Engaging Community Networks to Improve Depression Services: A Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Community Engagement and Planning Intervention

Partnerships Between Faith Communities and the Mental Health Sector: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Faith communities are increasingly providing services to address the mental health needs of their congregations and communities. However, many feel limited in their capacity to address serious illness and experience challenges to collaborating with the mental health sector. To inform the development of faith community-mental health sector partnerships, the authors conducted a scoping review to assess the characteristics and evidence base of partnership approaches to addressing mental health needs.

METHODS

A search of four databases identified peer-reviewed articles published between 2010 and 2023 on faith community-mental health sector partnerships in the United States.

RESULTS

In total, 37 articles representing 32 unique partnerships were reviewed. Most partnerships (N=19) used multicomponent approaches, particularly involving training the faith community (N=18), mental health education for the broader community (N=14), and direct counseling (N=11). Many partnerships (N=14) focused on African American communities. Partnerships that included an evaluation component (N=20) showed promising findings for improving mental health symptoms, mental health literacy, stigma, and referrals, among other outcomes. Several articles reported facilitators (e.g., support from faith leaders and reciprocal relationships and equal power) and barriers (e.g., limited time and funding and differing interests and attitudes) to developing partnerships.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight how faith communities can be a critical partner in providing services across the continuum of mental health care and reveal the need for more rigorous evaluations of the effectiveness, feasibility, and sustainability of these partnerships. The results also identify strategies that may facilitate the development and strengthening of future faith community-mental health partnerships.

A New Treatment Program: Focused Integrated Team-based Treatment Program for Bipolar Disorder (FITT-BD)

OBJECTIVE

Bipolar disorder (BD) is complicated by a dynamic, chronic course along with multiple comorbid psychiatric and medical conditions, making it challenging for clinicians to treat and patients to thrive. To efficiently manage the complexity of BD and help patients recover, we developed a Focused Integrated Team-based Treatment Program for Bipolar Disorder (FITT-BD). The purpose of this paper is to describe how we developed this clinic and the lessons we learned.

METHODS

We developed FITT-BD by integrating strategies from stepped care, collaborative care, and learning health care systems. We describe the rationale, details, and lessons learned in developing FITT-BD.

RESULTS

By integrating stepped care, collaborative care, and a learning health care system approach, FITT-BD aims to reduce barriers to care, leverage the expertise of a multidisciplinary treatment team, ensure patient-centeredness, and use assessments to inform and continuously improve outcomes in real time. We learned that there are challenges in the creation of a web-based application that tracks the treatment of patients within a network of hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

The success of FITT-BD will be determined by the degree to which it can increase treatment access, improve treatment adherence, and help individuals with BD achieve their treatment goals. We expect that FITT-BD will improve outcomes in the context of ongoing clinical care.

PUBLIC HEALTH SIGNIFICANCE

The treatment of BD is challenging and complex. We propose a new treatment model for BD: FITT-BD. We expect that this program will be a patient-centered approach that improves outcomes in the context of ongoing clinical care for patients with BD.

Advancing community-engaged research during the COVID-19 pandemic: Insights from a social network analysis of the trans-LINK Network

Collaboration across sectors is critical to address complex health problems, particularly during the current COVID-19 pandemic. We examined the ability to collaborate during the pandemic as part of a baseline evaluation of an intersectoral network of healthcare and community organizations established to improve the collective response to transgender (trans) persons who have been sexually assaulted (the trans-LINK Network). A validated social network analysis survey was sent to 119 member organizations in Ontario, Canada. Survey respondents were asked, ‘Has COVID-19 negatively affected your organization’s ability to collaborate with other organizations on the support of trans survivors of sexual assault?’ and ‘How has COVID-19 negatively affected your organization’s ability to collaborate within the trans-LINK Network?’. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Seventy-eight member organizations participated in the survey (response rate = 66%). Most organizations (79%) indicated that the pandemic had affected their ability to collaborate with others in the network, citing most commonly, increased workload (77%), increased demand for services (57%), and technical and digital challenges (50%). Survey findings were shared in a stakeholder consultation with 22 representatives of 21 network member organizations. Stakeholders provided suggestions to prevent and address the challenges, barriers, and disruptions in serving trans survivors experienced during the pandemic, which were organized into themes. Seven themes were generated and used as a scaffold for the development of recommendations to advance the network, including: increase communication and knowledge exchange among member organizations through the establishment of a network discussion forum and capacity building group workshops; enhance awareness of network organizations by developing a member-facing directory of member services, their contributions, and ability to provide specific supports; strengthen capacity to provide virtual and in-person services and programs through enhanced IT support and increased opportunities for knowledge sharing and skill development; and adopt a network wide syndemic approach that addresses co-occurring epidemics (COVID-19 + racism, housing insecurity, transphobia, xenophobia) that impact trans survivors of sexual assault.

Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) to Enhance Participation of Racial/Ethnic Minorities in Clinical Trials: A 10-Year Systematic Review

There has not been a significant improvement in the rate of clinical trial accrual in more than 20 years. Worse, the challenge of inadequate representation among racial and ethnic minorities also persists, deepening disparities in health. Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) is a participatory communication method that centers on effective dialogue between researchers and community stakeholders with the goal of creating an equitable partnership for health and social change. The objective of the current study was to provide an update since a systematic review in 2012, on the current status of the empirical research, with a particular focus on the elements of CBPR methods used to improve the rate of accrual of members of racial and ethnic minority communities for clinical trials. Our systematic review found a large increase in the number of CBPR related studies and studies related to racial and ethnic representation in research. More than 85% of studies employing CBPR methods saw statistically positive outcomes. Specifically, the elements of CBPR that are associated with these positive outcomes include community partner participation in (1) a study advisory committee, (2) data collection, (3) the development of interventions, and (4) participant recruitment. However, the results of our study indicate that researchers need to be more transparent about the extent of community participation as well as more thoroughly and accurately describe the nature of the partnership with members of minority communities in order to build upon the scientific literature on community-engaged methods.

Understanding the Development, Evaluation, and Sustainability of Community Health Networks Using Social Network Analysis: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Identify the scope of the literature which reports use of social network analysis to inform, support, or evaluate health promotion-focused community network/partnership development.

DATA SOURCE

A comprehensive search (not date-limited) of PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Library Database for Systematic Reviews.

INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Criteria for inclusion included published in the English language and used social network analysis to inform, support, or evaluate development of community networks/partnerships aiding health promotion efforts. Studies were excluded if they did not use social network analysis or were not focused upon health promotion.

DATA EXTRACTION

Three of the four authors extracted data using a summary chart to document information regarding study aims, target issue/population, methods, and key outcomes of the social network analysis.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The extracted data were qualitatively analyzed by 3 authors to categorize key social network analysis outcomes into categories.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven studies representing 9 geographical regions were included, with the majority (69) published after 2010. Key outcomes included the effectiveness of social network analysis to identify network characteristics, track network change over time, compare similar networks across locations, and correlate network attributes with outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Findings support the utility of social network analysis to inform, support, and evaluate development of sustainable health promotion-focused networks/partnerships.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.