Search

BackgroundChronic diseases that drive morbidity, mortality, and health care costs are largely influenced by human behavior. Behavioral health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders can often be effectively managed. The majority of patients in need of behavioral health care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some primary care practices are providing integrated behavioral health care (IBH), where primary care and behavioral health providers work together, in one location, using a team-based approach. Research suggests there may be an association between IBH and improved patient outcomes. However, it is often difficult for practices to achieve high levels of integration. The Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care study responds to this need by testing the effectiveness of a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed to improve outcomes in patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions by increasing the practice's degree of behavioral health integration.MethodsForty-five primary care practices, with existing onsite behavioral health care, will be recruited for this study. Forty-three practices will be randomized to the intervention or usual care arm, while 2 practices will be considered "Vanguard" (pilot) practices for developing the intervention. The intervention is a 24-month supported practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Each practice's degree of behavioral health integration will be measured using the Practice Integration Profile. Approximately 75 patients with both chronic medical and behavioral health conditions from each practice will be asked to complete a series of surveys to measure patient-centered outcomes. Change in practice degree of behavioral health integration and patient-centered outcomes will be compared between the two groups. Practice-level case studies will be conducted to better understand the contextual factors influencing integration.DiscussionAs primary care practices are encouraged to provide IBH services, evidence-based interventions to increase practice integration will be needed. This study will demonstrate the effectiveness of one such intervention in a pragmatic, real-world setting.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02868983 . Registered on August 16, 2016.

Background: Recent efforts to prepare healthcare professionals to care for patients/clients with substance use problems have incorporated SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment) into graduate education programs. This pilot study adds to the literature by examining the impact of an SBIRT interprofessional education approach for behavioral health graduate students and medical residents as planned by faculty from multiple professions at a state university. It measured changes in attitudes, abilities, skills, and knowledge in these interprofessionally trained students. Methods: Faculty in Counseling, Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, Nursing and Social Work departments collaborated to develop an interprofessional curriculum delivered through a small-group and active learning approach. Seventy-one residents and graduate students participated. Pre- and post-training surveys measured self-perceived attitudes, abilities, and skills along with objectively measured knowledge. Analysis examined pre- to post-training changes in scores. Results: Pre-training surveys yielded an 89% response rate; post-training, 85%. Self-perceived attitudes did not change significantly, except a 20% increase in how rewarded students felt while working with patients/clients with alcohol/drug use disorders (P < 0.01). Compared to baseline, there was a statistically significant increase in all items of self-perceived ability (P<0.01) and all items of self-perceived communication skills (P=0.04). Knowledge mean scores also increased significantly (P < 0.001) across both primary care and behavioral health student groups. Conclusions: Interprofessional training in SBIRT produced improvements in ability, skills, knowledge, and some attitudes. Such programs may inform providers who care for patients/clients with substance use problems, improving their personal experience and professional competence.

Context: Despite a growing commitment to integrating behavioral health (IBH) in primary care (PC), high levels of integration that improve care and outcomes are elusive. As previously reported to NAPCRG (2021), 'IBH-PC' studied the effectiveness of an intervention to support BH integration in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). A small improvement in BH integration was detected; there was no observed effect on patient outcomes. Objective: Secondary analysis to understand relationships among intervention completion, timing of study measures relative to COVID-19, level of BH integration, and patient reported outcomes. Study Design: Post-hoc analysis of pragmatic RCT. Setting: 42 primary care clinics with on-site BH services, in 13 states, Sep 2017-Dec 2020. Population: 2,426 adults with multiple chronic behavioral and medical conditions. Intervention: Clinic-level support to implement IBH using online curricula, workbooks, remote coaching, and online learning community. Outcomes and Predictors: Change in mean Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scores (PROMIS) and median Practice Integration Profile (PIP); timing relative to COVID-19; and completion of the implementation stage of the intervention. Results: Higher PIP scores were associated with better patient outcomes in all 8 PROMIS domains at baseline and follow-up. This association was significant for Anxiety (CI -0.12, 0.00, P=0.05 and CI -0.09, -0.01, P=0.01, respectively), Social Participation (CI +0.01, +0.09, P=0.02 and CI +0.02, +0.10, P=0.01), and Mental Health Summary (CI 0.00, +0.09, P=0.05 and CI 0.00, +0.09, P=0.04). Additional analysis found that a longer lapse between the start of COVID-19 and collection of final outcomes was associated with smaller improvement in PIP (P=0.04). Among clinics in the intervention arm (n=20), those that completed implementation (n=13) had significantly larger improvement in PIP scores (P=0.013) than those that did not; their patients also reported more improvement in PROMIS scores for Mental Health Summary (P=0.02), Social Participation (P=0.01), and Fatigue (P=0.04). Conclusions: Post-hoc analyses identified associations among level of integration, improved patient reported health outcomes, and intervention completion. COVID-19 may have affected intervention completion. To help the field advance, future study must identify necessary conditions for successful implementation of IBH and the relationship between integration and health., Presenters Constance van Eeghen, DrPH, MHSA, Rodger Kessler, PhD, ABPP, Levi Bonnell, MPH, PhD Candidate, Jennifer O'Rourke-Lavoie, BS, Juvena Hitt, MPH, Gail Rose, PhD, Benjamin Littenberg, MD, Jessica Clifton, [...]

Integrated behavioral health (IBH) is an approach to patient care that brings medical and behavioral health providers (BHPs) together to address both behavioral and medical needs within primary care settings. A large, pragmatic, national study aimed to test the effectiveness and measure the implementation costs of an intervention to improve IBH integration within primary care practices (IBH-PC). Assess the time and cost to practices of implementing a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed from the perspective of clinic owners to move behavioral service integration from co-location toward full integration as part of the IBH-PC study. IBH-PC program implementation costs were estimated in a representative sample of 8 practices using standard micro-econometric evaluation of activities outlined in the implementation workbook, including program implementation tasks, remote quality improvement coaching services, educational curricula, and learning community activities, over a 24-month period. The total median cost of implementing the IBH-PC program across all stages was $20,726 (range: $12,381 - $60,427). The median cost of the Planning Stage was $10,258 (range: $4,625 - $14,840), while the median cost of the Implementation Stage was $9,208 (range: $6,017 – 49,993). There were no statistically significant differences in practice or patient characteristics between the 8 selected practices and the larger IBH-PC practice sample (N=34). This study aimed to quantify the relative costs associated with integrating behavioral health into primary care. Although the cost assessment approach did not include all costs (fixed, variable, operational, and opportunity costs), the study aimed to develop a replicable and pragmatic measurement process with flexibility to adapt to emerging developments in each practice environment, providing a reasonable ballpark estimate of costs associated with implementation to help guide future executive decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We developed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) to measure the degree of behavioral health integration in clinical practices with a focus on primary care (PC). Its 30 items, completed [...]

Insufficient knowledge exists regarding how to measure the presence and degree of integrated care. Prior estimates of integration levels are neither grounded in theory nor psychometrically validated. They provide scant [...]

Introduction: Clinical departments at academic medical centers strive to deliver clinical care, provide education and training, support faculty development, and promote scholarship. These departments have experienced increasing demands to improve the quality, safety, and value of care delivery. However, many academic departments lack a sufficient number of clinical faculty members with expertise in improvement science to lead initiatives, teach, and generate scholarship. In this article, we describe the structure, activities, and early outcomes of a program within an academic department of medicine to promote scholarly improvement work. Methods: The Department of Medicine at the University of Vermont Medical Center launched a Quality Program with three primary goals: (a) improve care delivery, (b) provide education and training, and (c) promote scholarship in improvement science. The program serves as a resource center for students, trainees and faculty, offering education and training, analytic support, consultation in design and methodology, and project management. It strives to integrate education, research, and care delivery to learn, apply evidence and improve health care. Results: Over the first 3 years of full implementation, the Quality Program supported an average of 123 projects annually, including prospective clinical quality improvement initiatives, retrospective assessment of clinical programs and practices, and curriculum development and evaluation. The projects have yielded a total of 127 scholarly products, defined as peer‐reviewed publications and abstracts, posters, and oral presentations at local, regional, and national conferences. Conclusions: The Quality Program may serve as a practical model for promoting care delivery improvement, training, and scholarship in improvement science while advancing the goals of a learning health system at the level of an academic clinical department. Dedicated resources within such departments offer the potential to enhance care delivery while promoting academic success for faculty and trainees in improvement science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with low back pain exhibit altered postural coordination that has been suggested as a target for treatment, but heterogeneous presentation has rendered it difficult to identify appropriate candidates and protocols for such treatments. This study evaluated the associations of task-related and person-related factors with the effect of low back pain on anticipatory postural adjustments.Methods: Thirteen subjects with and 13 without low back pain performed seated, rapid arm flexion in self-initiated and cued conditions. Mixed-model ANOVA were used to evaluate group and condition effects on APA onset latencies of trunk muscles, arm-raise velocity, and pre-movement cortical potentials. These measures were evaluated for correlation with pain ratings, Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire scores, and Modified Oswestry Questionnaire scores.Findings: Delayed postural adjustments of subjects with low back pain were greater in the cued condition than in the self-initiated condition. The group with low back pain exhibited larger-amplitude cortical potentials than the group without pain, but also significantly slower arm-raise velocities. With arm-raise velocity as a covariate, the effect of low back pain remained significant for the latencies of postural adjustments but not for cortical potentials. Latencies of the postural adjustments significantly correlated with Oswestry and Fear Avoidance Beliefs scores.Interpretation: Delayed postural adjustments with low back pain appear to be influenced by cueing of movement, pain-related disability and fear of activity. These results highlight the importance of subject characteristics, task condition, and task performance when comparing across studies or when developing treatment of people with low back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Practice Integration Profile (PIP) is a reliable, valid, and broadly used measure of the integration of behavioral health (BH) into primary care. The PIP assesses operational and procedural elements that are grounded in the AHRQ Lexicon for Behavioral Health and Primary Care Integration. Prior analyses of PIP data and feedback from users suggested the measure was in need of revisions. This article describes the process used to improve readability, clarity, and pragmatic utility of the instrument. Method: Two rounds of structured cognitive interviews were conducted with clinicians in primary care settings. After each round, interview transcripts were coded by an analytic team using an iterative and consensus-driven process. Themes were identified based on codes. Themes and recommendations for revisions were reviewed and modified by committee. Results: Based on feedback and a prior factor analysis of the PIP, revisions were undertaken to: (a) eliminate redundant or overlapping items; (b) clarify the meaning of items; (c) standardize the response categories, and (d) place items in the most appropriate domains. The resulting measure has 28 items in five domains. Discussion: PIP 2.0 will need further examination to confirm its continuing use as a foundational tool for evaluating integrated care. Public Significance Statement: This article presents a revised version of a previously validated survey that measures the extent to which primary care practices have integrated behavioral health care. The revised survey can be used to support practice improvement in primary care and research on such topics as the determinants of practice-level performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) help manage type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and may have efficacy in steatotic liver disease. Objective: To determine the prevalence and clinical impact of GLP-1 RA use in patients with T2DM and liver disease. Methods: This was a retrospective study of adult patients with T2DM and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL), or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) between 1/1/21-12/31/21. Patients with hepatitis B or C, or on pioglitazone were excluded. Eligible patients treated with a GLP-1 RA were compared to controls. The primary outcome was change in Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, with NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS) as a secondary outcome. Follow-up scores were calculated from labs within 3 to 15 months after baseline. Results: Of 242 eligible patients, 79 patients (32.6%) were treated with a GLP-1 RA. At baseline, FIB-4 score was lower and NFS was higher in the GLP-1 RA group vs controls (1.80 vs 2.33; P = .101, .36 vs −.47, P < .001; respectively). At follow up, FIB-4 score decreased to 1.77 in the GLP-1 RA group and increased to 2.71 in controls (P = .045). Follow up NFS was stable in the GLP-1 RA group and increased in the control group (.36 vs −.43; P = .308). Conclusion: Patients treated with GLP-1 RAs had less evidence of liver fibrosis progression compared to no treatment, although the differences were small. These results suggest that treatment with GLP-1 RAs may have clinical impact on slowing liver fibrosis, however results should be confirmed in a larger, more diverse sample. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Most patients in need of behavioral health (BH) care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some practices integrate behavioral health care (IBH), with medical and BH providers at the same location, working as a team. However, it is difficult to achieve high levels of integration. Objective: Test the effectiveness of a practice intervention designed to increase BH integration. Study Design: Pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial. Setting: 43 primary care practices with on-site BH services in 13 states. Population: 2,460 adults with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions. Intervention: 24-month practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Outcomes: Primary outcomes were changes in the 8 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) domain scores. Secondary outcomes were changes in medication adherence, self-reported healthcare utilization, time lost due to disability, cardiovascular capacity, patient centeredness, provider empathy, and several condition-specific measures. A sample of practice staff completed the Practice Integration Profile at each time point to estimate the degree of BH integration in that site. Practice-level case studies estimated the typical costs of implementing the intervention. Results: The intervention had no significant effect on any of the primary or secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses showed no convincing patterns of effect in any populations. COVID-19 was apparently not a moderating influence of the effect of the intervention on outcomes. The intervention had a modest effect on the degree of practice integration, reaching statistical significance in the Workflow domain. The median cost of the intervention was $18,204 per practice. In post-hoc analysis, level of BH integration was associated with improved patient outcomes independent of the intervention, both at baseline and longitudinally. Conclusions: The specific intervention tested in this study was inexpensive, but had only a small impact on the degree of BH integration, and none on patient outcomes. However, practices that had more integration at baseline had better patient outcomes, independent of the intervention. Although this particular intervention was ineffective, IBH remains an attractive strategy for improving patient outcomes., Competing Interests: Authors report none., (© 2021 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)