Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Measurement based care (MBC) is a patient-centered approach that is gaining popularity in healthcare systems, particularly in mental health settings. However, attitudes towards MBC vary among mental health clinicians and patients, leading to variable implementation. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review synthesises clinician and patient perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of measurement-based care (MBC) in psychiatry. STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, APA PsychINFO and CINAHL databases from inception to January 2024. After screening 1644 titles and abstracts, 48 full papers were reviewed, and 24 studies were ultimately included. Quality assessment was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and key patterns were extracted using thematic analysis. FINDINGS: The review reflects opinions of 901 patients and 2831 clinicians across various settings. Patients valued MBC for enhancing communication, self-awareness and reducing stigma. However, they expressed concerns about the adequacy of measures in reflecting their clinical state and uncertainty about how responses influence treatment decisions. Clinicians appreciated MBC for improving patient involvement, tracking treatment response and enhancing communication efficiency. Concerns included inadequate capture of clinical complexity, potential reporting biases, time constraints, insufficient training and concerns with respect to data usage and privacy. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: While patients and clinicians recognise significant benefits, including enhanced communication, improved insight and more structured clinical decision-making, they also identify important limitations. These include concerns about the adequacy of scales to capture complex clinical presentations, potential impacts on the therapeutic alliance and increased administrative burden. Moving forward, successful integration of MBC into routine care will require addressing these challenges through improved clinician training, clear guidelines for interpretation, greater transparency with respect to how data will be used and more seamless integration with existing clinical workflows. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD420250651562.

BACKGROUND: Opioid misuse is a significant public health crisis. The aim sought to identify potential gaps in opioid care in primary care practices. METHODS: American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) offered a monthly online educational series to seven U.S. practices. Practices were asked to complete up to 50 chart reviews for visits during two periods: February-April, 2019, and February-April, 2022. Each chart had to have an ICD-10 diagnosis of opioid misuse, opioid dependence, or opioid use. Chart reviews consisted of 14 questions derived from an American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP) Performance in Practice activity, and then, scored based on practices' responses. Descriptive statistics and binary logistic and multinomial regressions were used. RESULTS: Both periods had 173 chart reviews (total: 346) from the six practices. Most chart reviews were for patients with a diagnosis of opioid dependence (2019: 90.2%; 2022: 83.2%). Three questions for assessing OUD treatment behaviors had high levels of documentation across both time periods (>85%): other drug use, treatment readiness, and treatment discussion. DISCUSSION: Results show a gap in the treatment of patients with OUD in primary care across several clinical practice recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Expanding OUD treatment integration to primary care remains the most promising effort to combat the opioid crisis.