Literature Collection

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD) in pregnancy increased nearly five-fold over the past decade. Despite this, obstetric providers are less likely to treat pregnant women with medication for OUD than non-obstetric providers (75% vs 91%). A major reason is many obstetricians feel unprepared to prescribe medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Education and support may increase prescribing and overall comfort in delivering care for pregnant women with OUD, but optimal models of education and support are yet to be determined. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We describe the rationale and conduct of a matched-pair cluster randomized clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of two models of support for reproductive health clinicians to provide care for pregnant and postpartum women with OUD. The primary outcomes of this trial are patient treatment engagement and retention in OUD treatment. This study compares two support models: 1) a collaborative care approach, based upon the Massachusetts Office-Based-Opioid Treatment Model, that provides practice-level training and support to providers and patients through the use of care managers, versus 2) a telesupport approach based on the Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes, a remote education model that provides mentorship, guided practice, and participation in a learning community, via video conferencing. DISCUSSION: This clustered randomized clinical trial aims to test the effectiveness of two approaches to support practitioners who care for pregnant women with an OUD. The results of this trial will help determine the best model to improve the capacity of obstetrical providers to deliver treatment for OUD in prenatal clinics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov trial registration number: NCT0424039.

BACKGROUND: Quality integrated care, which involves primary care and mental health clinicians working together, can help identify and treat adolescent depression early. We explored systemic barriers to quality integrated care at the provincial level in Ontario, Canada using a learning system approach. METHODS: Two Ontario Health Teams (OHTs), regional networks designed to support integrated care, completed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) and participated in focus groups. RESULTS: The OHTs had a median PIP score of 69 out of 100. Among the PIP domains, the lowest median score was case identification (50), and the highest one was workspace (100). The focus groups generated 180 statements mapped to the PIP domains. Workflow had the highest number of coded statements (59, 32.8%). DISCUSSION: While the primary care practices included mental health clinicians on-site, the findings highlighted systemic barriers with adhering to the integrated care pathway for adolescent depression. These include limited access to mental health expertise for assessment and diagnosis, long wait times for treatment, and shortages of clinicians trained in evidence-based behavioral therapies. These challenges contributed to the reliance on antidepressants as the first line of treatment due to their accessibility rather than evidence-based guidelines. CONCLUSION: Primary care practices, within regional networks such as OHTs, can form learning systems to continuously identify the strategies needed to support quality integrated care for adolescent depression based on real-world data.