Search

Background: Differences in acute COVID-19 associated morbidity based on race, ethnicity, and gender have been well described; however, less is known about differences in subsequent longer term health-related quality of life and well-being. Methods: This prospective cohort study included symptomatic adults tested for SARS-CoV-2 who completed baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys. Using the PROMIS-29 tool, a validated measure of health and well-being, we compared outcomes at 3 months and change in outcomes from baseline to 3 months among groups with different races, ethnicities, and/or sexes. Results: Among 6044 participants, 4113 (3202 COVID +) were included. Among COVID + participants, compared to non-Hispanic White participants, Black participants had better PROMIS T-scores for cognitive function (3.6 [1.1, 6.2]) and fatigue (− 4.3 [− 6.6, − 2.0]) at 3 months and experienced more improvement in fatigue over 3 months (− 2.7 [− 4.7, − 0.8]). At 3 months, compared with males, females had worse PROMIS T-scores for cognitive function (− 4.1 [− 5.6, − 2.6]), physical function (− 2.1 [− 3.1, − 1.0]), social participation (− 2.8 [− 4.2, − 1.5]), anxiety (2.8 [1.5, 4.1]), fatigue (5.1 [3.7, 6.4]), and pain interference (2.0 [0.9, 3.2]). Females experienced less improvement in fatigue over 3 months (3.1 [2.0, 4.3]). Transgender/non-binary/other gender participants had worse 3-month scores in all domains except for sleep disturbance and pain interference. Conclusions: Three months after the initial COVID-19 infection, Black participants reported better cognitive function and fatigue, while females and other gender minoritized groups experienced lower well-being. Future studies are necessary to better understand how and why social constructs, specifically race, ethnicity, and gender, influence differences in COVID-19-related health outcomes.

Recent value-based payment reforms in the U.S. called for empirical data on how primary care practices of varying characteristics fund their integrated behavioral health services. To describe payment strategies used by U.S. primary care practices to fund behavioral health integration and compare strategies between practices with and without hospital affiliation.Baseline data were used and collected from 44 practices participating in a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial of behavioral health integration. Data included practice characteristics and payment strategies—fee-for-service payment, pay-for-performance incentives, grants, and graduate medical education funds. Descriptive and comparative analyses using Fisher’s exact tests and independent T-tests were conducted. The sample had 26 (59.1%) hospital-affiliated (hospital/health system-owned, academic medical centers and hospital-affiliated practices) and 18 (40.9%) non-hospital-affiliated practices (community health centers/federally qualified health centers and privately-owned practices). Most practices (88.6%) received payments through fee-for-service; 63.6% received pay-for-performance incentives; 31.8% received grant funds. Collaborative Care Management billing (CPT) codes were used in six (13.6%) practices. Over half (53.8%) of hospital-affiliated practices funded their behavioral health services through fee-for-service and pay-for-performance incentives only, as opposed to two-thirds (66.7%) of non-hospital-affiliated practices required additional support from grants and/or general medical education funds. Primary care practices support behavioral health integration through diverse payment strategies. More hospital-affiliated practices compared to non-hospital-affiliated practices funded integrated behavioral health services through fee-for-service and pay-for-performance incentives. Practices without hospital affiliation relied on multiple funding streams including grants and/or general medical education funds, suggesting their approach to financial sustainment may be more precarious or challenging, compared to hospital-affiliated practices.

Background: Patients with chronic pain on opioids frequently experience loneliness, which is associated with poorer health outcomes and higher risk for opioid misuse and opioid use disorder. Given that almost half of opioids are prescribed in primary care, a critical need exists for the development and testing of interventions to reduce loneliness in primary care patients at risk for opioid misuse. Cognitive behavioral therapy and social prescribing have been shown to be efficacious in reducing loneliness and improving outcomes in other populations but have not been tested in patients at risk for substance use disorder. The overall objective of our study is to reduce opioid misuse and opioid use disorder by addressing loneliness in patients on long-term opioid therapy in real-world primary care settings. Methods: We will conduct a 3-arm pragmatic, randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of two group-based, telehealth-delivered interventions with treatment as usual: (1) cognitive behavioral therapy to address maladaptive thought patterns and behaviors around social connection and (2) a social prescribing intervention to connect participants with social opportunities and develop supportive social networks. Our primary outcome is loneliness as measured by the UCLA Loneliness Scale and our dependent secondary outcome is opioid misuse as measured by the Common Opioid Misuse Measure. We will recruit 102 patients on long-term opioid therapy who screen positive for loneliness from 2 health care systems in Washington State. Implementation outcomes will be assessed using the RE-AIM framework. Discussion: Our study is innovative because we are targeting loneliness, an under-addressed but critical social risk factor that may prevent opioid misuse and use disorder in the setting where most patients are receiving their opioid prescriptions for chronic pain. If successful, the project will have a positive impact in reducing loneliness, reducing opioid misuse, improving function and preventing substance use disorder. Trial Registration: NCT06285032, issue date: February 28, 2024, original.

Chronic pain affects 20% of U.S. adults and has debilitating effects on quality of life and function. Individuals living in rural communities experience high burden of chronic pain and frequently lack access to evidence-based, non-pharmacologic treatments. A critical need exists to implement effective, comprehensive programs for pain management that include non-pharmacologic treatments. The purpose of this study is to adapt and implement a nurse care management (NCM) model that includes care coordination, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and referrals to a remotely delivered exercise program for rural patients with chronic pain to improve pain-related outcomes. Using a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation design, we will engage two practice-based research networks in WWAMI (Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho) and North Carolina in a two-phase study. In phase 1, we will engage two health care systems to pilot the NCM model with 30 patients. Care managers will be trained and then provide care coordination, CBT and referrals to a tele-exercise program to patients for 6 months. In phase 2, we will conduct a randomized controlled trial of the adapted NCM model versus usual care in 408 rural dwelling patients. Our primary outcome is pain interference and intensity as measured by the PEG scale. We will use the RE-AIM framework to assess implementation outcomes. If successful, this study will have a transformative effect on chronic pain management in rural areas by expanding access to evidence-based treatments through an innovative NCM model. Funding: National Institutes of Health HEAL Initiative (UG3NR020930-01).

A movement towards integrated behavioral health (IBH) in primary care continues to grow, among an accumulating evidence base for its effectiveness for improving care. However, healthcare organizations struggle to navigate where to target their limited resources for improving integration. We evaluated a cross-model framework of IBH core processes and structures. We used a mixed-methods approach for evaluation of the framework, which included (a) an evaluation survey of national experts and stakeholders, (b) crosswalks with common IBH measures, and (c) a real-world usability test. Five core IBH principles, mapping to 25 processes, and nine clinic structures were defined. Survey responses from 29 IBH domain and policy experts and stakeholders resulted in uniformly high ratings of importance and variable levels of feasibility for measurement, particularly with respect to electronic health record (EHR) systems. A real-world usability test resulted in good uptake and use of the framework across a state-wide effort. An IBH Cross-Model Framework of core principles, processes, and structures generated good acceptability and showed good real-world utility in a state-wide effort to improve IBH across disparate levels of integration in diverse primary care settings. Findings identify feasible areas of measurement, particularly with EHR systems. Next steps include testing the relationship between the individual framework components and patient outcomes to help guide clinics towards prioritizing efforts focused on improving integration.

An introduction to a list of attorneys who are members of the Clark County Bar Association (CCBA) in Las Vegas, Nevada is presented.