Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: In the United States (U.S.), the prevalence of anxiety and depression is increasing, yet significant barriers to mental health treatment remain. U.S. military veterans are disproportionately affected by anxiety and depression. Many veterans receive medical care within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), an integrated healthcare system that has enacted clinical initiatives to reduce barriers to mental health treatment. OBJECTIVE: We examined associations between VHA healthcare use and receipt of mental health counseling or prescription medication for anxiety or depression. DESIGN: Cross-sectional nationally representative study. PARTICIPANTS: U.S. veterans aged ≥ 18 years with past 12-month healthcare use and anxiety or depression (N = 1,161). MAIN MEASURES: In the 2019 National Health Interview Survey, veterans were assessed for their use of the VHA (vs. non-VHA healthcare use) and receipt of past 12-month mental health counseling, prescription medication for anxiety, or prescription medication for depression. KEY RESULTS: Among all veterans with anxiety or depression, only 23% received mental health counseling, while 26% and 23% received prescription medication for anxiety or depression, respectively. Compared to non-VHA veterans, VHA patients were more likely to receive counseling (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 6.28, 95% CI: 5.33, 7.40), and prescription medication for anxiety (aOR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.72, 2.40), or depression (aOR = 2.54, 95% CI: 2.17, 2.97). CONCLUSIONS: Among veterans with anxiety or depression, VHA patients were more likely to receive mental health treatment than non-VHA veterans. Findings suggest that veteran use of counseling and psychiatric interventions remains limited, though the integrated healthcare system of the VHA may facilitate access to mental health treatment and provides a framework for non-VHA medical centers to expand access to and improve delivery of mental health services.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with mental illnesses are disproportionately incarcerated in jails, which have become de facto mental health institutions across the US. Yet there is limited research describing mental healthcare practices from entry to release among multiple jails and states. METHODS: We conducted 34 semi-structured interviews with jail healthcare personnel across five Southeastern states and used the Framework Method to guide analyses. RESULTS: We report results on challenges and practices related to mental health staffing, screening, additional evaluations and services, and discharge planning in jails. Initial mental health screenings were often restricted to the detection of suicidality and history of treatment and medications as opposed to current mental health symptoms. Use of validated mental health screening forms was uncommon. We found delays in care between the initial health screening and being evaluated by a mental health professional. Most jails reported primary responsibilities for mental healthcare as preventing suicides and managing psychiatric medications. Jails reported mental healthcare as challenging to manage, with high volumes of individuals with mental health needs, yet limited resources, especially regarding staffing. Discharge planning was limited despite reports of poor continuity of mental health services. CONCLUSIONS: Jails have a constitutional duty to provide adequate healthcare to individuals with mental illnesses, yet practices are insufficient and resources are limited across jails. Based on our findings, we recommend 1) greater adoption and revisions of jail health standards 2) system improvement that expands identification of mental illnesses and quicker, less variable follow-up mental health evaluations, 3) improved linkages and supports for community resources that prevent incarceration of this population.

BACKGROUND: Mental illness poses a large and growing disease burden worldwide. Its management is increasingly provided by primary care. The prescribing of psychotropic drugs in general practice has risen in recent decades, and variation in prescribing rates has been identified by a number of studies. It is unclear which factors lead to this variation. AIM: To describe the variables that cause variation in prescribing rates for psychotropic drugs between general practices. METHODS: A narrative review was conducted in January 2018 by searching electronic databases using the PRISMA statement. Studies investigating causal factors for variation in psychotropic prescribing between at least two general practice sites were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Prescribing rates varied considerably between practices. Positive associations were found for many variables, including social deprivation, ethnicity, patient age and gender, urban location, co-morbidities, chronic diseases and GP demographics. However studies show conflicting findings, and no single regression model explained more than 57% of the variation in prescribing rates. DISCUSSION: There is no consensus on the factors that most predict prescribing rates. Most research was conducted in countries with central electronic databases, such as the United Kingdom; it is unclear whether these findings apply in other healthcare systems. More research is needed to determine the variables that explain prescribing rates for psychotropic medications.

The mental status examination relies on the physician's clinical judgment for observation and interpretation. When concerns about a patient's cognitive functioning arise in a clinical encounter, further evaluation is indicated. This can include evaluation of a targeted cognitive domain or the use of a brief cognitive screening tool that evaluates multiple domains. To avoid affecting the examination results, it is best practice to ensure that the patient has a comfortable, nonjudgmental environment without any family member input or other distractions. An abnormal response in a domain may suggest a possible diagnosis, but neither the mental status examination nor any cognitive screening tool alone is diagnostic for any condition. Validated cognitive screening tools, such as the Mini-Mental State Examination or the St. Louis University Mental Status Examination, can be used; the tools vary in sensitivity and specificity for detecting mild cognitive impairment and dementia. There is emerging evidence for the validity of cognitive screening performed during telemedicine visits, but it should not replace in-person evaluation of patients who have comorbidities that would preclude reliable testing via telephone or video. The workup after abnormal results of a mental status examination or cognitive screening tool is based on clinical judgment and primarily focuses on ruling out reversible causes of impairment and considering the need for further neuropsychiatric evaluation.

While the benefits of mentorship programs are well established, their effective design, implementation, and sustainability remain complex and challenging. This perspective paper contributes to the mentorship literature by presenting key lessons learned from the implementation of a mentorship program in the emerging field of integrated health and social care. We suggest that prioritizing thoughtful mentor-mentee matching, promoting flexible and adaptable mentoring meeting formats, offering clear guidance for structured mentoring meetings, and acknowledging the reciprocal value of mentoring relationships can inform strategic approaches to strengthening mentorship programs in integrated care and beyond.