Literature Collection

INTRODUCTION: Comprehensiveness in primary care is defined as managing most medical needs in a population while integrating the context of patient's values, preferences, and beliefs. This study aims to synthesise validated measures for measuring comprehensiveness in primary care to facilitate its practical application. AIM: The objective of this study was to synthesise validated measures for measuring comprehensiveness in primary care, facilitating its practical application. METHODS: A narrative-style literature review was employed to conduct a hierarchical review of relevant literature. The process involved several stages: initial term filtering, separation of primary care from specialist care using medical subject heading (MeSH) terms, incorporation of non-MeSH terminology, and a manual review of titles, abstracts, and full articles. Articles were included if they discussed the measurement, assessment, or application of comprehensiveness in primary care and were relevant to primary care and methodologically sound. A multistage PubMed search of 'comprehensiveness' (MeSH) with hierarchical sub-term filtering and snowball method gleaning of additional articles from literature-described terminology was conducted. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Methodological strategies varied from claims-based approaches for cost and utilisation to surveys assessing the scope of clinical services and patient experience. DISCUSSION: Thoroughly measuring comprehensiveness in primary care integrates methods that evaluate the effect of physician ranges of clinical services on the cost and utilisation of health care, and the impact on patient outcomes within the context of the patient experience. Implementing these methods pragmatically can assist communities and health systems in implementing, measuring, and capturing comprehensiveness in primary care.

INTRODUCTION: The extensive and alarming use of opioids for pain management in patients with chronic pain receiving palliative care is associated with non-tolerable gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects. Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is the most common adverse effect impairing patient quality of life (QOL). In addition, OIC is one of the treatment limiting consequences of opioid analgesics. Management of OIC is becoming a challenge since traditional laxatives have limited efficiency. Peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORA) have been developed for the treatment of OIC with methylnaltrexone bromide being the first approved to treat OIC in adults with advanced illness undergoing palliative care. Areas covered: The authors systematically review the clinical evidence for methylnaltrexone bromide including a review of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data along with clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Though there is a need for further long-term clinical investigation, there is a large body of evidence for both its efficacy and safety in the treatment of OIC. Expert opinion: Methylnaltrexone has both subcutaneous injection and oral dosage forms available in the market. The lack of more evidence in specific populations such as pregnant women, pediatrics and elderly still remains. The global consumption of methylnaltrexone shows a projection of increased use since its approval worldwide in 2008.

BACKGROUND: Depression and chronic pain are commonly comorbid, mutually reinforcing, and debilitating. Emerging approaches to mobile behavioral health care (mHealth) promise to improve outcomes for patients with comorbid depression and chronic pain by integrating with existing care models to bolster support and continuity between clinical visits; however, the evidence base supporting the use of mHealth to augment care for this patient population is limited. OBJECTIVE: To develop an evidence base that sets the stage for future research, we aimed to explore the associations between changes in depression severity and various integrated care models, with and without mHealth augmentation, among patients with comorbid depression and nonmalignant chronic pain. METHODS: Our team leveraged retrospective, real-world data from 3837 patients with comorbid depression and nonmalignant chronic pain who received integrated behavioral health care (IBH) at a subspecialty pain clinic. We analyzed one IBH-only, non-mHealth cohort (n=2765), an mHealth-augmented cohort (n=844), and a collaborative care (CoCM)+mHealth cohort (n=136), which were supported by the NeuroFlow mHealth platform, and a pre-CoCM mHealth cohort (n=92), which was supported by the mHealth platform for 3 months prior to beginning the chronic pain treatment. We evaluated changes in depression severity between treatment cohorts via longitudinal analyses of both clinician- and mHealth-administered Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) assessments. RESULTS: mHealth-augmented integrated care led to significantly greater proportions of patients reaching clinical benchmarks for reduction (725/844, 86% vs 2112/2765, 76%), response (689/844, 82% vs 2027/2765, 73%), and remission (629/844, 75% vs 1919/2765, 69%) compared with integrated care alone. Furthermore, hierarchical regression modeling revealed that patients who received mHealth-augmented psychiatric CoCM experienced the greatest sustained reductions in on-average depression severity compared with other cohorts, irrespective of clinical benchmarks. In addition, patients who engaged with an mHealth platform before entering CoCM experienced a 7.2% reduction in average depression severity before starting CoCM treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that mHealth platforms have the potential to improve treatment outcomes for patients with comorbid chronic pain and depression by providing remote measurement-based care, tailored interventions, and improved continuity between appointments. Moreover, our study set the stage for further research, including randomized controlled trials to evaluate causal relationships between mHealth engagement and treatment outcomes in integrated care settings.