Literature Collection

With the integration of behavioral health services into primary care and other medical specialties, the community of providers and the public must address a number of questions, including: What models of care are there for these services? What kinds of providers supply these services? Are these providers trained behavioral health providers or extenders in some form? And, as these systems of care are constructed, who makes use of them? The purpose of this study is to address these questions as well as to consider some of the challenges of attending to the spectrum of needs that will arise as integrated healthcare services expand. Consideration of these questions may serve to clarify the impact that these models of healthcare will have in ways that may be readily apparent and, at the same time, in ways that may be subtler and less comprehensible. Addressing these questions is also intended to facilitate discussions within healthcare systems and among providers concerning which models of care best respond to specific populations. In turn, proactively answering these questions will, for the foreseeable future, shape not only behavioral healthcare, in perhaps small or large ways, but also healthcare in general.

With the integration of behavioral health services into primary care and other medical specialties, the community of providers and the public must address a number of questions, including: What models of care are there for these services? What kinds of providers supply these services? Are these providers trained behavioral health providers or extenders in some form? And, as these systems of care are constructed, who makes use of them? The purpose of this study is to address these questions as well as to consider some of the challenges of attending to the spectrum of needs that will arise as integrated healthcare services expand. Consideration of these questions may serve to clarify the impact that these models of healthcare will have in ways that may be readily apparent and, at the same time, in ways that may be subtler and less comprehensible. Addressing these questions is also intended to facilitate discussions within healthcare systems and among providers concerning which models of care best respond to specific populations. In turn, proactively answering these questions will, for the foreseeable future, shape not only behavioral healthcare, in perhaps small or large ways, but also healthcare in general.

Demand for mental health services has dramatically increased in recent years, raising concerns about the availability of service providers to meet these increased needs. One approach to expanding access to care is the use of highly qualified board-certified psychiatric pharmacists (BCPPs). However, the implementation of programs for integrating BCPPs has not been well characterized in community mental health settings. This column describes the development and implementation of a comprehensive practice model to incorporate BCPPs in a certified community behavioral health clinic. The authors report the results from the first 14 months of BCPP integration (based on 3,221 direct patient care interventions), offer recommendations, and highlight lessons learned.

Demand for mental health services has dramatically increased in recent years, raising concerns about the availability of service providers to meet these increased needs. One approach to expanding access to care is the use of highly qualified board-certified psychiatric pharmacists (BCPPs). However, the implementation of programs for integrating BCPPs has not been well characterized in community mental health settings. This column describes the development and implementation of a comprehensive practice model to incorporate BCPPs in a certified community behavioral health clinic. The authors report the results from the first 14 months of BCPP integration (based on 3,221 direct patient care interventions), offer recommendations, and highlight lessons learned.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder with buprenorphine in primary care is effective and patient-accessible yet remains underutilized, including among residency training programs. One concern in residency programs is that MAT patients must be seen at least monthly and will overwhelm residents' clinic schedules and dilute their clinical experience. Our family medicine residency initiated an MAT program integrated into residents' continuity clinic schedules. After 2 years we assessed the chronic medical comorbidities we were managing in our MAT population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all active patients receiving MAT. We collected basic demographic data and whether we were the patient's primary care provider (PCP) or were only providing MAT. For the patients for whom we were the PCP we recorded the chronic comorbidities that required medical management. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-seven active patients were 52% male and 48% female. The mean age was 38 years (SD=10) with a range of 22 to 77 years, with nine patients over age 60 years (6%). One hundred three patients used us as their PCP (66%). For these patients the mean number of chronic comorbidities was 2.3; only 10 patients reported no comorbidities. Psychiatric comorbidities were the most common with 69% of patients with a mood disorder, although nonpsychiatric comorbidities still averaged 1.5 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: MAT integrated into family medicine resident continuity clinics provides a broad and substantial primary care clinical experience for residents.

This review examines population-based strategies for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention and evaluates how integration between cardiology and public health can facilitate effective and scalable approaches to reducing the global CVD burden. Despite major therapeutic advances, the incidence and mortality of cardiovascular disease continue to increase, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), driven by demographic transitions, lifestyle changes, and socioeconomic inequities. Using a structured narrative synthesis, the review draws on epidemiological evidence, risk factor frameworks, policy interventions, and large-scale prevention initiatives to evaluate strategies across primordial, primary, and secondary prevention domains. The findings indicate that reductions in cardiovascular risk require approaches that extend beyond individual-level clinical management to address environmental, behavioral, and structural determinants of health. While interventions such as national screening programs, community-based strategies, and regulatory policies demonstrate measurable impact, gaps remain in evidence quality, health system integration, and equitable inclusion of vulnerable populations. The review highlights how alignment of clinical cardiology, public health systems, and multisectoral policies can improve prevention delivery and equity. It further emphasizes that strengthening primary care, advancing digital health technologies, and embedding prevention within broader social policy frameworks are essential for developing resilient cardiovascular prevention systems in resource-constrained settings.

AIM: To critically analyse the federal Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) using the Integration Continuum Framework and the Conceptual Model for Nursing and Health Policy, identifying system-level strengths, equity gaps and nursing implications for long-term care reform. BACKGROUND: The U.S. long-term care system remains fragmented and institutionally biased, disproportionately affecting dual-eligible older adults who account for outsized healthcare expenditures despite comprising just 17% of Medicare beneficiaries. Permanently authorised under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, PACE delivers fully integrated, community-based care for individuals aged 55 and older who qualify for nursing home-level services but prefer to remain in their communities. DESIGN: A policy analysis guided by dual conceptual frameworks assessing PACE structure, implementation and impact across four policy outcome levels: efficacy, effectiveness, equity and justice. METHODS: This policy analysis was conducted between May and July 2025. Two conceptual frameworks were applied to examine PACE structure, implementation and outcomes. Data sources included peer-reviewed studies, federal legislation, policy documents and grey literature published between 2020 and 2025, supplemented by international integrated care literature. FINDINGS: PACE demonstrates strong efficacy and effectiveness, with fully integrated interdisciplinary teams and reduced institutionalisation for enrolled older adults. However, the program falls short on equity and justice due to limited geographic reach, racial and ethnic disparities in enrollment, exclusion of Medicare-only populations and persistent nursing workforce challenges. CONCLUSION: PACE exemplifies a high-functioning integrated model of community-based long-term care, but current policy constraints prevent it from achieving scale and equity. Without eligibility expansion, financing reform and workforce investment, its transformative potential will remain unrealised. Nurses are central to this vision and must be empowered as clinical leaders and policy advocates to sustain care coordination and advance health equity in aging populations.