Search

Background: Certain health-related risk factors require legal interventions. Medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) are collaborations between clinics and lawyers that address these health-harming legal needs (HHLNs) and have been shown to improve health and reduce utilization., Objective: The objective of this study is to explore the impact, barriers, and facilitators of MLP implementation in primary care clinics., Methods: A qualitative design using a semistructured interview assessed the perceived impact, barriers, and facilitators of an MLP, among clinicians, clinic and MLP staff, and clinic patients. Open AI software (otter.ai) was used to transcribe interviews, and NVivo was used to code the data. Braun & Clarke's framework was used to identify themes and subthemes., Results: Sixteen (n = 16) participants were included in this study. Most respondents were women (81%) and white (56%). Four respondents were clinic staff, and 4 were MLP staff while 8 were clinic patients. Several primary themes emerged including: Patients experienced legal issues that were pernicious, pervasive, and complex; through trusting relationships, the MLP was able to improve health and resolve legal issues, for some; mistrust, communication gaps, and inconsistent staffing limited the impact of the MLP; and, the MLP identified coordination and communication strategies to enhance trust and amplify its impact., Conclusion: HHLNs can have a significant, negative impact on the physical and mental health of patients. Respondents perceived that MLPs improved health and resolved these needs, for some. Despite perceived successes, integration between the clinical and legal organizations was elusive., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: WL received a gift from Humana, Inc., (© Copyright 2024 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Introduction: Among women at risk for alcohol-exposed pregnancies (AEP), smoking tobacco may be associated with increased severity of alcohol use, and risk for tobacco-exposed and other substance-exposed pregnancies (TEPs/SEPs). Our secondary data analysis of the 'CHOICES Plus' intervention trial explored AEP and SEP risk by smoking status., Methods: Eligible women (N=261) were recruited from 12 primary care clinics in a public healthcare system, not pregnant, aged 18-44 years, drinking >3 drinks/day or >7 drinks/week, sexually active, and not using effective contraception. We compared women who did and did not smoke tobacco on alcohol and drug severity, and psychological distress (e.g. anxiety) at baseline., Results: Participants were primarily Hispanic (47.1%) or non-Hispanic Black (41.8%) and reported incomes <$20000/year (69.3%). Tobacco smoking prevalence was 45.2%. Compared to non-smokers, those who smoked drank more days/week (mean=3.3, SD=2.0 vs mean=2.7, SD=1.8, p<0.01), had higher alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) scores (mean=12.1, SD=7.6 vs mean=9.8, SD=7.1, p<0.05), were more likely to report current drug use (66.1% vs 48.3%, p<0.01), and had a greater number of (lifetime) drugs used (mean=3.0, SD=2.0 vs mean=2.0, SD=1.5 days, p<0.0001). Also, those who smoked reported greater levels of anxiety (mean=5.9, SD=5.6 vs mean=4.5, SD=4.9, p<0.05), lower confidence to not drink (mean=2.8, SD=0.8 vs mean=3.1, SD=1.0, p<0.01), lower confidence to reduce risky drinking (mean=6.3, SD=3.1 vs mean=7.3, SD=2.8, p<0.0001), greater drinking temptations (mean=3.0, SD=0.9 vs mean=2.6, SD=0.9, p<0.01), and, yet greater readiness to reduce alcohol use (mean=6.2, SD=3.0 vs mean=5.2, SD=3.0, p<0.05)., Conclusions: Women who drink and smoke may have the highest AEP, TEP, and other SEP risk. Primary care providers should screen for alcohol and tobacco co-use and provide brief intervention and/or treatment referral., Clinical Trial Registration: The study was registered on the official website of ClinicalTrials.gov., Identifier: ID NCT01032772., Competing Interests: The authors have each completed and submitted an ICMJE form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. The authors declare that they have no competing interests, financial or otherwise, related to the current work. T.F. Northrup reports that since the initial planning of the work, support for the article processing charges was provided by the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Department of Family & Community Medicine. K.L. von Sternberg and M.M. Velasquez report that since the initial planning of the work the original trial from which the data were taken was funded by the CDC (1U84DD000438)., (© 2024 Northrup T.F. et al.)