Literature Collection

INTRODUCTION: Depressive disorders in adolescents are highly prevalent and debilitating and are a risk factor for self-harm and death by suicide. In the context of recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, strained healthcare resources are compounded by an increased demand for treatment services for adolescents with depression. The objective of this study protocol is to delineate the proposed economic evaluation of an integrated care pathway for depression in adolescents within the Care for Adolescents who Received Information 'Bout Outcomes, 2nd iteration (CARIBOU-2) non-randomised, cluster-controlled trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two economic evaluations of the CARIBOU-2 trial (n=300) will be conducted-a cost-effectiveness analysis and a cost-utility analysis. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, we will examine the primary clinical outcome of the trial, change in the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire total score. In the cost-utility analysis, the clinical outcome will be quality-adjusted life-years, a generic measure of health burden. Data on the resources and respective costs required to deliver the intervention will be collected by the research team. Data on resource use post-intervention will be obtained from a mix of administrative data holdings and self-report; relevant unit costs will be obtained from existing data sources. The outcome of both economic evaluations will be the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Relevant sensitivity analyses will be undertaken, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will be produced to characterise any sources of uncertainty in the analysis. Equity considerations will also be examined, where relevant. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the larger CARIBOU-2 trial, including the economic evaluation, has been obtained by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health as well as site-level ethics boards (019/2021; Centre for Addiction and Mental Health). All participants will provide informed consent for their data to be analysed and reported. The results of the main trial and the economic evaluation will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and shared with relevant policy makers across Canada. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05142683.

With overdose deaths increasing, improving access to harm reduction and low barrier substance use disorder treatment is more important than ever. The Community Care in Reach(®) model uses a mobile unit to bring both harm reduction and clinical care for addiction to people experiencing barriers to office-based care. These mobile units provide many resources and services to people who use drugs, including safer consumption supplies, naloxone, medication for substance use disorder treatment, and a wide range of primary and preventative care. This protocol outlines the evaluation plan for the Community in Care(®) model in MA, USA. Using the RE-AIM framework, this evaluation will assess how mobile services engage new and underserved communities in addiction services and primary and preventative care.

OBJECTIVES: To assess what practice-, provider-, and patient population-level predictors predict adoption of an ADHD ehealth technology in community pediatric settings, pediatric providers nationwide were recruited and offered free use of an evidence-based mental-health-focused ehealth quality improvement intervention (mehealth for ADHD). Practice-, provider-, and patient population-level factors predicting provider's adoption of the intervention were studied. We hypothesized that providers who were younger, nearing re-credentialing, having more patients with ADHD, working at larger practices, serving socioeconomically deprived patient populations, and using an electronic health record (EHR) with mehealth integration would predict higher rates of adoption. METHODS: A variety of recruitment strategies were attempted. Providers completed a baseline survey, were given free access to mehealth, and then had their software adoption recorded (i.e., account activation, rate of patients registered, completion of Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles). Multiple regressions examined what practice-, provider-, and patient population-level variables predicted provider's adoption of the software. RESULTS: A total of 1,612 providers at 813 practices across 48 states and the District of Columbia consented to the study. The most common ways that providers heard about the research study was through word-of-mouth (37%), advertising (23%), and through professional affiliation (11%). 1,210 (75.1%) providers activated their mehealth provider account and 446 (36.8%) registered at least 1 patient. Over 4.5 years, 21,804 patients were registered on the platform. Being able to access mehealth within their EHR predicted provider account activation, provider rate of patients registered, and the practice's completion of Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. In addition, having a lower proportion of Medicaid patients predicted higher rates of patients being registered on the software. CONCLUSIONS: Getting providers to consider, try, and adopt new evidence-based assistive technologies is challenging. Making ehealth software easier for providers' to access through EHR integration appears critical to adoption.

Behavioral health integration (BHI) is a proven, effective practice for addressing the joint behavioral health and medical health needs of vulnerable populations. As part of the New Orleans Charitable Health Fund (NOCHF) program, this study addressed a gap in literature to better understand factors that impact the implementation of BHI by analyzing perceptions and practices among staff at integrating organizations. Using a mixed-method design, quantitative results from the Levels of Integration Measure (LIM), a survey tool for assessing staff perceptions of BHI in primary care settings (n=86), were analyzed alongside qualitative results from in-depth interviews with staff (n=27). Findings highlighted the roles of strong leadership, training, and process changes on staff collaboration, relationships, and commitment to BHI. This study demonstrates the usefulness of the LIM in conjunction with in-depth interviews as an assessment tool for understanding perceptions and organizational readiness for BHI implementation.

BACKGROUND: Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) has been shown to be a safe, cost-effective intervention that successfully lowers risk of opioid overdose. However, access to and use of MOUD has been limited. Our objective was to explore attitudes, opinions, and beliefs regarding MOUD among healthcare and social service providers in a community highly impacted by the opioid overdose epidemic. METHODS: As part of a larger ethnographic study examining neighborhoods in Allegheny County, PA, with the highest opioid overdose death rates, semi-structured qualitative in-person and telephone interviews were conducted with forty-five providers treating persons with opioid use disorders in these communities. An open coding approach was used to code interview transcripts followed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three major themes were identified related to MOUD from the perspectives of our provider participants. Within a variety of health and substance use service roles and settings, provider reflections revealed: (1) different opinions about MOUD as a transition to abstinence or as a long-term treatment; (2) perceived lack of uniformity and dissemination of accurate information of MOUD care, permitting differences in care, and (3) observed barriers to entry and navigation of MOUD, including referrals as a "word-of-mouth insider system" and challenges of getting patients MOUD services when they need it. CONCLUSIONS: Even in communities hard hit by the opioid overdose epidemic, healthcare providers' disagreement about the standard of care for MOUD can be a relevant obstacle. These insights can inform efforts to improve MOUD treatment and access for people with opioid use disorders.