Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Complex social determinants of health may not be easily recognized by health care providers and pose a unique challenge in the vulnerable pediatric population where patients may not be able to advocate for themselves. The goal of this study was to examine the acceptability and feasibility of health care providers using an integrated brief pediatric screening tool in primary care and hospital settings. METHODS: The framework of the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) and Pediatric Intermed tools was used to inform the selection of items for the 9-item Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths-Pediatric Complexity Indicator (CANS-PCI). The tool consisted of three domains: biological, psychological, and social. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with health care providers in pediatric medical facilities in Ottawa, Canada. A low inference and iterative thematic synthesis approach was used to analyze the qualitative interview data specific to acceptability and feasibility. RESULTS: Thirteen health care providers participated in interviews. Six overarching themes were identified: acceptability, logistics, feasibility, pros/cons, risk, and privacy. Overall, participants agreed that a routine, trained provider-led pediatric tool for the screening of social determinants of health is important (n = 10, 76.9%), acceptable (n = 11; 84.6%), and feasible (n = 7, 53.8%). INTERPRETATION: Though the importance of social determinants of health are widely recognized, there are limited systematic methods of assessing, describing, and communicating amongst health care providers about the biomedical and psychosocial complexities of pediatric patients. Based on this study's findings, implementation of a brief provider-led screening tool into pediatric care practices may contribute to this gap.

BACKGROUND: Despite well-established evidence showing that young sexual and gender minority (SGM) men experience disproportionate mental health and substance use inequities, few sexual health services provide mental health and substance use care. This qualitative study examined the experiences and perspectives about integrated care models within sexual health services among young SGM men experiencing mental health and substance use challenges. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 50 SGM men aged 18-30 years who reported using substances with sex in Vancouver, Canada. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: 1) participants asserted that their sexual health, mental health and substance use-related health needs were interrelated and that not addressing all three concurrently could result in even more negative health outcomes. These concurrent health needs were described as stemming from the oppressive social conditions in which SGM men live. 2) Although sexual health clinics were considered a safe place to discuss sexual health needs, participants reported not being invited by health providers to engage in discussions about their mental health and substance use health-related needs. Participants also perceived how stigmas associated with mental health and substance use limited their ability to express and receive support. 3) Participants identified key characteristics they preferred and wanted within integrated care, including training for health providers on mental health and SGM men's health and connections (e.g., referral processes) between services. Participants also recommended integrating social support programs to help them address SGM-related social challenges. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight that SGM men's sexual health, mental health and substance use-related health needs and preferences are interrelated and should be addressed together. Tailored training and resources as well as structural adaptations to improve communication channels and collaborative connections between health providers are required to facilitate the development of integrated care for young SGM men.

BACKGROUND: Naloxone co-prescription is recommended for patients on long-term opioids for pain, yet there are few data on the practice. OBJECTIVE: To explore naloxone co-prescribing acceptability among primary care providers for patients on long-term opioids. DESIGN: We surveyed providers at six safety-net primary care clinics in San Francisco that had initiated naloxone co-prescribing. Providers were encouraged to offer naloxone to patients on long-term opioids or otherwise at risk of witnessing or experiencing an overdose. Surveys were administered electronically 4 to 11 months after co-prescribing began. KEY RESULTS: One hundred eleven providers (69 %) responded to the survey, among whom 41.4 % were residents; 40.5 % practiced internal medicine and 55.0 % practiced family medicine. Most (79.3 %) prescribed naloxone, to a mean of 7.7 patients; 99.1 % were likely to prescribe naloxone in the future. Providers reported they were likely to prescribe naloxone to most patients, including those on low doses, defined as /=65 years old (83.9 %), with no overdose history (80.7 %), and with no substance use disorder (73.6 %). Most providers felt that prescribing naloxone did not affect their opioid prescribing, 22.5 % felt that they might prescribe fewer opioids, and 3.6 % felt that they might prescribe more. Concerns about providing naloxone were largely administrative, relating to time and pharmacy or payer logistics. Internists (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.49, 95 % CI = 0.26-0.93, p = 0.029), those licensed for 5-20 years (IRR = 2.10, 95 % CI = 1.35-3.25, p = 0.001), and those with more patients prescribed long-term opioids (IRR = 1.10, 95 % CI = 1.05-1.14, p <0.001) were independently more likely to prescribe a greater number of naloxone compared to participants without these exposures. CONCLUSIONS: Naloxone co-prescription is considered acceptable among primary care providers. Barriers such as time and dispensing logistics may be alleviated by novel naloxone formulations intended for laypersons recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.