Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: A wide range of opioid misuse motives have been documented in the literature, including to relieve physical pain, feel good/get high, relax, manage feelings/emotions, sleep, and moderate the effects of other substances. Despite a rise in opioid misuse among African Americans over the last 2 decades, their motivations for misuse remain unclear. Much of the research on opioid misuse motivations either rely on samples with little racial diversity or do not stratify their findings by race. As a result, less is known about the specific reasons why African Americans engage in opioid misuse. The objective of this study, therefore, was to identify and explain the most common motives for misusing opioids among African Americans. Qualitative interview data are also presented to explain/contextualize the most prevalent motivations. METHODS: This study used data from the Florida Minority Health Survey, a mixed-methods project that included online surveys (n = 303) and qualitative in-depth interviews (n = 30) of African Americans. Data collection was conducted from August 2021 to February 2022 throughout Southwest Florida. RESULTS: Analyses revealed that while some (33.9%) misused opioids for purposes of recreation/sensation seeking (eg, feel good/get high), the majority (66.1%) were attempting to self-treat perceived medical symptoms (eg, physical pain, anxiety/trauma, withdrawals, insomnia). CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to a better understanding of why some African Americans engage in opioid misuse and findings highlight the need for interventions to be trauma informed and address unmanaged physical pain among African Americans. Given that most studies on motivations are quantitative in nature, the study contributes to the literature by capturing the voices of African Americans who use drugs.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is the initial contact point for most patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) but lacks tools for guiding treatment. Only a small fraction of patients access evidence-based care. Long-acting injectable buprenorphine has potential to improve medication adherence and program retention in low-barrier primary care treatment settings. We present the first clinical decision support algorithm incorporating long-acting buprenorphine (LAIB) in primary care. We include a protocol for a future evaluation of the algorithm's implementation process, "Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) 2.0," at a housing and integrated care clinic at a Federally Qualified Health Center. METHODS: Literature review and expert consensus informed creation of the algorithm, which underwent iterative development with feedback from clinicians, staff, and patients. Patients are categorized by adherence to therapy and retention in the program, with recommendations for each category. Adherence is determined by urine screen supplemented by self-report. To ensure all patients in this high morbidity and mortality risk population are treated, we will treat patients as their own controls in the evaluation, with potential for multisite comparisons. We will present descriptive statistics for adherence proportion before and after MOUD 2.0 implementation, testing for differences using McNemar's test. We will then present pre- and post-implementation unadjusted six-month survival curves for retention. DISCUSSION: LAIB is incorporated as an alternative or adjunctive treatment for patients refractory to sublingual buprenorphine and as an initial treatment for selected patients. We developed an algorithm with 4-, 8-, and 12-week decision points to guide treatment for patients with varying levels of response to sublingual buprenorphine and LAIB. This clinical decision tool incorporates LAIB among treatment options for OUD in primary care settings. The protocol will evaluate the algorithm's implementation, presenting a replicable method for assessing adherence and retention among high-risk patients in similar settings.

PURPOSE: Many current care assessment frameworks prioritise clinical and organisational outcomes over patient perspectives. This study aimed to identify gaps in existing patient-centred assessment methods and to develop a multilevel framework aligning quality evaluation with patient-defined priorities across macro (policy), meso (organisational), and micro (individual) levels, and technological levels. METHODS: We used a primarily qualitative design, conducting a literature review of patient-centred integrated care assessment studies and integrating these findings with a longitudinal case study that examined how the patient's perspectives were documented across multiple health information systems, synthesising evidence on existing practices with insights into how patient perspectives are integrated and represented for a comprehensive understanding. RESULTS: In total, 32 studies were included. The review revealed ongoing misalignment between systemic evaluation practices and patient-defined outcomes, particularly for individuals with complex physical and mental health needs. Minimal patient involvement in developing evaluation criteria reflected a disconnect between policy-level targets and individual patient well-being. This misalignment was echoed in the case study, which underscored that personal goals and non-clinical needs were often unrecorded, highlighting the gap between evaluation metrics and genuinely patient-centred care. CONCLUSION: Integrated care quality assessment remains misaligned with patient-defined outcomes. We propose Patient-Reported Integrated Measures (PRIMs) as a conceptual contribution. PRIMs complement existing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) and Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREM) by capturing multidimensional outcomes that matter to patients and ensuring evaluation aligns with their goals. Integrating PRIMs into health information systems and research agendas can realign care evaluation with evolving patient priorities, thereby reducing the risk of leaving patients behind in future healthcare reforms.

BACKGROUND: Effective person-centred interventions are needed to support people living with mental-physical multimorbidity to achieve better health and wellbeing outcomes. Depression is identified as the most common mental health condition co-occurring with a physical health condition and is the focus of this intervention development study. The aim of this study is to identify the key components needed for an effective intervention based on a clear theoretical foundation, consideration of how motivational interviewing can inform the intervention, clinical guidelines to date, and the insights of primary care nurses. METHODS: A multimethod approach to intervention development involving review and integration of the theoretical principles of Theory of Planned Behavior and the patient-centred clinical skills of motivational interviewing, review of the expert consensus clinical guidelines for multimorbidity, and incorporation of a thematic analysis of group interviews with Australian nurses about their perspectives of what is needed in intervention to support people living with mental-physical multimorbidity. RESULTS: Three mechanisms emerged from the review of theory, guidelines and practitioner perspective; the intervention needs to actively 'engage' patients through the development of a collaborative and empathic relationship, 'focus' on the patient's priorities, and 'empower' people to make behaviour change. CONCLUSION: The outcome of the present study is a fully described primary care intervention for people living with mental-physical multimorbidity, with a particular focus on people living with depression and a physical health condition. It builds on theory, expert consensus guidelines and clinician perspective, and is to be tested in a clinical trial.

Integrated behavioral healthcare has addressed common pediatric primary care concerns including anxiety and depression, but is infrequently applied to somatic symptoms (e.g., chronic pain, fatigue, or syncope unattributable to organic causes), which affect one in three youth. Developing an integrated care model for primary care-where most youth with somatic symptoms first present for evaluation and management-may increase access and positively impact child health. This manuscript summarizes the literature surrounding integrated care for pediatric somatic symptoms and proposes an adapted model for primary care. Drawing from the Pediatric Psychosocial Preventative Health model and cognitive-behavioral protocols for somatic symptom management, we propose that youth with mild to moderate symptoms can be effectively co-managed in primary care by a primary care provider delivering psychoeducation and facilitating team coordination, and an embedded behavioral healthcare provider conducting a brief, targeted intervention. This innovative approach leverages shared clinical responsibilities, as well as youth and families' trust in the primary care setting, to accessibly deliver care for mild-moderate symptoms otherwise unaddressed in current management approaches. Implementation likely requires developing clinician support tools and identifying sustainable billing practices, but may result in accessible, holistic, care that curtails symptom persistence and/or progression.

Autistic youth often experience co-occurring mental health needs, yet they have multi-level barriers to accessing needed care. To address these barriers, the ATTAIN NAV (Access to Tailored Autism Integrated Care through Family Navigation) intervention was co-designed with caregiver and healthcare partners and delivered by lay health navigators to facilitate access to and engagement with mental health services for school-age autistic youth. This manuscript describes the multi-method, partner-engaged, longitudinal adaptation process to (1) identify intervention content and implementation refinements prior to the hybrid trial and (2) track ongoing research, intervention, and implementation adaptations during the trial and their impacts on study outcomes. The adaptation processes used the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (Miller et al., 2021) to guide data collection and evaluation approaches. From the qualitative co-design activities with caregivers (n = 5), primary care providers (n = 6), developmental care clinicians (n = 4), and health informatics staff (n = 3), several intervention content and implementation adaptations were identified and integrated prior to the trial. From the longitudinal adaptation tracking process during the trial, a total of 19 adaptations were documented throughout the implementation trial. The adaptations were related to maintaining the feasibility and acceptability of the study procedures (32%), increasing family recruitment/engagement (26%), increasing the acceptability of the intervention components (16%), increasing physician recruitment/engagement (11%), expanding mental health resources (5%), complying with partnered healthcare organization policy (5%), and increasing navigator workflow efficiency (5%). Findings offer a structured and replicable approach adoptable by non-traditional mental health intervention and implementation research.