Search

The authors aimed to uncover factors that affect engagement in substance use disorder treatment among Medicaid beneficiaries in New York State. The authors conducted 40 semistructured interviews with clients, plan administrators, health care providers, and policy leaders directly involved with substance use care in New York State. Data were analyzed with thematic analysis. Main themes resulting from analysis of the 40 interviews showed that most stakeholders agreed that a need exists to better integrate psychosocial services into behavioral health care systems; that systemic stigma, stigma from providers, and lack of cultural responsiveness in the substance use care system hinder engagement in and provision of high-quality care; and that rural health care networks with coordinated models benefit clients' engagement in care. Stakeholders involved in care for substance use disorder perceived a lack of integration of resources to meet clients' social needs, the presence of stigma, and low levels of cultural and linguistic capacity as key factors contributing to low engagement in and low quality of care for substance use disorder. Future interventions should address social needs within the therapeutic regimen and modify curricula in clinical training to reduce stigma and increase cultural competence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The fields of psychiatry and mental health are increasingly recognizing the importance of social determinants of health (SDOH) and their impact on mental health outcomes. In this overview, the authors discuss the recent research, from the past 5 years, on advances made in SDOH work. SDOH frameworks and theories have expanded to include more social conditions, from traumas associated with immigration to psychosocial and community strengths, that impact mental health and well-being. Research has consistently shown the pervasive deleterious impacts of inequitable social conditions (e.g., food insecurity, housing instability) on minoritized populations' physical and mental health. Social systems of oppression (e.g., racism, minoritization) have also been shown to confer higher risk for psychiatric and mental disorders. The COVID-19 pandemic illuminated the inequitable impact of the social determinants of health outcomes. More efforts have been made in recent years to intervene on the social determinants through interventions at the individual, community, and policy levels, which have shown promise in improving mental health outcomes in marginalized populations. However, major gaps remain. Attention should be paid to developing guiding frameworks that incorporate equity and antiracism when designing SDOH interventions and improving methodological approaches for evaluating these interventions. In addition, structural-level and policy-level SDOH efforts are critical for making long-lasting and impactful advances toward mental health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Biden-Harris Administration's FY22 budget includes $1.6 billion for the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant program, more than double the FY21 allocation, given the rising mental health crises observed across the nation. This is timely since there have been two interrelated paradigm shifts: one giving attention to the role of the environmental context as central in mental health outcomes, the other moving upstream to earlier mental health interventions at the community level rather than only at the individual level. An opportunity to reimagine and redesign the agenda of mental health research and service delivery with marginalized communities opens the door to more community-based care interventions. This involves establishing multisector partnerships to address the social and psychological needs that can be addressed at the community level rather than the clinical level. This will require a shift in training, delivery systems, and reimbursement models. The authors describe the scientific evidence justifying these programs and elaborate on opportunities to target investments in community mental health that can reduce disparities and improve well-being for all. They select levers where there is some evidence that such approaches matter substantially, are modifiable, and advance the science and public policy practice. They conclude with specific recommendations and the logistical steps needed to support this transformational shift. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Patient activation involves patients' ability and motivation to communicate about their health and health care. Research has demonstrated that clinician or patient interventions may improve patient activation. This study explored the degree to which clinician and patient interventions affected both patient activation and symptoms of depression and anxiety in a racially and ethnically diverse clinical sample.Methods: Data were from a randomized clinical trial that included 312 patients and 74 clinicians from 13 Massachusetts community- and hospital-based outpatient behavioral health clinics. Patients completed measures of patient activation and depression and anxiety symptoms. Secondary data analyses were conducted to examine the effect of patient and clinician interventions (DECIDE-PA and DECIDE-PC, respectively) on depression and anxiety symptoms and patient activation. A multilevel, mixed-effects simultaneous-equation model was estimated to assess the relationship between the interventions, changes in patients' symptoms, and patient activation.Results: Clinicians' greater intervention dosage (i.e., more completed DECIDE-PC training sessions) was associated with patients' decreased anxiety symptoms, but associations with patient activation or depression symptoms were not significant. The effect of clinician training dosage on anxiety symptoms was stronger when patients and clinicians were not of the same race-ethnicity. The reduction in patients' anxiety symptoms appeared to increase patient activation.Conclusions: Clinician interventions designed to boost patient-clinician communication and the therapeutic alliance may serve to lessen patients' anxiety and may ultimately improve patient activation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study examined the interaction of race-ethnicity and gender in depression screening, receipt of any mental health care, and receipt of adequate care. Methods: Data from electronic health records (2010-2012) of adult primary care patients from a New England urban health care system were used (N=65,079). Multivariate logit regression models were estimated to assess associations between race-ethnicity, gender, and other covariates and depression screening, any depression care among those with a positive screen, and adequate depression care. To measure disparities in utilization, we controlled for need variables but not for non-need variables, including insurance, marital status, and socioeconomic status. Results: Among males and females, blacks and Asians were less likely and Latinos were more likely to be screened for depression compared with whites. Among those with moderate or severe depression, black males and females, Latino males, and Asian males and females were less likely than whites to receive any mental health care. The disparity in screening between blacks and whites was greater among females compared with males. The disparity between Latinos and whites in receipt of any mental health care and of adequate care was greater among males than females. Conclusions: This approach underscored the importance of identifying disparities at each step of depression care by both race-ethnicity and gender. Targeting certain groups in specific stages of care, for example, screening of black females or providing any mental health care and adequate care for Latino males, would be more effective than a blanket approach to disparities reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]