An organizational readiness intervention and randomized controlled trial to test strategies for implementing substance use disorder treatment into primary care: SUMMIT study protocol

Integrated and collaborative care across the spectrum of alcohol-associated liver disease and alcohol use disorder

The public health impact of alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), a serious consequence of problematic alcohol use, and alcohol use disorder (AUD) is growing, with ALD becoming a major cause of alcohol-associated death overall and the leading indication for liver transplantation in the United States. Comprehensive care for ALD often requires treatment of AUD. Although there is a growing body of evidence showing that AUD treatment is associated with reductions in liver-related morbidity and mortality, only a minority of patients with ALD and AUD receive this care. Integrated and collaborative models that streamline both ALD and AUD care for patients with ALD and AUD are promising approaches to bridge this treatment gap and rely on multidisciplinary and interprofessional teams and partnerships. Here, we review the role of AUD care in ALD treatment, the effects of AUD treatment on liver-related outcomes, the impact of comorbid conditions such as other substance use disorders, obesity, and metabolic syndrome, and the current landscape of integrated and collaborative care for ALD and AUD in various treatment settings. We further review knowledge gaps and unmet needs that remain, including the role of precision medicine, the application of harm reduction approaches, the impact of health disparities, and the need for additional AUD treatment options, as well as further efforts to support implementation and dissemination.

Design of CLARO+ (Collaboration Leading to Addiction Treatment and Recovery from Other Stresses, Plus): A randomized trial of collaborative care to decrease overdose and suicide risk among patients with co-occurring disorders

BACKGROUND

The United States is mired in two intertwined epidemics of death from suicide and overdose. Opioid use disorder (OUD) and mental illness contribute to both, and individuals with co-occurring disorders (CODs) are a complex population at high risk. Although universal prevention makes sense from a public health perspective, medical and behavioral health providers often lack the time to proactively address these issues with all patients. In this study, we build upon a parent study called Collaboration Leading to Addiction Treatment and Recovery from Other Stresses (CLARO), a model of collaborative care in which care coordinators deliver preventative measures to high-risk patients and coordinate care with the patients' care team, with the goal of increasing MOUD retention and decreasing risk of suicide and overdose.

METHODS

CLARO+ adds intervention components on overdose prevention, recognition, and response training; lethal means safety counseling; and an effort to mail compassionate messages called Caring Contacts. Both CLARO and CLARO+ have been implemented at 17 clinics in New Mexico and California, and this study seeks to determine the difference in effectiveness between the two versions of the intervention. This paper describes the design protocol for CLARO+.

CONCLUSION

CLARO+ is an innovative approach that aims to supplement existing collaborative care with additional suicide and overdose prevention strategies.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov: NCT04559893.

The who, the what, and the how: A description of strategies and lessons learned to expand access to medications for opioid use disorder in rural America

Access to treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) in rural areas within the United States remains a challenge. Providers must complete 8-24 h of training to obtain the Drug Addiction Treatment Act (DATA) 2000 waiver to have the legal authority to prescribe buprenorphine for OUD. Over the last 4 years, we executed five dissemination and implementation grants funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to study and address barriers to providing Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment (MOUD), including psychosocial supports, in rural primary care practices in different states. We found that obtaining the DATA 2000 waiver is just one component of meaningful treatment using MOUD, and that the waiver provides a one-time benchmark that often does not address other significant barriers that providers face daily. In this commentary, we summarize our initiatives and the common lessons learned across our grants and offer recommendations on how primary care providers can be better supported to expand access to MOUD in rural America.

Aims, development, and early results of an interdisciplinary primary care initiative to address patient vulnerabilities

Addressing substance use disorders and social determinants of poor health at a population level is a major national healthcare priority. One promising model to improve healthcare outcomes for patients with these conditions is the Vulnerable Veteran Innovative Patient-Aligned Care Team (PACT) Initiative, or VIP - an interdisciplinary, team-based primary care delivery model designed to address the needs of vulnerable patients in the Veterans Health Administration. VIP establishes a single, integrated primary care environment for the management of substance use disorders, mental illness, social determinants of poor health, and complexities in care resulting from the co-occurrence of these conditions. We describe the origination, goals, and evolution of VIP to provide an example of how clinics and health systems can address vulnerable patient populations within a primary care clinic framework. While ongoing evaluation will be essential to understand its impact on patient outcomes and its sustainability and scalability in the future, VIP holds promise as a novel model to improve care for patients with addiction and other vulnerabilities.

The acceptability and feasibility of a pilot study examining the impact of a mobile technology-based intervention informed by behavioral economics to improve HIV knowledge and testing frequency among Latinx sexual minority men and transgender women

Background

We developed a novel intervention that uses behavioral economics incentives and mobile-health text messages to increase HIV knowledge and testing frequency among Latinx sexual minority men and Latinx transgender women. Here we provide a theoretically-grounded assessment regarding the intervention’s acceptability and feasibility.

Methods

We conducted 30-min exit interviews with a stratified sample of participants (n = 26 Latinx sexual minority men, 15 Latinx transgender women), supplemented with insights from study staff (n = 6). All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and translated for a content analysis using Dedoose. Cohen’s Kappa was 89.4% across coded excerpts. We evaluated acceptability based on how participants cognitively and emotionally reacted to the intervention and whether they considered it to be appropriate. We measured feasibility based on resource, scientific and process assessments (e.g., functionality of text messaging service, feedback on study recruitment procedures and surveys).

Results

Regarding acceptability, most participants clearly understood the intervention as a program to receive information about HIV prevention methods through text messages. Participants who did not complete the intervention shared they did not fully understand what it entailed at their initial enrollment, and thought it was a one-time engagement and not an ongoing program. Though some participants with a higher level of education felt the information was simplistic, most appreciated moving beyond a narrow focus on HIV to include general information on sexually transmitted infections; drug use and impaired sexual decision-making; and differential risks associated with sexual positions and practices. Latinx transgender women in particular appreciated receiving information about Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis. While participants didn’t fully understand the exact chances of winning a prize in the quiz component, most enjoyed the quizzes and chance of winning a prize. Participants appreciated that the intervention required a minimal time investment. Participants shared that the intervention was generally culturally appropriate. Regarding feasibility, most participants reported the text message platform worked well though inactive participants consistently said technical difficulties led to their disengagement. Staff shared that clients had varying reactions to being approached while being tested for HIV, with some unwilling to enroll and others being very open and curious about the program. Both staff and participants relayed concerns regarding the length of the recruitment process and study surveys.

Conclusions

Our theoretically-grounded assessment shows the intervention is both acceptable and feasible.

Trial registration

The trial was registered on May 5, 2017 with the ClinicalTrials.gov registry [NCT03144336].

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-10335-5.

Commentary on the Culture of Prevention

Despite significant progress in prevention science over the past 30 years in developing evidence-based interventions and policies, there has not been equal success in attracting support from policymakers and gaining acceptance by communities. In recognition of this gap, the editors of Prevention Science put out a call to scientists to help clarify and define the concept of a "culture of prevention." Such a culture would influence the creation of an infrastructure for implementing and sustaining the most effective strategies informed by research. The journal call stated a culture of prevention was a "general orientation or readiness of a group of people… to address problems by using a preventive, rather than a reactive approach." This commentary examines the concept demonstrated in the array of papers presented here in which the "culture of prevention" is applied in different contexts-occupational safety and health, substance use, school, governmental, community, around problem behaviors, and violence. It is important to note that the papers represent perspectives and experiences from several countries, including some cross-national experiences providing an international framework. While a final definition awaits further research, the commentary summarizes important elements that might constitute that evolving definition and pave the way for the implementation of more effective prevention programming.

Availability of Medications for the Treatment of Alcohol and Opioid Use Disorder in the USA

Despite high mortality rates due to opioid overdose and excessive alcohol consumption, medications for the treatment of alcohol and opioid use disorder have not been widely used in the USA. This paper provides an overview of the literature on the availability of alcohol and opioid used disorder medications in the specialty substance use disorder treatment system, other treatment settings and systems, and among providers with a federal waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. We also present the most current data on the availability of alcohol and opioid use disorder medications in the USA. These estimates show steady growth in availability of opioid use disorder medications over the past decade and a decline in availability of alcohol use disorder medications. However, overall use of medications in the USA remains low. In 2017, only 16.3% of specialty treatment programs offered any single medication for alcohol use disorder treatment and 35.5% offered any single medication for opioid use disorder treatment. Availability of buprenorphine-waivered providers has increased significantly since 2002. However, geographic disparities in access to buprenorphine remain. Some of the most promising strategies to increase availability of alcohol and opioid use disorder medications include the following: incorporating substance use disorder training in healthcare education programs, educating the substance use disorder workforce about the benefits of medication treatment, reducing stigma surrounding the use of medications, implementing medications in primary care settings, implementing integrated care models, revising regulations on methadone and buprenorphine, improving health insurance coverage of medications, and developing novel medications for the treatment of substance use disorder.

Strategies to increase implementation of pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorders: a structured review of care delivery and implementation interventions

Background

Effective medications for treating alcohol use disorders (AUD) are available but underutilized. Multiple barriers to their provision have been identified, and optimal strategies for addressing and overcoming barriers to use of medications for AUD treatment remain elusive. We conducted a structured review of published care delivery and implementation studies evaluating interventions that aimed to increase medication treatment for patients with AUD to identify interventions and component strategies that were most effective.

Methods

We reviewed literature through May 2018 and used networking to identify intervention studies with AUD medication receipt reported as a primary or secondary outcome. Studies were identified as care delivery studies, characterized by patient-level recruitment and willingness to be randomized to candidate treatment options, and implementation studies, characterized by inclusion of all patients treated at sites involved in the study. Each identified study was independently coded by two investigators for strategies used, guided by a published taxonomy of implementation strategies. All authors reviewed coding discrepancies and revised codes based on consensus. After reaching internal consensus, we solicited feedback from lead investigators on studies to code additional strategies. We reviewed implementation strategies used across studies to assess their relationship with medication receipt, as well as alcohol use outcomes, as available.

Results

Nine studies were identified: four RCTs of care delivery interventions, four quasi-experimental evaluations of large-scale implementation interventions, and one quasi-experimental evaluation of a targeted single-site implementation intervention. Implementation strategies used were variable across studies; no strategy was universally used. Effects of the interventions on receipt of AUD pharmacotherapy and alcohol use outcomes also varied. Three of four care delivery interventions resulted in increased receipt of AUD medications, but only one of these three improved alcohol use outcomes. One large-scale and one single-site implementation intervention were associated with increased AUD medication receipt, and these studies did not assess alcohol use outcomes. Patterns of implementation strategies did not clearly distinguish studies that successfully increased use of pharmacotherapy versus those that did not.

Conclusions

Our review did not reveal strategies most effective for implementing AUD medications. Interventions designed to overcome identified barriers may have missed the mark, or differences in the intensity or targets of strategies may matter more than differences in strategies. Further research is needed to understand effective implementation methods and to better understand patient-level perspective, preferences and barriers to receipt of medications.

Initiation and engagement as mechanisms for change caused by collaborative care in opioid and alcohol use disorders

BACKGROUND

To assess the mechanism by which a collaborative care (CC) intervention improves self-reported abstinence among primary care patients with opioid and alcohol use disorders (OAUD) compared to treatment as usual.

METHODS

Secondary data analysis of SUMMIT, a randomized controlled trial of CC for OAUD. Participants were 258 patients with OAUD receiving primary care at a multi-site Federally Qualified Health Center. Using a mediation analysis decomposition of a total effect into a mediated and a direct effect, we examined the effect of CC on abstinence at six months, attributable to the HEDIS treatment initiation and engagement measures for the total sample, for individuals with alcohol use disorders alone, and for those with a co-morbid opioid use disorder.

RESULTS

Although the CC intervention led to an increase in both initiation and engagement, among the full sample, only initiation mediated the effect of the intervention on abstinence (3.8%, CI=[0.4%, 8.3%]; 32% proportion of the total effect). In subgroup analyses, among individuals with comorbid alcohol and opioid use disorders, almost 100% of the total effect was mediated by engagement, but the effect was not significant. This was not observed among the alcohol use disorder only group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among primary care patients with OAUDs, treatment initiation partially mediated the effect of CC on abstinence at 6-months. The current study emphasizes the importance of primary care patients returning for a second substance-use related visit after identification. CC may work differently for people with co-morbid opioid use disorders vs. alcohol use disorders alone.

Predictors of treatment initiation for alcohol use disorders in primary care

BACKGROUND

We identified predictors of receiving treatment (brief therapy [BT] and/or extended-release injectable naltrexone [XR-NTX]) for the treatment of alcohol use disorders (AUDs) in primary care. We also examined the relationship between receiving BT and XR-NTX.

METHODS

Secondary data analysis of SUMMIT, a randomized controlled trial of collaborative care. Participants were 290 individuals with AUDs who reported no past 30-day opioid use and who were receiving primary care at a multi-site Federally Qualified Health Center. Bivariate and multivariate analyses examined predictors of BT and/or XR-NTX.

RESULTS

Thirty-two percent (N = 93) received either BT or XR-NTX, 28% (N = 82) received BT and 13% (N = 37) received XR-NTX; 9% (N = 26) received both BT and XR-NTX. Older age, white race, talking with a professional about alcohol use and having more negative consequences all predicted receipt of evidence-based treatment; being homeless was a negative predictor. The predictors of receiving BT included not being homeless and previously talking with a professional; the predictors of receiving XR-NTX included older age, white race and experiencing more negative consequences. In 80% of those who received both BT and XR-NTX, receipt of BT preceded XR-NTX.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient factors were important predictors of receiving primary-care based AUD treatment and differed by type of treatment received. Receiving BT was associated with subsequent use of XR-NTX and may be associated with a longer duration of XR-NTX treatment. Providers should consider these findings when considering ways to increase primary-care based AUD treatment.

Sustaining alcohol and opioid use disorder treatment in primary care: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Efforts to integrate substance use disorder treatment into primary care settings are growing. Little is known about how well primary care settings can sustain treatment delivery to address substance use following the end of implementation support.

METHODS

Data from two clinics operated by one multi-site federally qualified health center (FQHC) in the US, including administrative data, staff surveys, interviews, and focus groups, were used to gather information about changes in organizational capacity related to alcohol and opioid use disorder (AOUD) treatment delivery during and after a multi-year implementation intervention was executed. Treatment practices from the intervention period were compared to practices after the intervention period to examine whether the practices were sustained. Data from staff surveys and interviews were used to examine the factors related to sustainment.

RESULTS

The two clinics sustained multiple components of AOUD care 1 year following the end of implementation support, including care coordination, psychotherapy, and medication-assisted treatment. Some of the practices were modified over time, for example, screening became less frequent by design, while use of care coordination and psychotherapy for AOUDs expanded. Participants identified staff training and funding for medications as key challenges to sustaining treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Following a multi-year implementation intervention, a large FQHC continued to deliver AOUD treatment. Access to external funding and staff support appeared to be critical elements for sustaining care over time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01810159.

Effects of motivational interviewing fidelity on substance use treatment engagement in primary care

OBJECTIVE

Primary care (PC) may be an opportune setting to engage patients with opioid and alcohol use disorders (OAUDs) in treatment. We examined whether motivational interviewing (MI) fidelity was associated with engagement in primary care-based OAUD treatment in an integrated behavioral health setting.

METHODS

We coded 42 first session therapy recordings and examined whether therapist MI global ratings and behavior counts were associated with patient engagement, defined as the patient receiving one shot of extended-release injectable naltrexone or any combination of at least two additional behavioral therapy, sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone prescriptions, or OAUD-related medical visits within 30days of their initial behavioral therapy visit.

RESULTS

Autonomy/support global ratings were higher in the non-engaged group (OR=0.28, 95%CI: 0.09-0.93; p=0.037). No other MI fidelity ratings were significantly associated with engagement.

CONCLUSION

We did not find positive associations between MI fidelity and engagement in primary care-based OAUD treatment. More research with larger samples is needed to examine how providing autonomy/support to patients who are not ready to change may affect engagement.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Training providers to strategically use MI to reinforce change as opposed to the status quo is needed. This may be especially important in primary care where patients may not be specifically seeking help for their OAUDs.

Assessing and improving organizational readiness to implement substance use disorder treatment in primary care: findings from the SUMMIT study

BACKGROUND

Millions of people with substance use disorders (SUDs) need, but do not receive, treatment. Delivering SUD treatment in primary care settings could increase access to treatment because most people visit their primary care doctors at least once a year, but evidence-based SUD treatments are underutilized in primary care settings. We used an organizational readiness intervention comprised of a cluster of implementation strategies to prepare a federally qualified health center to deliver SUD screening and evidence-based treatments (extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) for alcohol use disorders, buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP/NX) for opioid use disorders and a brief motivational interviewing/cognitive behavioral -based psychotherapy for both disorders). This article reports the effects of the intervention on key implementation outcomes.

METHODS

To assess changes in organizational readiness we conducted pre- and post-intervention surveys with prescribing medical providers, behavioral health providers and general clinic staff (N = 69). We report on changes in implementation outcomes: acceptability, perceptions of appropriateness and feasibility, and intention to adopt the evidence-based treatments. We used Wilcoxon signed rank tests to analyze pre- to post-intervention changes.

RESULTS

After 18 months, prescribing medical providers agreed more that XR-NTX was easier to use for patients with alcohol use disorders than before the intervention, but their opinions about the effectiveness and ease of use of BUP/NX for patients with opioid use disorders did not improve. Prescribing medical providers also felt more strongly after the intervention that XR-NTX for alcohol use disorders was compatible with current practices. Opinions of general clinic staff about the appropriateness of SUD treatment in primary care improved significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with implementation theory, we found that an organizational readiness implementation intervention enhanced perceptions in some domains of practice acceptability and appropriateness. Further research will assess whether these factors, which focus on individual staff readiness, change over time and ultimately predict adoption of SUD treatments in primary care.

Internalized stigma as an independent risk factor for substance use problems among primary care patients: Rationale and preliminary support

BACKGROUND

Little is known about internalized stigma among primary care patients, and whether the presence of internalized stigma is related to the severity of substance use problems independent of substance use-related variables. We sought to examine the relationship between internalized stigma and substance use problems among primary care patients with opioid or alcohol use disorders (OAUDs).

METHODS

We present baseline data from 393 primary care patients who were enrolled in a study of collaborative care for OAUDs. Regression analyses examined the relationship between internalized stigma and substance use problems, controlling for demographics, psychiatric comorbidity, and quantity/frequency of use.

RESULTS

The majority of participants reported thinking, at least sometimes, that they "have permanently screwed up" their lives (60%), and felt "ashamed" (60%), and "out of place in the world" (51%) as a result of their opioid or alcohol use. Higher internalized stigma was significantly related to more substance use problems (β=2.68, p<0.01), even after the effects of covariates were accounted for. Stigma added 22%, out of 51% total variance explained, leading to a significant improvement in prediction of substance use problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Among this group of primary care patients with OAUDs, rates of internalized stigma were comparable to those reported in specialty substance use treatment settings. Consistent with extant specialty care literature, our results suggest that internalized stigma may be a unique contributor that is associated with treatment outcomes, such as substance use problems, among primary care patients with OAUDs.

Demographic and Mental Health Characteristics of Individuals Who Present to Community Health Clinics With Substance Misuse

Introduction:

Community health clinics (CHCs) are an opportune setting to identify and treat substance misuse. This study assessed the characteristics of patients who presented to a CHC with substance misuse.

Methods:

Personnel at a large CHC administered a 5-question screener to patients between June 3, 2014, and January 15, 2016, to assess past 3-month alcohol use, prescription opioid misuse, or illicit drug use. We stratified screen-positive patients into 4 diagnostic groups: (1) probable alcohol use disorder (AUD) and no comorbid opioid use disorder (OUD); (2) probable heroin use disorder; (3) probable prescription OUD, with or without comorbid AUD; and (4) no probable substance use disorder. We describe substance use and mental health characteristics of screen-positive patients and compare the characteristics of patients in the diagnostic groups.

Results:

Compared to the clinic population, screen-positive patients (N = 733) included more males (P < .0001) and had a higher prevalence of probable bipolar disorder (P < .0001) and schizophrenia (P < .0001). Eighty-seven percent of screen-positive patients had probable AUD or OUD; only 7% were currently receiving substance use treatment. The prescription opioid and heroin groups had higher rates of past bipolar disorder and consequences of mental health conditions than the alcohol only or no diagnosis groups (P < .0001).

Conclusions:

Patients presenting to CHCs who screen positive for alcohol or opioid misuse have a high likelihood of having an AUD or OUD, with or without a comorbid serious mental illness. Community health clinics offering substance use treatment may be an important resource for addressing unmet need for substance use treatment and comorbid mental illness.

Barriers to integrating the continuum of care for opioid and alcohol use disorders in primary care: A qualitative longitudinal study

Untreated substance use disorders remain a pervasive public health problem in the United States, especially among medically-underserved and low-income populations, with opioid and alcohol use disorders (OAUD) being of particular concern. Primary care is an underutilized resource for delivering treatment for OAUD, but little is known about the organizational capacity of community-based primary care clinics to integrate treatment for OAUD. The objective of this study was to use an organizational capacity framework to examine perceived barriers to implementing the continuum of care for OAUD in a community-based primary care organization over three time points: pre-implementation (preparation), early implementation (practice), and full implementation. Clinic administrators and medical and mental health providers from two clinics participated in interviews and focus groups. Barriers were organized by type and size, and are presented over the three time points. Although some barriers persisted, most barriers decreased over time, and respondents reported feeling more efficacious in their ability to successfully deliver OAUD treatment. Findings contribute to the needed literature on building capacity to implement OAUD treatment in primary care and suggest that while barriers may be sizable and inevitable, successful implementation is still possible.

Buprenorphine physician supply: Relationship with state-level prescription opioid mortality

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder but the supply of buprenorphine physicians is currently inadequate to address the nation's prescription opioid crisis. Perception of need due to rising opioid overdose rates is one possible reason for physicians to adopt buprenorphine. This study examined associations between rates of growth in buprenorphine physicians and prescription opioid overdose mortality rates in US states.

METHODS

The total buprenorphine physician supply and number of physicians approved to treat 100 patients (per 100,000 population) were measured from June 2013 to January 2016. States were divided into two groups: those with rates of prescription opioid overdose mortality in 2013 at or above the median (>5.5 deaths per 100,000 population) and those with rates below the median. State-level growth curves were estimated using mixed-effects regression to compare rates of growth between high and low overdose states.

RESULTS

The total supply and the supply of 100-patient buprenorphine physicians grew significantly (total supply from 7.7 to 9.9 per 100,000 population, p<0.001; 100-patient supply from 2.2 to 3.4 per 100,000 population, p<0.001). Rates of growth were significantly greater in high overdose states when compared to low overdose states (total supply b=0.033, p<0.01; 100-patient b=0.022, p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The magnitude of the US prescription opioid crisis, as measured by the rate of prescription opioid overdose mortality, is associated with growth in the number of buprenorphine physicians. Because this observational design cannot establish causality, further research is needed to elucidate the factors influencing physicians' decisions to begin prescribing buprenorphine.

Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions

BACKGROUND

Shared care has been used in the management of many chronic conditions with the assumption that it delivers better care than primary or specialty care alone; however, little is known about the effectiveness of shared care.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of shared care health service interventions designed to improve the management of chronic disease across the primary/specialty care interface. This is an update of a previously published review.Secondary questions include the following:1. Which shared care interventions or portions of shared care interventions are most effective?2. What do the most effective systems have in common?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library to 12 October 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

One review author performed the initial abstract screen; then two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating the effectiveness of shared care interventions for people with chronic conditions in primary care and community settings. The intervention was compared with usual care in that setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of results when possible and carried out a narrative synthesis of the remainder of the results. We presented the results in a 'Summary of findings' table, using a tabular format to show effect sizes for all outcome types.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 studies of shared care interventions for chronic disease management (N = 18,859), 39 of which were RCTs, two CBAs and one an NRCT. Of these 42 studies, 41 examined complex multi-faceted interventions and lasted from six to 24 months. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from moderate to high certainty. Results showed probably few or no differences in clinical outcomes overall with a tendency towards improved blood pressure management in the small number of studies on shared care for hypertension, chronic kidney disease and stroke (mean difference (MD) 3.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.68 to 5.25)(based on moderate-certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved, particularly in response to depression treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.62; six studies, N = 1708) and recovery from depression (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.57 to 4.26; 10 studies, N = 4482) in studies examining the 'stepped care' design of shared care interventions (based on high-certainty evidence). Investigators noted modest effects on mean depression scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.29, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.20; six studies, N = 3250). Differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), processes of care and participation and default rates in shared care services were probably limited (based on moderate-certainty evidence). Studies probably showed little or no difference in hospital admissions, service utilisation and patient health behaviours (with evidence of moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that shared care improves depression outcomes and probably has mixed or limited effects on other outcomes. Methodological shortcomings, particularly inadequate length of follow-up, may account in part for these limited effects. Review findings support the growing evidence base for shared care in the management of depression, particularly stepped care models of shared care. Shared care interventions for other conditions should be developed within research settings, with account taken of the complexity of such interventions and awareness of the need to carry out longer studies to test effectiveness and sustainability over time.

Psychoactive medications and disengagement from office based opioid treatment (obot) with buprenorphine

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of psychoactive medications (PAMs) use in patients enrolled in Office Based Opioid Treatment (OBOT) and its association with engagement in this care is largely unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the use of PAMs, including those medications with emerging evidence of misuse ("emerging PAMs" - gabapentin, clonidine and promethazine) among patients on buprenorphine, and its association with disengagement from OBOT.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of adults on buprenorphine from January 2002 to February 2014. The association between use of PAMs and 6-month disengagement from OBOT was examined using multivariable logistic regression models. A secondary analysis exploring time-to-disengagement was conducted using Cox regression models.

RESULTS

At OBOT entry, 43% of patients (562/1308) were prescribed any PAM; including 17% (223/1308) on an emerging PAM. In separate adjusted analyses, neither the presence of any PAM (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.07, 95% CI [0.78, 1.46]) nor an emerging PAM (AOR 1.28 [0.95, 1.74]) was significantly associated with 6-month disengagement. The results were similar for the Cox model (any PAM (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 1.16, 95% CI [1.00, 1.36]), emerging PAM (AHR 1.18 [0.98, 1.41])). Exploratory analyses suggested gabapentin (AHR 1.30 [1.05-1.62]) and clonidine (AHR 1.33 [1.01-1.73]) specifically, may be associated with an overall shorter time to disengagement.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychoactive medication use is common among patients in buprenorphine treatment. No significant association was found between the presence of any psychoactive medications, including medications with emerging evidence of misuse, and 6-month disengagement from buprenorphine treatment.

Implementing the Chronic Care Model for Opioid and Alcohol Use Disorders in Primary Care

BACKGROUND

Effective treatments for opioid and alcohol use disorders (OAUD) are available, yet only a small percentage of those needing treatment receive it.

OBJECTIVES

This paper describes a collaborative planning and development process used by researchers and community providers to apply the chronic care model to the delivery of treatment for OAUD in primary care. The goal was to develop and implement an intervention that would support the delivery of brief psychotherapy and medication-assisted treatment (MAT).

METHODS

We used focus groups and interviews to identify barriers and facilitators, and organized the results using the chronic care model. We then identified implementation strategies, the intended organizational changes, and the materials necessary to carry out each strategy, and pilot-tested the process.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

We describe the methods and outcomes of the collaborative planning and development process, and discuss implications of the work for the integration of substance use treatment with primary care.

Implementation Science and Employer Disability Practices: Embedding Implementation Factors in Research Designs

Purpose For work disability research to have an impact on employer policies and practices it is important for such research to acknowledge and incorporate relevant aspects of the workplace. The goal of this article is to summarize recent theoretical and methodological advances in the field of Implementation Science, relate these to research of employer disability management practices, and recommend future research priorities. Methods The authors participated in a year-long collaboration culminating in an invited 3-day conference, "Improving Research of Employer Practices to Prevent Disability", held October 14-16, 2015, in Hopkinton, MA, USA. The collaboration included a topical review of the literature, group conference calls to identify key areas and challenges, drafting of initial documents, review of industry publications, and a conference presentation that included feedback from peer researchers and a question/answer session with a special panel of knowledge experts with direct employer experience. Results A 4-phase implementation model including both outer and inner contexts was adopted as the most appropriate conceptual framework, and aligned well with the set of process evaluation factors described in both the work disability prevention literature and the grey literature. Innovative interventions involving disability risk screening and psychologically-based interventions have been slow to gain traction among employers and insurers. Research recommendations to address this are : (1) to assess organizational culture and readiness for change in addition to individual factors; (2) to conduct process evaluations alongside controlled trials; (3) to analyze decision-making factors among stakeholders; and (4 ) to solicit input from employers and insurers during early phases of study design. Conclusions Future research interventions involving workplace support and involvement to prevent disability may be more feasible for implementation if organizational decision-making factors are imbedded in research designs and interventions are developed to take account of these influences.