Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: There have been suggestions that electronic health records (EHRs) should be expanded beyond clinical mental health care services to a broader array of care services that support mental health service users, which we call an integrated electronic care record (IECR). Previous research has considered service users' general views on information being stored and shared via an EHR. However, little consideration has been given to service users' attitudes toward how EHRs should be used in the provision of care or the concept of an IECR. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand mental health care service users' perspectives on an IECR and how it should be used in practice when receiving care. METHODS: Ten people with lived experience of accessing multiple services in Australia's mental health care system were provided with 2 vignettes that depicted fictional service users making decisions about an IECR. Participants were asked to respond to several scenarios that the fictional service users might experience in their journey through the mental health care system with an IECR. Participants provided written responses and took part in a semistructured interview to discuss their responses. An interpretative phenomenological analysis was undertaken, which led to 5 major themes and 15 subthemes being developed. RESULTS: Service users wanted an IECR that they had control over, supported them as equal partners in their care, and contributed toward more collaborative and proactive mental health care. However, participants were concerned that care professionals' perspectives would be privileged in the IECR and overshadow service users' needs. Participants also had concerns that stigmatizing and discriminatory information documented in their IECR would negatively impact their interactions with the mental health care system and their access to care. Participants saw value in an IECR bringing together information to support collaborative and proactive care. However, participants thought that the benefits of the IECR had to be balanced with potential risks to their privacy. Participants thought that the IECR should contain only information relevant to their care and should be shared only with relevant care professionals. There were concerns that service users might lack the skills, resources, and information required to manage their IECR. CONCLUSIONS: An IECR has the potential to fill the gaps in an increasingly complex and fragmented mental health care system but risks entrenching service users' experiences of stigma and discrimination unless service users are meaningfully involved in their IECR.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic studies commonly recommend the integration of harm reduction programs with health and social services to improve the well-being of persons who inject drugs (PWIDs). This study identified service utilization clusters for PWIDs attending a syringe exchange program (SEP) in 2017 to better understand in-house service usage. METHODS: We applied Multiple Correspondence Analysis and Hierarchical Clustering on Principal Components to classify 475 PWIDs into clusters using anonymized, SEP records data from New York. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify sociodemographic and program engagement correlates of cluster membership. RESULTS: Only 22% of participants utilized at least one service. We identified three clusters of service utilization defined by 1) Nonuse; 2) Support, Primary Care, & Maintenance service use; and 3) HIV/STD, Support, Primary Care, & Maintenance service use. Cluster 2 members were less likely to be living alone compared to Cluster 1 (AOR = 0.08, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.17) while Cluster 3 members were less likely to be White (AOR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.50) or living alone (AOR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.44) and more likely to be Medicaid recipients (AOR = 2.89, 95% CI: 1.01, 8.36) compared to Cluster 1. Greater than one SEP interaction, lower syringe return ratios, and being a long-term client increased the odds of service utilization. DISCUSSION: Overall, PWID clients had a low prevalence of in-house service use particularly those who live alone. However, higher service utilization was observed among more vulnerable populations (i.e., non-White and LGBT). Future research is needed to profile services used outside of the SEP.