Literature Collection

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of behavioral health interventions delivered within pediatric integrated primary care models on clinical outcomes. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS for studies published from January 1, 1998, to September 20, 2023. We included studies that evaluated onsite behavioral health integration in pediatric primary care using a comparator condition (usual, enhanced usual care, or waitlist). Outcome data on symptom change, impairment/quality of life, health indicator, and behavior change were extracted using Covidence software. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed Risk of bias analysis was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We used multilevel meta-analysis to synthesize multiple outcomes nested within studies. Open Science Foundation pre-registration: #10.17605/OSF.IO/WV7XP. RESULTS: In total, 33 papers representing 27 studies involving 6,879 children and caregivers were included. Twenty-four studies were randomized controlled trials and three were quasi-experimental designs. Seventeen papers reported on treatment trials and 16 reported on prevention trials. We found a small overall effect size (SMD = 0.19, 95% confidence interval [0.11, 0.27]) supporting the superiority of integrated primary care to usual or enhanced usual care. Moderator analyses suggested similar effectiveness between co-located and integrated models and no statistically significant differences were found between treatment and prevention trials. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that integrated primary care is superior to usual and enhanced usual care at improving behavior, quality of life, and symptoms. Integrated primary care research needs improved standards for reporting to promote better synthesis and understanding of the literature.

Background: Integrated and gender-responsive interventions, designed to target co-occurring substance use and psychiatric disorders in women, may be effective in addressing gender-specific challenges.Objectives: This systematic review aims to identify integrated gender-responsive substance use disorder treatments for women, summarize evaluations of these treatments, and address gaps in the literature.Methods: We searched PsycINFO, PubMed, and MEDLINE on September 24, 2021, and March 10, 2022. Included articles were randomized-controlled trials, secondary analyses of naturalistic studies, or open-label studies of integrated and gender-responsive treatments from any year that assessed both substance use and mental health/trauma outcomes.Results: We identified N = 24 studies (participants = 3,396; 100% women) examining Seeking Safety, Helping Women Recover and Beyond Trauma, A Woman's Path to Recovery, Modified Trauma Recovery and Empowerment Model (TREM), Breaking the Cycle, VOICES, Understanding and Overcoming Substance Misuse, Women's Recovery Group, Female Specific Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and Moment by Moment in Women's Recovery. Across treatments there were significant improvements over time; Seeking Safety, Helping Women Recover, and TREM were associated with significantly better substance use and mental health outcomes relative to the comparison groups.Conclusions: Integrated gender-responsive treatments are a promising approach to treating women with co-occurring substance use and mental health concerns, and broad clinical implementation stands to benefit women. However, there remains a lack of studies evaluating substance use treatments in women with severe mental illness (e.g., psychotic-spectrum disorders) who differ in their needs and capacity.

INTRODUCTION: Access to mental health care has been a priority area for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for decades. Access for veterans with PTSD is essential because untreated PTSD is associated with numerous adverse outcomes. Although interventions have been developed to improve access to DVA mental health care, the impact of these interventions on access for veterans with untreated PTSD has not been examined comprehensively, limiting guidance on appropriate implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed and PTSDpubs between May 2019 and January 2022 to identify DVA access interventions for veterans with PTSD not engaged in DVA mental health care. We identified 17 interventions and 29 manuscripts reporting quantitative access outcomes. We categorized interventions into four major categories: Primary care mental health integration, other national initiatives, telemental health, and direct outreach. We evaluated five outcome domains: Binary attendance, number of sessions attended, wait time, number of patients seen, and care initiation. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration criteria. RESULTS: Across articles, binary attendance generally improved, whereas the impact on the number of sessions attended was equivocal. Overall, the number of patients seen increased compared to control participants and retrospective data. The few articles that examined care initiation had mixed results. Only one article examined the impact on wait time. CONCLUSIONS: Access interventions for veterans with PTSD demonstrated varied success across interventions and outcomes. The national initiatives-particularly primary care mental health integration -were successful across several outcomes; telemental health demonstrated promise in improving access; and the success of direct outreach varied across interventions. Confidence in these findings is tempered by potential bias among studies. Limited literature on how these interventions impact relevant preattendance barriers, along with incomplete data on how many perform nationally, suggests that additional work is needed to ensure that these interventions increase access for veterans with PTSD nationwide.

INTRODUCTION: Access to mental health care has been a priority area for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for decades. Access for veterans with PTSD is essential because untreated PTSD is associated with numerous adverse outcomes. Although interventions have been developed to improve access to DVA mental health care, the impact of these interventions on access for veterans with untreated PTSD has not been examined comprehensively, limiting guidance on appropriate implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed and PTSDpubs between May 2019 and January 2022 to identify DVA access interventions for veterans with PTSD not engaged in DVA mental health care. We identified 17 interventions and 29 manuscripts reporting quantitative access outcomes. We categorized interventions into four major categories: Primary care mental health integration, other national initiatives, telemental health, and direct outreach. We evaluated five outcome domains: Binary attendance, number of sessions attended, wait time, number of patients seen, and care initiation. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration criteria. RESULTS: Across articles, binary attendance generally improved, whereas the impact on the number of sessions attended was equivocal. Overall, the number of patients seen increased compared to control participants and retrospective data. The few articles that examined care initiation had mixed results. Only one article examined the impact on wait time. CONCLUSIONS: Access interventions for veterans with PTSD demonstrated varied success across interventions and outcomes. The national initiatives-particularly primary care mental health integration -were successful across several outcomes; telemental health demonstrated promise in improving access; and the success of direct outreach varied across interventions. Confidence in these findings is tempered by potential bias among studies. Limited literature on how these interventions impact relevant preattendance barriers, along with incomplete data on how many perform nationally, suggests that additional work is needed to ensure that these interventions increase access for veterans with PTSD nationwide.