Literature Collection
11K+
References
9K+
Articles
1500+
Grey Literature
4600+
Opioids & SU
The Literature Collection contains over 11,000 references for published and grey literature on the integration of behavioral health and primary care. Learn More
Use the Search feature below to find references for your terms across the entire Literature Collection, or limit your searches by Authors, Keywords, or Titles and by Year, Type, or Topic. View your search results as displayed, or use the options to: Show more references per page; Sort references by Title or Date; and Refine your search criteria. Expand an individual reference to View Details. Full-text access to the literature may be available through a link to PubMed, a DOI, or a URL. References may also be exported for use in bibliographic software (e.g., EndNote, RefWorks, Zotero).


OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between the penetration (or reach) of a national program aiming to integrate mental health clinicians into all primary care clinics (PC-MHI) and rates of guideline-concordant follow-up and treatment among clinic patients newly identified with depression in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: 15,155 screen-positive patients 607,730 patients with 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire scores in 82 primary care clinics, 2015-2019. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, we used established depression care quality measures to assess primary care patients who (a) newly screened positive (score ≥3) and (b) were identified with depression by clinicians via diagnosis and/or medication (n = 15,155; 15,650 patient-years). Timely follow-up included ≥3 mental health, ≥3 psychotherapy, or ≥3 primary care visits for depression. Minimally appropriate treatment included ≥4 mental health visits, ≥3 psychotherapy, or ≥60 days of medication. In multivariate regressions, we examined whether higher rates of PC-MHI penetration in clinic (proportion of total primary care patients in a clinic who saw any PC-MHI clinician) were associated with greater depression care quality among cohort patients, adjusting for year, healthcare system, and patient and clinic characteristics. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Electronic health record data from 82 VA clinics across three states. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A median of 9% of all primary care patients were seen by any PC-MHI clinician annually. In fully adjusted models, greater PC-MHI penetration was associated with timely depression follow-up within 84 days (∆P = 0.5; SE = 0.1; p < 0.001) and 180 days (∆P = 0.3; SE = 0.1; p = 0.01) of a positive depression screen. Completion of at least minimal treatment within 12 months was high (77%), on average, and not associated with PC-MHI penetration. CONCLUSIONS: Greater PC-MHI program penetration was associated with early depression treatment engagement at 84-/180-days among clinic patients newly identified with depression, with no effect on already high rates of completion of minimally sufficient treatment within the year.


Rural populations rely on primary care services for depression care due to shortages and maldistributions of specialty mental health care favoring urban areas. Yet, it is unknown which primary care models are effective at reducing depressive symptoms and emergency department (ED) use for depression among rural populations. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the effectiveness of primary care models on depressive symptoms and ED utilization for depression in rural populations. PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and reference lists of included studies were searched. Eligible articles focused on the impact of primary care models on depressive symptoms or ED utilization for depression among rural populations in the United States. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. Three care models were identified in the studies, including collaborative care (i.e., team-based integrated care that tracks patient populations with a registry; n = 7), tele-psychotherapy (i.e., identification of patients in primary care and referral to virtual psychotherapy; n = 6), or self-management support (i.e., identification of patients in primary care and referral to community support for depression self-management; n = 4). These care models were associated with improved patient-reported depressive symptoms such as Patient-Health Questionnaire reported remission of depression (score < 5). No studies assessed depression ED utilization as an outcome. Collaborative care, tele-psychotherapy, and self-management support may be effective at reducing depressive symptoms, specifically in rural populations and should be implemented at the practice level. Research focused on primary care models and ED utilization for depression among rural populations is needed.



BACKGROUND: Most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) never receive treatment. Medication treatment of OUD in primary care is recommended as an approach to increase access to care. The PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial tests whether implementation of a collaborative care model (Massachusetts Model) using a nurse care manager (NCM) to support medication treatment of OUD in primary care increases OUD treatment and improves outcomes. Specifically, it tests whether implementation of collaborative care, compared to usual primary care, increases the number of days of medication for OUD (implementation objective) and reduces acute health care utilization (effectiveness objective). The protocol for the PROUD trial is presented here. METHODS: PROUD is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized implementation trial in six health care systems. The intervention consists of three implementation strategies: salary for a full-time NCM, training and technical assistance for the NCM, and requiring that three primary care providers have DEA waivers to prescribe buprenorphine. Within each health system, two primary care clinics are randomized: one to the intervention and one to Usual Primary Care. The sample includes all patients age 16-90 who visited the randomized primary care clinics from 3 years before to 2 years after randomization (anticipated to be > 170,000). Quantitative data are derived from existing health system administrative data, electronic medical records, and/or health insurance claims ("electronic health records," [EHRs]). Anonymous staff surveys, stakeholder debriefs, and observations from site visits, trainings and technical assistance provide qualitative data to assess barriers and facilitators to implementation. The outcome for the implementation objective (primary outcome) is a clinic-level measure of the number of patient days of medication treatment of OUD over the 2 years post-randomization. The patient-level outcome for the effectiveness objective (secondary outcome) is days of acute care utilization [e.g. urgent care, emergency department (ED) and/or hospitalizations] over 2 years post-randomization among patients with documented OUD prior to randomization. DISCUSSION: The PROUD trial provides information for clinical leaders and policy makers regarding potential benefits for patients and health systems of a collaborative care model for management of OUD in primary care, tested in real-world diverse primary care settings. Trial registration # NCT03407638 (February 28, 2018); CTN-0074 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03407638?term=CTN-0074&draw=2&ra….


Pagination
Page 433 Use the links to move to the next, previous, first, or last page.
