Literature Collection

OBJECTIVES: Although cognitive behavioral therapy is an effective intervention for chronic pain, it is a lengthy treatment typically applied only in specialty care settings. The aim of this project was to collect preliminary effectiveness data for Brief Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Pain (Brief CBT-CP), an abbreviated, modular form of treatment designed for use in primary care. METHODS: A clinical demonstration project was conducted in which Brief CBT-CP was delivered to primary care patients by 22 integrated care providers practicing in the Primary Care Behavioral Health model of Veterans Health Administration primary care clinics. Brief measures were used at each appointment to collect patient-reported clinical outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred eighteen patients provided sufficient data for analysis (male, 75%; mean age, 51.4 y). Multilevel modeling suggested that a composite measure of pain intensity and functional limitations showed statistically significant improvements by the third appointment (Cohen's d=0.65). Pain-related self-efficacy outcomes showed a similar pattern of results but of smaller effect size (Cohen's d=0.22). The exploratory analysis identified that Brief CBT-CP modules addressing psychoeducation and goal setting, pacing, and relaxation training were associated with the most significant gains in treatment outcomes. DISCUSSION: These findings provide early support for the effectiveness of Brief CBT-CP when delivered by providers in every day Primary Care Behavioral Health settings. Results are discussed in relation to the need for additional research regarding the potential value of employing safe, population-based, nonpharmacological approaches to pain management in primary care.

Various countries have published national guidance supporting the integration of behavioral approaches into chronic pain treatment. Yet multiple barriers prevent broad patient access. Brief treatment formats may address universal shortcomings of therapists and resources and offer patients expanded access to care through lower costs and treatment burdens. This article summarizes published evidence for eight identified therapist delivered brief behavioral pain interventions (operationalized as 1-4 treatment sessions or ≤8 h total treatment time) for adults with chronic pain (≥18 years of age) including a description of the treatment approach, implementation features, evidence to date, and salient points. The discussion includes current clinical dissemination and future directions that leverage technology to enhance patient access to behavioral pain care.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety is highly prevalent, but undertreated, in primary care. Brief, non-pharmacological interventions are needed. Modular Anxiety Skills Training (MAST), a cognitive-behavioral anxiety intervention, was developed for primary care and tailored for a Veteran sample (MAST-V). The purpose of this mixed methods pilot study was to evaluate MAST-V's feasibility, acceptability, and implementation potential, and preliminarily examine its effectiveness compared to Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH) usual care. METHODS: This hybrid I randomized controlled trial (conducted 2019-2021) assigned 35 primary care patients (M(age) = 47, 17 % female, 27 % racial/ethnic minority) with clinically significant anxiety symptoms to receive MAST-V or PCBH usual care. Participants completed validated measures of anxiety symptoms and functional impairment at 0, 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks. RESULTS: Participants attended more sessions in MAST-V than usual care. After necessary adjustments to reduce session duration, MAST-V will likely fit within PCBH practice parameters. Participants in both conditions valued treatment, but treatment satisfaction, credibility, and therapeutic alliance were higher for MAST-V. Study therapists achieved high treatment fidelity and rated MAST-V as highly feasible, acceptable, and appropriate for PCBH. They identified ways to address potential barriers to implementation. MAST-V was more effective than usual care in reducing anxiety symptoms and impairment. LIMITATIONS: This was a small pilot study at a single site using study therapists. Results should be considered preliminary until replicated in a full-scale clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: This brief modular anxiety intervention, which was designed with implementation in mind, may help to address the anxiety treatment gap in primary care.

INTRODUCTION: Many young children with mental health or developmental concerns go unidentified and untreated, underscoring the need for effective screening. Primary care offers unique opportunities for screening, yet rates are low. Primary care providers often cite time constraints, insufficient training, and costs as barriers to screening. Tools designed for administration by primary care providers hold promise for facilitating personalized assessments and improving communication, collaboration, and follow-up between providers and families. To improve early identification and intervention, it is crucial to understand provider-administered screening tools that align with their practical constraints. AIM: To identify and describe the characteristics, limitations, and improvement areas of brief, multidimensional screening for young children's mental health and development, designed for administration by primary care providers. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review according to published guidelines. We searched seven electronic databases and used hand-searching strategies. We sought English-language publications on screening tools (English or French) assessing at least one mental health and one development domain in children up to 6 years, designed for administration by primary care providers in under 20 minutes. Two reviewers assessed the articles' eligibility and then extracted, charted, and summarized relevant data. RESULTS: Three screening tools from six articles were included. The tools were primarily administered by physicians or nurses to children aged 2 weeks to 4 years and required minimal training to use. The tools varied in their domains (4-6), items (10-110), psychometric properties, and scoring methods, but all included indicators of delayed or at-risk children. Article limitations included study recency and lack of data related to implementation and patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This review described the development and evaluation of multidimensional screening tools for young children's mental health and development designed for administration by primary care providers. It found that few tools have been published. This review identifies several knowledge gaps and emphasizes the need for research on the implementation, cost-effectiveness, and comparative performance of screening tools, as well as the development and evaluation of new screening tools that suit providers' needs. Future studies should investigate how these screening tools can improve identification, clinical care, and health outcomes.