Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Community disaster resilience is comprised of a multitude of factors, including the capacity of citizens to psychologically recover. There is growing recognition of the need for public health departments to prioritize a communitywide mental health response strategy to facilitate access to behavioral health services and reduce potential psychological impacts. Due to the US Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) extensive experience providing trauma-informed behavioral healthcare to its Veterans, and the fact that VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) are located throughout the United States, the VA is well situated to be a key partner in local communities' response plans. In this study we examined the role the VA can play in a community's behavioral health response using case studies from three disasters. METHODS: This study investigated experiences of VA employees in critical emergency response positions (N = 17) in communities where disasters occurred between 2017 and 2019. All respondents were interviewed March-July 2019. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews exploring participants' experiences and knowledge about VA activities provided to communities following the regional disasters. Data were analyzed using thematic and grounded theory coding methods. RESULTS: Respondents underscored VA's primary mission after a disaster was to maintain continuity of care to Veterans. The majority also described the VA supporting community recovery. Specifically, three recent events provided key examples of VA's involvement in disaster behavioral health response. Each event showed VA's integration into local response structures was facilitated by pre-existing emergency management and clinical relationships as well as prioritization from VA leadership to engage in humanitarian missions. The behavioral health interventions were provided by behavioral health teams integrated into disaster assistance centers and non-VA hospitals, VA mobile units deployed into the community, and VA telehealth services. CONCLUSIONS: Recent disasters have revealed that coordinated efforts between multidisciplinary agencies can strengthen communities' capacity to respond to mental health needs, thereby fostering resilience. Building relationships with local VAMCs can help expedite how VA can be incorporated into emergency management strategies. In considering the strengths community partners can bring to bear, a coordinated disaster mental health response would benefit from involving VA as a partner during planning.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder (OUD), a chronic disease, is a major public health problem. Despite availability of effective treatment, too few people receive it and treatment retention is low. Understanding barriers and facilitators of treatment access and retention is needed to improve outcomes for people with OUD. OBJECTIVES: To assess 3-month outcomes pilot data from a patient-centered OUD treatment program in Iowa, USA, that utilized flexible treatment requirements and prioritized engagement over compliance. METHODS: Forty patients (62.5% female: mean age was 35.7 years, SD 9.5) receiving medication, either buprenorphine or naltrexone, to treat OUD were enrolled in an observational study. Patients could select or decline case management, counseling, and peer recovery groups. Substance use, risk and protective factors, and recovery capital were measured at intake and 3 months. RESULTS: Most participants reported increased recovery capital. The median Assessment of Recovery Capital (ARC) score went from 37 at enrollment to 43 (p < 0.01). Illegal drug use decreased, with the median days using illegal drugs in the past month dropping from 10 to 0 (p < 0.001). Cravings improved: 29.2% reported no cravings at intake and 58.3% reported no cravings at 3 months (p < 0.001). Retention rate was 92.5% at 3 months. Retention rate for participants who were not on probation/parole was higher (96.9%) than for those on probation/parole (62.5%, p = 0.021). CONCLUSION: This study shows preliminary evidence that a care model based on easy and flexible access and strategies to improve treatment retention improves recovery capital, reduces illegal drug use and cravings, and retains people in treatment.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined factors related to retention in buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) among privately insured patients. METHODS: Patients with OUD who were newly started on buprenorphine during federal fiscal year (FY) 2011 were identified in a national private insurance claims database (MarketScan), and treatment retention (filled buprenorphine prescriptions) was evaluated through FY 2014. Proportional hazards models were used to examine demographic, clinical, and service use characteristics in FY 2011, including ongoing insurance coverage, associated with discontinuation of treatment. RESULTS: Of 16,190 patients with OUD newly started on buprenorphine in FY 2011, 45.0% were retained in treatment for more than one year, and 13.7% for more than three years (mean+/-SD duration of retention=1.23+/-1.16 years). During the first three years after buprenorphine initiation, 49.3% (N=7,988) disenrolled from their insurance plan. Cox proportional hazards models showed that for every 30 days of enrollment, the risk of discontinuation declined by 10% (hazard ratio [HR]=.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]=.90-.91). FY 2011 factors reducing discontinuation risk were age greater than the median (HR=.90, CI=.87-.93) and receipt of outpatient psychotherapy (HR=.90, CI=.86-.92); increased risk was associated with psychiatric hospitalization (HR=1.30, CI=1.24-1.36), emergency department visits (HR=1.07, CI=1.04-1.14), and additional substance use disorders (HR=1.05, CI=1.01-1.10). CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine treatment retention declined markedly in the first year and was substantially lower than in comparable studies from publicly funded health care systems, apparently largely due to disenrollment. The association of psychotherapy with greater retention suggests that it may be an important complement to opioid agonist treatment.

BACKGROUND: Integrating mental health services into primary care settings is complex and challenging. Although facilitation strategies have successfully supported implementation of primary care mental health integration and other complex innovations, we know little about the time required or its cost. OBJECTIVE: To examine the time and organizational cost of facilitating implementation of primary care mental health integration. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis. PARTICIPANTS: One expert external facilitator and two internal regional facilitators who helped healthcare system stakeholders, e.g., leaders, managers, clinicians, and non-clinical staff, implement primary care mental health integration at eight clinics. INTERVENTION: Implementation facilitation tailored to the needs and resources of the setting and its stakeholders. MAIN MEASURES: We documented facilitators' and stakeholders' time and types of activities using a structured spreadsheet collected from facilitators on a weekly basis. We obtained travel costs and salary information. We conducted descriptive analysis of time data and estimated organizational cost. KEY RESULTS: The external facilitator devoted 263 h (0.09 FTE), including travel, across all 8 clinics over 28 months. Internal facilitator time varied across networks (1792 h versus 1169 h), as well as clinics. Stakeholder participation time was similar across networks (1280.6 versus 1363.4 person hours) but the number of stakeholders varied (133 versus 199 stakeholders). The organizational cost of providing implementation facilitation also varied across networks ($263,490 versus $258,127). Stakeholder participation accounted for 35% of the cost of facilitation activities in one network and 47% of the cost in the other. CONCLUSIONS: Although facilitation can improve implementation of primary care mental health integration, it requires substantial organizational investments that may vary by site and implementation effort. Furthermore, the cost of using an external expert to transfer facilitation skills and build capacity for implementation efforts appears to be minimal.

BACKGROUND: Integrating mental health services into primary care settings is complex and challenging. Although facilitation strategies have successfully supported implementation of primary care mental health integration and other complex innovations, we know little about the time required or its cost. OBJECTIVE: To examine the time and organizational cost of facilitating implementation of primary care mental health integration. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis. PARTICIPANTS: One expert external facilitator and two internal regional facilitators who helped healthcare system stakeholders, e.g., leaders, managers, clinicians, and non-clinical staff, implement primary care mental health integration at eight clinics. INTERVENTION: Implementation facilitation tailored to the needs and resources of the setting and its stakeholders. MAIN MEASURES: We documented facilitators' and stakeholders' time and types of activities using a structured spreadsheet collected from facilitators on a weekly basis. We obtained travel costs and salary information. We conducted descriptive analysis of time data and estimated organizational cost. KEY RESULTS: The external facilitator devoted 263 h (0.09 FTE), including travel, across all 8 clinics over 28 months. Internal facilitator time varied across networks (1792 h versus 1169 h), as well as clinics. Stakeholder participation time was similar across networks (1280.6 versus 1363.4 person hours) but the number of stakeholders varied (133 versus 199 stakeholders). The organizational cost of providing implementation facilitation also varied across networks ($263,490 versus $258,127). Stakeholder participation accounted for 35% of the cost of facilitation activities in one network and 47% of the cost in the other. CONCLUSIONS: Although facilitation can improve implementation of primary care mental health integration, it requires substantial organizational investments that may vary by site and implementation effort. Furthermore, the cost of using an external expert to transfer facilitation skills and build capacity for implementation efforts appears to be minimal.

INTRODUCTION: Cigarette smoking rates among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) are notoriously high and may be improved by considering the timing of treatment integration for these two substances. The current study examined the feasibility of a method for assessing the timing of integrating smoking cessation pharmacotherapy within three different phases of outpatient treatment with medication for OUD (MOUD). METHODS: Seventy-four buprenorphine-maintained smokers were enrolled in a quasi-experimental study across three MOUD treatment phases: 0-90 (Phase 1), 91-365 (Phase 2), and > 365 days of MOUD treatment (Phase 3). During a 12-week varenicline-based intervention, the study assessed outcomes daily via text messages (cigarette smoking, varenicline adherence, side effects) or monthly at in-person visits (quit motivation and carbon monoxide levels). RESULTS: Thirty-five participants completed the study, with a lower retention rate in Phase 1 (37.5%) relative to Phases 2 (53.5%) or 3 (57.1%). A trend occurred for Phase 1 participants to report aversive side effects (e.g., abnormal dreams, gastrointestinal distress) on more study days. Among completers, adherence to text messaging and varenicline use was high and independent of MOUD treatment phase. Participants in all phases reported declines in cigarette smoking and increases in quit motivation over time; the study observed biochemically verified tobacco abstinence among only a few participants from Phases 2 or 3. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study demonstrates a method to evaluate the timing of treatment integration for cigarette smoking and MOUD. Method strengths include a study schedule that coincided with the MOUD clinic schedule and use of text messaging to encourage varenicline adherence and evaluate outcomes regularly.