Search

Abstract Background Approximately 50% of the patients who globally seek help in psychiatry have been assessed with problematic substance use or been diagnosed with substance use disorder (SUD). Given the high treatment gap for mental health care, in particular SUD, these individuals risk poorer treatment outcomes in psychiatry. Integrated treatment for psychiatric and SUD disorders has been proposed to reduce the treatment gap for SUD, but access to integrated treatment is low. Digital interventions addressing SUD in psychiatry could potentially make treatment available to patients who otherwise would not have access. In this study “digital interventions” comprise an umbrella term covering all kinds of interventions from minimal motivational app-based interventions to internet-based interventions with and without human guidance, up to remote sessions in telepsychiatry. This study aims to explore healthcare staff perceptions of referring patients to digital interventions for reducing problematic substance use, whether or not diagnosed as SUD, in the psychiatric outpatient setting. Method The study was exploratory with a qualitative design. Data were collected in the Swedish outpatient psychiatry setting, via individual semi-structured interviews with managers, and focus groups with healthcare staff. An adapted form of phenomenological hermeneutical analysis was used to analyze the data. Results Three themes emerged from the analysis. The first theme was Encountering obstacles on the path to future implementation of digital interventions, with sub-themes: Lacking resources and Feeling concerned about technical solutions. The second theme was Searching for ways forward to achieve increased access to care, with sub-themes: Blended care could facilitate integrated care and Addressing variations in patients’ technical skills. The third theme was Taking steps towards the future, with sub-themes: Wanting to know more about digital interventions and Formulating a vision for the future. Conclusions The study reveals a concern that implementing digital interventions in psychiatry will create additional work or be technically challenging. The staff see significant advantages from the patient perspective, but they feel that they themselves need training in implementing digital interventions. In order to establish constructive implementation of digital interventions for SUD in psychiatry, staff attitudes and concerns need to be considered and addressed. This study was conducted within the Swedish healthcare system and the findings may not generalize to other countries with differing healthcare systems.

Abstract Objective In Sweden, national guidelines recommend that all staff in the healthcare system systematically screen patients for alcohol use and illicit substance use. Where hazardous use is identified, it should be addressed as soon as possible, preferably through brief interventions (BI). Results from a previous national survey showed that most clinic directors stated that they had clear guidelines for screening alcohol use and illicit substance use, but that fewer staff than expected used screening in their work. This study aims to identify obstacles and solutions to screening and brief intervention, based on survey respondents’ free-text responses to open-ended questions. Results A qualitative content analysis yielded four codes: guidelines, continuing education, cooperation and resources. The codes indicated that staff would need (a) clearer routines in order to optimize compliance with the national guidelines; (b) more knowledge about how to treat patients with problematic substance use; (c) better cooperation between addiction care and psychiatry; and (d) increased resources to improve routines at their own clinic. We conclude that increased resources could contribute to better routines and cooperation, and provide increased opportunities for continuing education. This could increase guideline compliance and increase healthy behavior changes among patients in psychiatry with problematic substance use.

Abstract Background High comorbidity exists between mental illness and substance use disorders (SUD). Patients in psychiatry living with problematic alcohol or drug consumption can experience a sense of exclusion, where seeking help for SUD can be perceived as stigmatizing. The aim of this study is to illuminate staff experiences of encountering patients with SUD within the psychiatric outpatient context. Methods The study was exploratory, with a qualitative design. Interviews with outpatient psychiatry managers and focus groups with clinical staff focused on the experience of encountering patients with SUD. Data were evaluated using content analysis inspired by phenomenological-hermeneutic methodology. Results Three themes were identified and each illuminated by two sub-themes. Bridging the organizational gap included sub-themes of having an established collaboration and facing difficulties in the collaboration; Having beliefs about the patient you encounter included sub-themes of working with patients who are exposed to prejudicial thoughts and expressing prejudicial thoughts about the patient. Striving to achieve a therapeutic alliance included sub-themes of having a feeling of developing together and supporting the patient towards recovery. Conclusion A life-world perspective, used to interpret results, indicated that caring for patients with SUD in psychiatry was perceived as difficult, where collaboration between psychiatry and addiction care was often experienced as problematic. Based on these findings, we believe that the current gap between the psychiatry and addiction care could be reduced to some extent by offering patients digital treatment for SUD. In this way, patients could remain under the care of their regular psychiatric clinic without having to physically visit SUD services. Thus, a virtual bridge could be established to bring psychiatry and addiction care closer to each other for the patients’ benefit.

Abstract Background Swedish national guidelines recommend that all health care settings systematically screen patients for alcohol use and illicit substance use. When hazardous use is identified, it should immediately be addressed, preferably through brief interventions (BI). It is well known that the prevalence of alcohol use and illicit substance use among psychiatric patients is high, but it is not known to what extent screening and BI are routinely carried out in such clinics. Methods Two online surveys investigating the use of screening and BI for alcohol and illicit substances were constructed; one for psychiatric outpatient clinic directors and one for staff at these clinics. The main analyses were calculated as simple frequencies. In secondary analyses, we investigated the associations between substance abuse training, type of clinic and screening/BI delivery. For these analyses, the Chi square test was used. Results Most clinic directors reported that they have guidelines to screen for alcohol (93.1%) and illicit substance use (78.9%) at initial assessment. Fifty percent reported having guidelines for delivering BI when identifying hazardous alcohol use (35.9% for hazardous illicit substance use). Among staff, 66.6% reported always screening for alcohol use and 57.8% reported always screening for illicit substance use at initial assessment. Further, 36.7% reported that they usually deliver BI when identifying hazardous alcohol use (35.7% for hazardous illicit substance use). Secondary analyses indicated that staff with substance abuse training were significantly more likely to screen for alcohol use than staff without such training. Further, staff at psychosis clinics were significantly less likely to screen for both alcohol and substance use than staff at both general and specialist psychiatric clinics. Conclusions Most clinic directors reported having clear guidelines for staff to screen for alcohol use and illicit substance use, but fewer staff members than expected indicated that these guidelines were adhered to. Providing training about substance use disorders for staff may increase use of screening for alcohol use, and psychosis clinics may need to improve their screening routines.

Abstract Background Evidence-based practice for healthy lifestyle promotion in primary health care is supported internationally by national policies and guidelines but implementation in routine primary health care has been slow. Referral to digital interventions could lead to a larger proportion of patients accessing structured interventions for healthy lifestyle promotion, but such referral might have unknown implications for clinicians with patients accessing such interventions. This qualitative study aimed to explore the perceptions of clinicians in primary care on healthy lifestyle promotion with or without digital screening and intervention. Methods Focus group interviews were conducted at 10 primary care clinics in Sweden with clinicians from different health professions. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using content analysis, with inspiration from a phenomenological-hermeneutic method involving naïve understanding, structural analysis and comprehensive understanding. Results Two major themes captured clinicians’ perceptions on healthy lifestyle promotion: 1) the need for structured professional practice and 2) deficient professional practice as a hinder for implementation. Sub-themes in theme 1 were striving towards professionalism, which for participants meant working in a standardized fashion, with replicable routines regardless of clinic, as well as being able to monitor statistics on individual patient and group levels; and embracing the future with critical optimism, meaning expecting to develop professionally but also being concerned about the consequences of integrating digital tools into primary care, particularly regarding the importance of personal interaction between patient and provider. For theme 2, sub-themes were being in an unmanageable situation, meaning not being able to do what is perceived as best for the patient due to lack of time and resources; and following one’s perception, meaning working from a gut feeling, which for our participants also meant deviating from clinical routines. Conclusions In efforts to increase evidence-based practice and lighten the burden of clinicians in primary care, decision- and policy-makers planning the introduction of digital tools for healthy lifestyle promotion will need to explicitly define their role as complements to face-to-face encounters. Our overriding hope is that this study will contribute to maintaining meaningfulness in the patient-clinician encounter, when digital tools are added to facilitate patient behavior change of unhealthy lifestyle behaviors.