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

Nativity and the risk of opioid use disorder among Hispanic/Latinx women in primary care in Los Angeles, CA

BACKGROUND

While rates of opioid use disorder (OUD) are lower among women compared to men, nativity may have disproportionate impacts on OUD risk among Hispanic/Latinx women but remain understudied.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between country of birth and reported OUD risk among low-income Hispanic/Latinx women in primary care in Los Angeles, CA.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of 1189 non-pregnant, Hispanic/Latinx women attending two federally qualified health centers in Los Angeles between March and July 2013. OUD risk was assessed using the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST), and moderate-to-high risk was defined as ASSIST score ≥ 4.

RESULTS

Overall, 4.2% of women (n = 49) were at moderate-to-high risk for OUD. Risk for OUD was higher among US-born women compared to foreign-born women (6.7 vs. 1.7%; p < .01), those who reported 2+ chronic medical conditions (p < .01), and those who were at moderate-to-high risk for other substance use disorders (p < .01). In multivariable logistic regression analyses, being U.S.-born was independently associated with being at moderate-to-high risk for OUD among Hispanic/Latinx women as compared to those who were foreign-born (AOR = 2.8; 95% CI 1.2-6.8).

CONCLUSION

Among low-income Hispanic/Latinx women presenting to primary care, one in twenty patients is at-risk for OUD. The odds of moderate-high risk of OUD were three times as high in US-born compared to foreign-born women, and higher among those with chronic medical conditions and those at risk of other substance use disorders. Gender-specific and culturally-tailored screening for OUD may inform overdose prevention interventions for US-born Hispanic/Latinx women.

Effect of a Co-Located Bridging Recovery Initiative on Hospital Length of Stay Among Patients With Opioid Use Disorder: The BRIDGE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Co-located bridge clinics aim to facilitate a timely transition to outpatient care for inpatients with opioid use disorder (OUD); however, their effect on hospital length of stay (LOS) and postdischarge outcomes remains unclear.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of a co-located bridge clinic on hospital LOS among inpatients with OUD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This parallel-group randomized clinical trial recruited 335 adult inpatients with OUD seen by an addiction consultation service and without an existing outpatient clinician to provide medication for OUD (MOUD) between November 25, 2019, and September 28, 2021, at a tertiary care hospital affiliated with a large academic medical center and its bridge clinic.

Intervention

The bridge clinic included enhanced case management before and after hospital discharge, MOUD prescription, and referral to a co-located bridge clinic. Usual care included MOUD prescription and referrals to community health care professionals who provided MOUD.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the index admission LOS. Secondary outcomes, assessed at 16 weeks, were linkage to health care professionals who provided MOUD, MOUD refills, same-center emergency department (ED) and hospital use, recurrent opioid use, quality of life (measured by the Schwartz Outcome Scale-10), overdose, mortality, and cost. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis.

Results

Of 335 participants recruited (167 randomized to the bridge clinic and 168 to usual care), the median age was 38.0 years (IQR, 31.9-45.7 years), and 194 (57.9%) were male. The median LOS did not differ between arms (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.65-1.37]; P = .74). At the 16-week follow-up, participants referred to the bridge clinic had fewer hospital-free days (AOR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.32-0.92]), more readmissions (AOR, 2.17 [95% CI, 1.25-3.76]), and higher care costs (AOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.51-3.35]), with no differences in ED visits (AOR, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.68-1.94]) or deaths (AOR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.08-2.72]) compared with those receiving usual care. Follow-up calls were completed for 88 participants (26.3%). Participants referred to the bridge clinic were more likely to receive linkage to health care professionals who provided MOUD (AOR, 2.37 [95% CI, 1.32-4.26]) and have more MOUD refills (AOR, 6.17 [95% CI, 3.69-10.30]) and less likely to experience an overdose (AOR, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.03-0.41]).

Conclusions and Relevance

This randomized clinical trial found that among inpatients with OUD, bridge clinic referrals did not improve hospital LOS. Referrals may improve outpatient metrics but with higher resource use and expenditure. Bending the cost curve may require broader community and regional partnerships.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04084392.

Patient Perspectives on Adapting Collaborative Care for Opioid Use Disorder With Depression and/or Post-traumatic Stress Disorder

BACKGROUND

Individuals with opioid use disorder and cooccurring mental health concerns experience heightened consequences and lower rates of treatment access. Engaging patients as research partners alongside health systems is critical for tailoring care for this population. Collaborative care is promising for the treatment of co-occurring disordersObjectives: We used a community-participatory partnered research1 approach to partner with patients, providers, and clinic administrators to adapt and implement a collaborative care intervention for co-occurring disorders in primary care.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative interviews with patients to assess their feedback on the proposed collaborative care model before intervention implementation. A first round of interviews was conducted to obtain patient feedback on our adaptation ideas (n = 11). The team then incorporated these suggestions, beta-tested the intervention with participants (n = 9), and assessed participant feedback. Data were analyzed using rapid content analysis and then implemented by health systems.

RESULTS

Patient feedback underscored the need for the care coordinator (CC) to be trained in patient engagement and stigma reduction and to provide assistance around socioeconomic barriers and relapse. Patients shared that it was helpful to have the CC address co-occurring disorders, emphasized the need for the CC to be flexible, and expressed that tele-health was acceptable. Patient feedback was integrated in subsequent CC training with health systems.

CONCLUSIONS

The present research demonstrates the feasibility and usefulness of incorporating patient perspectives into treatment design and implementation in health systems using community-participatory partnered research .

Comparing organization-focused and state-focused financing strategies on provider-level reach of a youth substance use treatment model: a mixed-method study

BACKGROUND

Financial barriers in substance use disorder service systems have limited the widespread adoption-i.e., provider-level reach-of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for youth substance use disorders. Reach is essential to maximizing the population-level impact of EBPs. One promising, but rarely studied, type of implementation strategy for overcoming barriers to EBP reach is financing strategies, which direct financial resources in various ways to support implementation. We evaluated financing strategies for the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA) EBP by comparing two US federal grant mechanisms, organization-focused and state-focused grants, on organization-level A-CRA reach outcomes.

METHOD

A-CRA implementation took place through organization-focused and state-focused grantee cohorts from 2006 to 2021. We used a quasi-experimental, mixed-method design to compare reach between treatment organizations funded by organization-focused versus state-focused grants (164 organizations, 35 states). Using administrative training records, we calculated reach as the per-organization proportion of trained individuals who received certification in A-CRA clinical delivery and/or supervision by the end of grant funding. We tested differences in certification rate by grant type using multivariable linear regression models that controlled for key covariates (e.g., time), and tested threats to internal validity from our quasi-experimental design through a series of sensitivity analyses. We also drew on interviews and surveys collected from the treatment organizations and (when relevant) interviews with state administrators to identify factors that influenced reach.

RESULTS

The overall certification rates were 27 percentage points lower in state-focused versus organization-focused grants (p = .01). Sensitivity analyses suggested these findings were not explained by confounding temporal trends nor by organizational or state characteristics. We did not identify significant quantitative moderators of reach outcomes, but qualitative findings suggested certain facilitating factors were more influential for organization-focused grants (e.g., strategic planning) and certain barrier factors were more impactful for state-focused grants (e.g., states finding it difficult to execute grant activities).

DISCUSSION

As the first published comparison of EBP reach outcomes between financing strategies, our findings can help guide state and federal policy related to financing strategies for implementing EBPs that reduce youth substance use. Future work should explore contextual conditions under which different financing strategies can support the widespread implementation of EBPs for substance use disorder treatment.

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.

Healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of primary healthcare integration: a scoping review of qualitative evidence

BACKGROUND

Primary healthcare (PHC) integration has been promoted globally as a tool for health sector reform and universal health coverage (UHC), especially in low-resource settings. However, for a range of reasons, implementation and impact remain variable. PHC integration, at its simplest, can be considered a way of delivering PHC services together that sometimes have been delivered as a series of separate or 'vertical' health programmes. Healthcare workers are known to shape the success of implementing reform interventions. Understanding healthcare worker perceptions and experiences of PHC integration can therefore provide insights into the role healthcare workers play in shaping implementation efforts and the impact of PHC integration. However, the heterogeneity of the evidence base complicates our understanding of their role in shaping the implementation, delivery, and impact of PHC integration, and the role of contextual factors influencing their responses.

OBJECTIVES

To map the qualitative literature on healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of PHC integration to characterise the evidence base, with a view to better inform future syntheses on the topic.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 28 July 2020. We did not search for grey literature due to the many published records identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies with qualitative and mixed methods designs that reported on healthcare worker perceptions and experiences of PHC integration from any country. We excluded settings other than PHC and community-based health care, participants other than healthcare workers, and interventions broader than healthcare services. We used translation support from colleagues and Google Translate software to screen non-English records. Where translation was not feasible we categorised these records as studies awaiting classification.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For data extraction, we used a customised data extraction form containing items developed using inductive and deductive approaches. We performed independent extraction in duplicate for a sample on 10% of studies allowed for sufficient agreement to be reached between review authors. We analysed extracted data quantitatively by counting the number of studies per indicator and converting these into proportions with additional qualitative descriptive information. Indicators included descriptions of study methods, country setting, intervention type, scope and strategies, implementing healthcare workers, and client target population.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 184 studies for analysis based on 191 included papers. Most studies were published in the last 12 years, with a sharp increase in the last five years. Studies mostly employed methods with cross-sectional qualitative design (mainly interviews and focus group discussions), and few used longitudinal or ethnographic (or both) designs. Studies covered 37 countries, with close to an even split in the proportions of high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There were gaps in the geographical spread for both HICs and LMICs and some countries were more dominant, such as the USA for HICs, South Africa for middle-income countries, and Uganda for low-income countries. Methods were mainly cross-sectional observational studies with few longitudinal studies. A minority of studies used an analytical conceptual model to guide the design, implementation, and evaluation of the integration study. The main finding was the various levels of diversity found in the evidence base on PHC integration studies that examined healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences. The review identified six different configurations of health service streams that were being integrated and these were categorised as: mental and behavioural health; HIV, tuberculosis (TB) and sexual reproductive health; maternal, women, and child health; non-communicable diseases; and two broader categories, namely general PHC services, and allied and specialised services. Within the health streams, the review mapped the scope of the interventions as full or partial integration. The review mapped the use of three different integration strategies and categorised these as horizontal integration, service expansion, and service linkage strategies. The wide range of healthcare workers who participated in the implementation of integration interventions was mapped and these included policymakers, senior managers, middle and frontline managers, clinicians, allied healthcare professionals, lay healthcare workers, and health system support staff. We mapped the range of client target populations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review provides a systematic, descriptive overview of the heterogeneity in qualitative literature on healthcare workers' perceptions and experience of PHC integration, pointing to diversity with regard to country settings; study types; client populations; healthcare worker populations; and intervention focus, scope, and strategies. It would be important for researchers and decision-makers to understand how the diversity in PHC integration intervention design, implementation, and context may influence how healthcare workers shape PHC integration impact. The classification of studies on the various dimensions (e.g. integration focus, scope, strategy, and type of healthcare workers and client populations) can help researchers to navigate the way the literature varies and for specifying potential questions for future qualitative evidence syntheses.

Healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of primary healthcare integration: a scoping review of qualitative evidence

BACKGROUND

Primary healthcare (PHC) integration has been promoted globally as a tool for health sector reform and universal health coverage (UHC), especially in low-resource settings. However, for a range of reasons, implementation and impact remain variable. PHC integration, at its simplest, can be considered a way of delivering PHC services together that sometimes have been delivered as a series of separate or 'vertical' health programmes. Healthcare workers are known to shape the success of implementing reform interventions. Understanding healthcare worker perceptions and experiences of PHC integration can therefore provide insights into the role healthcare workers play in shaping implementation efforts and the impact of PHC integration. However, the heterogeneity of the evidence base complicates our understanding of their role in shaping the implementation, delivery, and impact of PHC integration, and the role of contextual factors influencing their responses.

OBJECTIVES

To map the qualitative literature on healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of PHC integration to characterise the evidence base, with a view to better inform future syntheses on the topic.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 28 July 2020. We did not search for grey literature due to the many published records identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies with qualitative and mixed methods designs that reported on healthcare worker perceptions and experiences of PHC integration from any country. We excluded settings other than PHC and community-based health care, participants other than healthcare workers, and interventions broader than healthcare services. We used translation support from colleagues and Google Translate software to screen non-English records. Where translation was not feasible we categorised these records as studies awaiting classification.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For data extraction, we used a customised data extraction form containing items developed using inductive and deductive approaches. We performed independent extraction in duplicate for a sample on 10% of studies allowed for sufficient agreement to be reached between review authors. We analysed extracted data quantitatively by counting the number of studies per indicator and converting these into proportions with additional qualitative descriptive information. Indicators included descriptions of study methods, country setting, intervention type, scope and strategies, implementing healthcare workers, and client target population.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 184 studies for analysis based on 191 included papers. Most studies were published in the last 12 years, with a sharp increase in the last five years. Studies mostly employed methods with cross-sectional qualitative design (mainly interviews and focus group discussions), and few used longitudinal or ethnographic (or both) designs. Studies covered 37 countries, with close to an even split in the proportions of high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There were gaps in the geographical spread for both HICs and LMICs and some countries were more dominant, such as the USA for HICs, South Africa for middle-income countries, and Uganda for low-income countries. Methods were mainly cross-sectional observational studies with few longitudinal studies. A minority of studies used an analytical conceptual model to guide the design, implementation, and evaluation of the integration study. The main finding was the various levels of diversity found in the evidence base on PHC integration studies that examined healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences. The review identified six different configurations of health service streams that were being integrated and these were categorised as: mental and behavioural health; HIV, tuberculosis (TB) and sexual reproductive health; maternal, women, and child health; non-communicable diseases; and two broader categories, namely general PHC services, and allied and specialised services. Within the health streams, the review mapped the scope of the interventions as full or partial integration. The review mapped the use of three different integration strategies and categorised these as horizontal integration, service expansion, and service linkage strategies. The wide range of healthcare workers who participated in the implementation of integration interventions was mapped and these included policymakers, senior managers, middle and frontline managers, clinicians, allied healthcare professionals, lay healthcare workers, and health system support staff. We mapped the range of client target populations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review provides a systematic, descriptive overview of the heterogeneity in qualitative literature on healthcare workers' perceptions and experience of PHC integration, pointing to diversity with regard to country settings; study types; client populations; healthcare worker populations; and intervention focus, scope, and strategies. It would be important for researchers and decision-makers to understand how the diversity in PHC integration intervention design, implementation, and context may influence how healthcare workers shape PHC integration impact. The classification of studies on the various dimensions (e.g. integration focus, scope, strategy, and type of healthcare workers and client populations) can help researchers to navigate the way the literature varies and for specifying potential questions for future qualitative evidence syntheses.

Non-overdose acute care hospitalizations for opioid use disorder among commercially-insured adults: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Acute care inpatient admissions outside of psychiatric facilities have been increasingly identified as a critical touchpoint for opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment. We sought to describe non-opioid overdose hospitalizations with documented OUD and examine receipt of post-discharge outpatient buprenorphine.

METHODS

We examined acute care hospitalizations with an OUD diagnosis in any position within US commercially-insured adults age 18-64 years (IBM MarketScan claims, 2013-2017), excluding opioid overdose diagnoses. We included individuals with ≥ 6 months of continuous enrollment prior to the index hospitalization and ≥ 10 days following discharge. We described demographic and hospitalization characteristics, including outpatient buprenorphine receipt within 10 days of discharge.

RESULTS

Most (87%) hospitalizations with documented OUD did not include opioid overdose. Of 56,717 hospitalizations (49,959 individuals), 56.8% had a primary diagnosis other than OUD, 37.0% had documentation of an alcohol-related diagnosis code, and 5.8% end in a self-directed discharge. Where opioid use disorder was not the primary diagnosis, 36.5% were due to other substance use disorders, and 23.1% were due to psychiatric disorders. Of all non-overdose hospitalizations who had prescription medication insurance coverage and who were discharged to an outpatient setting (n = 49, 237), 8.8% filled an outpatient buprenorphine prescription within 10 days of discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-overdose OUD hospitalizations often occur with substance use disorders and psychiatric disorders, and very few are followed by timely outpatient buprenorphine. Addressing the OUD treatment gap during hospitalization may include implementing medication for OUD for inpatients with a broad range of diagnoses.

Integration of pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder treatment in primary care settings: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) represents the most prevalent addiction in the United States. Integration of AUD treatment in primary care settings would expand care access. The objective of this scoping review is to examine models of AUD treatment in primary care that include pharmacotherapy (acamprosate, disulfiram, naltrexone).

METHODS

The team undertook a search across MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science on May 21, 2021. Eligibility criteria included: patient population ≥ 18 years old, primary care-based setting, US-based study, presence of an intervention to promote AUD treatment, and prescription of FDA-approved AUD pharmacotherapy. Study design was limited to controlled trials and observational studies. We assessed study bias using a modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Rating Framework quality rating scheme.

RESULTS

The qualitative synthesis included forty-seven papers, representing 25 primary studies. Primary study sample sizes ranged from 24 to 830,825 participants and many (44 %) were randomized controlled trials. Most studies (80 %) included a nonpharmacologic intervention for AUD: 56 % with brief intervention, 40 % with motivational interviewing, and 12 % with motivational enhancement therapy. A plurality of studies (48 %) included mixed pharmacologic interventions, with administration of any combination of naltrexone, acamprosate, and/or disulfiram. Of the 47 total studies included, 68 % assessed care initiation and engagement. Fewer studies (15 %) explored practices surrounding screening for or diagnosing AUD. Outcome measures included receipt of pharmacotherapy and alcohol consumption, which about half of studies included (53 % and 51 %, respectively). Many of these outcomes showed significant findings in favor of integrated care models for AUD.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care settings may be associated with improved process and outcome measures of care. Future research should seek to understand the varied experiences across care integration models.

Medication for opioid use disorder in the Arab World: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a global public health concern. The standard of care for OUD involves treatment using medications such as buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone. No known review exists to assess the contextual factors associated with medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in the Arab World. This systematic review serves as an implementation science study to address this research gap and improve the uptake of MOUD in the Arab World.

METHODS

Systematic searches of Medline, PsycINFO, and EMBASE, and a citation analysis, were used to identify peer-reviewed articles with original data on MOUD in the Arab World. Quality assessment was conducted using the CASP appraisal tools, and main findings were extracted and coded according to the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework.

RESULTS

652 research articles were identified, and 10 met inclusion criteria for final review. Four studies considered health-systems aspects of MOUD administration, such as cost-effectiveness, the motivations for and impact of national MOUD policies, the types of social, political, and scientific advocacy that led to the adoption of MOUD in Arab countries, and the challenges limiting its wide-scale adoption in the Arab World. Six papers considered MOUD at individual and group patient levels by evaluating patient quality of life, addiction severity, patient satisfaction, and patient perspectives on opioid agonist therapy.

CONCLUSION

Despite financial and geographic barriers that limit access to MOUD in the Arab World, this review found MOUD to be cost-effective and associated with positive health outcomes for OUD patients in the Arab World. MOUD can be successfully established and scaled to the national level in the Arab context, and strong coalitions of health practitioners can lobby to establish MOUD programs in Arab countries. Still, the relative novelty of MOUD in this context precludes an abundance of research to address its long-term delivery in the Arab World.

Brief alcohol interventions in U.S. medical settings: A systematic review of the implementation literature

This systematic review provides a synthesis of the literature on brief alcohol intervention (BAI) implementation in medical settings. We utilized the Proctor et al. (2011) taxonomy of eight implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability) to organize and describe the qualitative and quantitative literature regarding BAI implementation. An electronic search of the PubMed database identified 25 articles that met inclusion criteria. The study team independently assessed all articles for methodological quality, with the majority of studies rated as weak to moderate. Descriptive and narrative review of the included articles identified penetration and acceptability as the two most commonly reported implementation outcomes. Studies rarely reported other outcomes (e.g., fidelity, cost, sustainability, adoption). On average, studies utilized approximately six implementation strategies to facilitate implementation, with education (96%), quality management (64%), and planning (56%) strategies the most frequently reported. Promising evidence exists that patients and providers are accepting of BAI implementation efforts and implementation efforts are helpful in expanding the reach of BAIs. A theory-informed approach to selecting implementation strategies may enhance implementation success in future work. When reporting on implementation, all studies should provide detailed BAI descriptions and strategies to enhance replication efforts. We suggest study designs that balance practical outcomes with methodological rigor to maximize the quality of future studies and better inform implementation efforts.

Evolving Models of Integrated Behavioral Health and Primary Care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Mental and physical disorders commonly co-occur leading to higher morbidity and mortality in people with mental and substance use disorders (collectively called behavioral health disorders). Models to integrate primary and behavioral health care for this population have not yet been implemented widely across health systems, leading to efforts to adapt models for specific subpopulations and mechanisms to facilitate more widespread adoption.

RECENT FINDINGS

Using examples from the UK and USA, we describe recent advances to integrate behavioral and primary care for new target populations including people with serious mental illness, people at the extremes of life, and for people with substance use disorders. We summarize mechanisms to incentivize integration efforts and to stimulate new integration between health and social services in primary care. We then present an outline of recent enablers for integration, concentrating on changes to funding mechanisms, developments in quality outcome measurements to promote collaborative working, and pragmatic guidance aimed at primary care providers wishing to enhance provision of behavioral care. Integrating care between primary care and behavioral health services is a complex process. Established models of integrated care are now being tailored to target specific patient populations and policy initiatives developed to encourage adoption in particular settings. Wholly novel approaches to integrate care are significantly less common. Future efforts to integrate care should allow for flexibility and innovation around implementation, payment models that support delivery of high value care, and the development of outcome measures that incentivize collaborative working practices.