help explain these results. CONCLUSIONS: Given the growing number of people with type 2 diabetes and the importance of psychosocial care for these patients, INTEGRATE-D warrants further pilot-testing with a larger sample of clinics and patients, and under conditions where in-person facilitation and expanded training is possible.