A reverse colocated integrated care model intervention among persons with severe persistent mental illness at the U.S.-Mexico border: A randomized controlled trial protocol

Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention that promotes interdisciplinary working across primary and secondary care. Collaborative care interventions aim to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. This is an update of a 2013 Cochrane review, based on new searches of the literature, which includes an additional seven studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care (or other non-collaborative care interventions) for people with diagnoses of SMI who are living in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Study-Based Register of Trials (10 February 2021). We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) controlled trials register (all available years to 6 June 2016). Subsequent searches on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (with an overlap) were run on 17 December 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where interventions described as 'collaborative care' were compared with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI. SMI was defined as schizophrenia, other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis or bipolar affective disorder. The primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions at 12 months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and certainty of the evidence using RoB 2 (for the primary outcomes) and GRADE. We compared treatment effects between collaborative care and standard care. We divided outcomes into short-term (up to six months), medium-term (seven to 12 months) and long-term (over 12 months). For dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used random-effects meta-analyses due to substantial levels of heterogeneity across trials. We created a summary of findings table using GRADEpro.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs (1165 participants) are included in this review. Two met the criteria for type A collaborative care (intervention comprised of the four core components). The remaining six met the criteria for type B (described as collaborative care by the trialists, but not comprised of the four core components). The composition and purpose of the interventions varied across studies. For most outcomes there was low- or very low-certainty evidence. We found three studies that assessed the quality of life of participants at 12 months. Quality of life was measured using the SF-12 and the WHOQOL-BREF and the mean endpoint mental health component scores were reported at 12 months. Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (mental health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.32; 3 RCTs, 227 participants). Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (physical health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.33; 3 RCTs, 237 participants). Furthermore, in the medium term (at 12 months) low-certainty evidence did not show a difference between collaborative care and standard care in mental state (binary) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; 1 RCT, 253 participants) or in the risk of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital at 12 months (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 39.57; 1 RCT, 253 participants). One study indicated an improvement in disability (proxy for social functioning) at 12 months in the collaborative care arm compared to usual care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 253 participants); we deemed this low-certainty evidence. Personal recovery and satisfaction/experience of care outcomes were not reported in any of the included studies. The data from one study indicated that the collaborative care treatment was more expensive than standard care (mean difference (MD) international dollars (Int$) 493.00, 95% CI 345.41 to 640.59) in the short term. Another study found the collaborative care intervention to be slightly less expensive at three years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review does not provide evidence to indicate that collaborative care is more effective than standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) in relation to our primary outcomes (quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions). The evidence would be improved by better reporting, higher-quality RCTs and the assessment of underlying mechanisms of collaborative care. We advise caution in utilising the information in this review to assess the effectiveness of collaborative care.

A formative assessment of client characteristics associated with missed appointments in integrated primary care services in rural Arizona

INTRODUCTION

Integrating primary care services in mental healthcare facilities is an uncommon model of care in the United States that could bring several benefits (e.g., improved access to physical healthcare) for vulnerable populations experiencing mental health conditions, especially those living in underserved regions like rural Arizona.

AIM

This formative assessment aimed to understand the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of clients accessing integrated primary care (IPC) services implemented in 2021 at a community mental healthcare facility in rural Arizona and to explore the proportion of missed appointments. Additionally, we analysed the association between client characteristics and IPC missed appointments.

METHODS

The authors collaborated with a community mental health facility in rural Arizona, which provided deidentified data from 280 clients who accessed IPC services from June 2021 to February 2022.

RESULTS

Most clients were White and of vulnerable socioeconomic status, with a substantial proportion of Native Americans (23.58%). The majority of clients (55.75%) had a mental health disorder (MHD), 23.74% had a substance use disorder (SUD), and 15.10% had comorbid MHD and SUD. Linear regression revealed that experiencing comorbid MHD and SUD was significantly associated with missed appointments. Compared with White clients, Native Americans missed fewer appointments.

CONCLUSION

Future studies conducted from a culturally-centred perspective are crucial to guide strategies to reduce missed appointments in rural IPC services.

Client perspectives on primary care integration in a rural-serving behavioral health center

Purpose

Advancing behavioral health and primary care integration is a priority for helping clients overcome the complex health challenges impacting healthcare deserts like those in Arizona, United States of America (USA). This study aimed to explore the perspectives of people with a substance use disorder (SUD) on accessing integrated primary care (IPC) services in a rural-serving behavioral healthcare organization in Arizona.

Design/methodology/approach

Clients from a behavioral health facility in Arizona (n = 10) diagnosed with SUDs who also accessed IPC participated in a 45-min semi-structured interview.

Findings

The authors identified six overarching themes: (1) importance of IPC for clients being treated for SUDs, (2) client low level of awareness of IPC availability at the facility, (3) strategies to increase awareness of IPC availability at the behavioral health facility, (4) cultural practices providers should consider in care integration, (5) attitudes and perceptions about the experience of accessing IPC and (6) challenges to attending IPC appointments. The authors also identified subthemes for most of the main themes.

Originality/value

This is the first study in rural Arizona to identify valuable insights into the experiences of people with SUDs accessing IPC, providing a foundation for future research in the region on care integration.

Randomized Trial of Reverse Colocated Integrated Care on Persons with Severe, Persistent Mental Illness in Southern Texas

BACKGROUND

Persons with severe, persistent mental illness (SPMI) are at high risk for poor health and premature mortality. Integrating primary care in a mental health center may improve health outcomes in a population with SPMI in a socioeconomically distressed region of the USA.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effects of reverse colocated integrated care on persons with SPMI and co-morbid chronic disease receiving behavioral health services at a local mental health authority located at the US-Mexico border.

DESIGN

Randomized trial evaluating the effect of a reverse colocated integrated care intervention among chronically ill adults.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were recruited at a clinic between November 24, 2015, and June 30, 2016.

INTERVENTIONS

Receipt of at least two visits with a primary care provider and at least one visit with a chronic care nurse or dietician, compared with usual care (behavioral health only).

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome was blood pressure. Secondary outcomes included HbA1c, BMI, total cholesterol, and depressive symptoms. Sociodemographic data were collected at baseline, and outcomes were measured at baseline and 6- and 12-month follow-ups.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 416 participants were randomized to the intervention (n = 249) or usual care (n = 167). Groups were well balanced on almost all baseline characteristics. At 12 months, intent-to-treat analysis showed intervention participants improved their systolic blood pressure (β = - 3.86, p = 0.04) and HbA1c (β = - 0.36, p = 0.001) compared with usual care participants when controlling for age, sex, and other baseline characteristics. No participants withdrew from the study due to adverse effects. Per-protocol analyses yielded similar results to intent-to-treat analyses and found a significantly protective effect on diastolic blood pressure. Older and diabetic populations differentially benefited from this intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Colocation and integration of behavioral health and primary care improved blood pressure and HbA1c after 1-year follow-up for persons with SPMI and co-morbid chronic disease in a US-Mexico border community.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov , Identifier: NCT03881657.