Search

People with serious mental illness experience decreased life expectancy related to co-occurring medical conditions. A nonprofit behavioral health managed care organization implemented an innovative behavioral health home, in partnership with community mental health providers, to build a culture of wellness among all staff members, with a focus on prevention and holistic (that is, behavioral, social, and physical) health. The behavioral health home added one of two distinct care approaches, one patient driven and the other provider driven. The innovative approaches were implemented at eleven community mental health providers: Six delivered patient-driven care, and five delivered provider-driven care. We studied outcomes in the period October 2013-January 2016. Multiple diffusion strategies were utilized to encourage uptake. Our results revealed that both approaches significantly increased patient activation in care (more quickly in provider-supported care), engagement in primary and specialty care, and perceived mental health status. The success of this behavioral health home in improving important outcomes and the use of novel diffusion strategies led to its dissemination to forty-three additional providers across Pennsylvania. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Personal health records (PHRs) typically employ “passive” communication strategies, such as non-personalized medical text, rather than direct patient engagement in care. Currently there is a call for more active PHRs that directly engage patients in an effort to improve their health by offering elements such as personalized medical information, health coaches, and secure messaging with primary care providers. As part of a randomized clinical trial comparing “passive” with “active” PHRs, we explore patients’ experiences with using an “active” PHR known as HealthTrak. The “passive” elements of this PHR included problem lists, medication lists, information about patient allergies and immunizations, medical and surgical histories, lab test results, health reminders, and secure messaging. The active arm included all of these elements and added personalized alerts delivered through the secure messaging platform to patients for services coming due based on various demographic features (including age and sex) and chronic medical conditions. Our participants were part of the larger clinical trial and were eligible if they had been randomized to the active PHR arm, one that included regular personalized alerts. We conducted focus group discussions on the benefits of this active PHR for patients who are at risk for cardiovascular disease. Forty-one patients agreed to participate and were organized into five separate focus group sessions. Three main themes emerged from the qualitatively analyzed focus groups: participants reported that the active PHR promoted better communication with providers; enabled them to more effectively partner with their providers; and helped them become more proactive about tracking their health information. In conclusion, patients reported improved communication, partnership with their providers, and a sense of self-management, thus adding insights for PHR designers hoping to address low adoption rates and other patient barriers to the development and use of the technology. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: The aim of patient-centered comparative effectiveness research is to conduct stakeholder-driven investigations that identify which interventions are most effective for which patients under specific circumstances. Conducting this research in real-world settings comes with unique experiences and challenges. We provide the study design, challenges confronted, and the solutions we devised for Optimal Health, a stakeholder-informed patient-centered comparative effectiveness study focused on the needs of seriously mentally ill individuals receiving case management services in community mental health centers across Pennsylvania. Methods: Optimal Health, supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, is a cluster-randomized trial of two evidence-based interventions for improving health and wellness across 11 provider sites. Participants were followed for 18–24 months, with repeated measurements of self-reported health status and activation in care and administrative measurements of primary and specialty health service utilization. Health-related quality of life, engagement in care, and service utilization are to be compared via random effects mixed models. Stakeholders were, and continue to be, engaged via focus groups, interviews, and stakeholder advisory board meetings. A learning collaborative model was used to support shared learning and implementation fidelity across provider sites. Results: From 1 November 2013 through 15 July 2014, we recruited 1229 adults with serious mental illness, representing 85.1% of those eligible for study participation. Of these, 713 are in the Provider-Supported arm of the study and 516 in Patient Self-Directed Care. Across five data collection time points, we retained 86% and 83% of the participants in the Provider-Supported and Self-Directed arms, respectively. Lessons learned: Lessons learned relate to estimation of the size of our study population, the value of multiple data sources, and intervention training and implementation. The use of historical claims data can lead to an overestimation of eligible participants and, subsequently, a reduced study sample and an imbalance between intervention arms. Disruptions in continuity of care in real-world settings can pose challenges to on-site self-report data collection, although the inclusion of multiple data sources in study design can improve data completeness. Geographic dispersion of rural provider sites and staff turnover can lead to training and intervention fidelity challenges that can be overcome with the use of a “train-the-trainer” model, “wellness champions,” and the use of a Learning Collaborative approach. Stakeholder engagement in mitigating these challenges proved to be critical to study progress. Conclusion: Conducting real-world patient-centered comparative effectiveness research in healthcare systems that care for seriously mentally ill persons is an important yet challenging undertaking, one which requires flexibility in identifying potential adaptations within all major study phases. Advice from a wide range of stakeholders is critical in development of successful strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Mental health service-users face important medication decisions; yet not all are active participants in the decision-making process. Little is known about which technology-supported interventions might effectively promote collaborative decision-making in psychiatric care. We compared the effectiveness of two technology-supported collaborative care decision-making approaches. Method: We used a cluster-randomized design with a mixed-methods approach. Participants were Medicaid-enrolled adults receiving psychiatric care in participating community mental health centers. Measurement-based care used computerized systematic symptom and medication screenings to inform provider decision-making. Person-centered care supported participants in completing computerized Health Reports and preparing to work with providers on collaborative decision-making about psychiatric care. Primary study outcomes included the patient experience of medication management and shared decision-making during psychiatric care. Analyses examined the impact of both approaches and explored moderating variables. We used qualitative methods to understand participation and implementation experiences. Results: Across 14 sites 2,363 participants enrolled (1,162 in measurement-based care, 1,201 in person-centered care). We observed statistically significant improvements in patient experience of medication management scores for both study arms; however, the clinical significance of this change was minor. We found no significant changes for shared decision-making. Qualitative interviews revealed a range of factors associated usefulness of intervention assessment, provider–service-user communication, and site-level logistics. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: We observed modest positive findings related to our patient-centered outcomes. We identified important implementation facilitators and barriers that can inform the implementation of future comparative effectiveness patient-centered research. Impact and Implications: This study found modest differences between approaches related to shared decision-making or patient experience of medication management. Interviews revealed factors that supported and impeded implementation, including intervention utility, provider–service-user communication, and site-level logistics such as technology integration. Providers considering implementation of technology-supported collaborative decision-making in psychiatric care should use a provider-centered approach to encourage common goals, workflow innovation, and a supportive culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

CONTEXT Abortion stigma may cause psychological distress in women who are considering having an abortion or have had one. This phenomenon has been relatively underexplored in low-income women, who may already be at an increased risk for poor abortion-related outcomes because of difficulties accessing timely and safe abortion services. METHODS A qualitative study conducted between 2010 and 2013 used semistructured interviews to explore pregnancy intentions among low-income women recruited from six reproductive health clinics in Western Pennsylvania. Transcripts from interviews with 19 participants who were planning to terminate a pregnancy or had had an abortion in the last two weeks were examined through content analysis to identify the range of attitudes they encountered that could contribute to or reflect abortion stigma, the sources of these attitudes and women's responses to them. RESULTS Women commonly reported that partners, family members and they themselves held antiabortion attitudes. Such attitudes communicated that abortion is morally reprehensible, a rejection of motherhood, rare and thus potentially deviant, detrimental to future fertility and an irresponsible choice. Women reacted to external and internal negative attitudes by distinguishing themselves from other women who obtain abortions, experiencing negative emotions, and concealing or delaying their abortions. CONCLUSIONS Women's reactions to antiabortion attitudes may perpetuate abortion stigma. Further research is needed to inform interventions to address abortion stigma and improve women's abortion experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]