Kathryn Kanzler Appolonio

Purpose: Veteran use of Veteran Health Administration (VHA)‐purchased community care (CC) for mental health has accelerated at a faster pace compared to both primary care and emergency services. Few studies have conducted an in‐depth exploration of rural Veteran experience using community mental health. This paper focuses on the voices of rural Veterans, with the aim of exploring advantages and disadvantages for Veterans receiving mental health services through CC. Methods: We conducted interviews with rural Veterans, using purposive sampling to identify Veterans through the Integrated Veteran Care Consolidated Data Sets who were enrolled in VHA medical centers in the southcentral United States, had received CC for mental health, and were living in a rural area. Interviews asked Veterans about their experience with receiving community mental health care. We used thematic analysis to organize quotes and present salient themes from interviews. Findings: We interviewed 30 Veterans. We highlight four findings: (1) Most Veterans were pleased with the mental health care they received through the community. (2) Some Veterans reported instances of unprofessionalism and recognized a lack of military expertise among community providers. (3) Rural Veterans continue to face access barriers and noted limited availability of community mental health providers. (4) Difficulty with navigating multiple health systems impacted some rural Veterans’ continuity of care. Conclusions: While CC has improved access to mental health care for Veterans, there are concerns related to the quality of care and continuity gaps for rural Veterans.

Aims: This study characterizes the diabetes burden across USA–Mexico border states (1990–2021) by examining current patterns, temporal trends, binational comparisons, and demographic variations. Methods: Using Global Burden of Disease 2021 estimates, we calculated age-standardized rates for mortality, prevalence, incidence, and DALYs. We applied joinpoint regression, age-period-cohort models, and decomposition analyses to characterize trends and identify drivers of burden change, comparing border versus non-border states within and between countries. Results: Border states showed 9-14% higher burden than non-border states. Despite similar prevalence (9,010 vs 8,298 per 100,000) and incidence (435 vs 426 per 100,000), Mexican border states had nearly five times higher mortality (67.2 vs 12.0 per 100,000) and three times higher DALYs (2,355 vs 896 per 100,000) than USA counterparts. YLLs comprised 64.3% of Mexican burden versus 31.4% in USA. From 1990-2021, USA border states showed rising incidence (+3.04% annually) with declining mortality (- 1.28%), while Mexican states demonstrated stable-to-declining incidence (-0.15%) with plateauing mortality post-2009. Males experienced higher mortality in both countries. Conclusions: Diabetes occurrence has converged across the border, yet outcomes remain profoundly unequal. This demands coordinated binational surveillance and policy action. Focus on prevention in the US and diabetes care management in Mexico to reduce health disparities.

Addressing U.S. health disparities in behavioral health care requires innovative solutions to expand access beyond the traditional specialty behavioral health (BH) service model. One evidence-based strategy to increase access is task shifting, whereby tasks usually reserved for licensed clinicians are delegated to less specialized but uniquely capable health workers. Health care systems in the United States have been slow to adopt this approach, despite the widespread success of task shifting in other countries. However, two large government health care systems have employed unique task-shifting models for decades, integrating nonclinician health workers into BH settings: the Defense Health Agency (behavioral health technicians) and the Veterans Health Administration (peer specialists). This conceptual article provides overviews of these successful approaches. Challenges and opportunities, and the potential for other U.S. health care systems to adopt task shifting for behavioral health care with paraprofessionals such as community health workers (CHWs), are discussed. CHWs and other paraprofessionals are ideally situated to increase access to behavioral health care, but barriers must be overcome. Recommendations are provided based on lessons from these federal system approaches to task shifting. Expanding task-shifting paradigms as the Defense Health Agency and Veterans Health Administration have done may be vital to reaching more people who could benefit from BH intervention and prevention strategies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Background: Over 100 million Americans have chronic pain and most obtain their treatment in primary care clinics. However, evidence-based behavioral treatments targeting pain-related disability are not typically provided in these settings. Therefore, this study sought to: 1) evaluate implementation of a brief evidence-based treatment, Focused Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (FACT-CP), delivered by an integrated behavioral health consultant (BHC) in primary care; and 2) preliminarily explore primary (self-reported physical disability) and secondary treatment outcomes (chronic pain acceptance and engagement in valued activities). Methods: This mixed-methods pilot randomized controlled trial included twenty-six participants with non-cancer chronic pain being treated in primary care (54% women; 46% Hispanic/Latino). Active participants completed a 30-min individual FACT-CP visit followed by 3 weekly 60-min group visits and a booster visit 2 months later. An enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU) control group received 4 handouts about pain management based in cognitive-behavioral science. Follow-up research visits occurred during and after treatment, at 12 weeks (booster visit), and at 6 months. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect qualitative data after the last research visit. General linear mixed regression models with repeated measures explored primary and secondary outcomes. Results: The study design and FACT-CP intervention were feasible and acceptable. Quantitative analyses indicate at 6-month follow-up, self-reported physical disability significantly improved pre-post within the FACT-CP arm (d = 0.64); engagement in valued activities significantly improved within both the FACT-CP (d = 0.70) and ETAU arms (d = 0.51); and chronic pain acceptance was the only outcome significantly different between arms (d = 1.04), increased in the FACT-CP arm and decreased in the ETAU arm. Qualitative data analyses reflected that FACT-CP participants reported acquiring skills for learning to live with pain, consistent with increased chronic pain acceptance. Conclusion: Findings support that FACT-CP was acceptable for patients with chronic pain and feasible for delivery in a primary care setting by a BHC. Results provide preliminary evidence for improved physical functioning after FACT-CP treatment. A larger pragmatic trial is warranted, with a design based on data gathered in this pilot. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04978961 (27/07/2021).

Pragmatic trials testing the effectiveness of interventions under “real world” conditions help bridge the research-to-practice gap. Such trial designs are optimal for studying the impact of implementation efforts, such as the effectiveness of integrated behavioral health clinicians in primary care settings. Formal pragmatic trials conducted in integrated primary care settings are uncommon, making it difficult for researchers to anticipate the potential pitfalls associated with balancing scientific rigor with the demands of routine clinical practice. This paper is based on our experience conducting the first phase of a large, multisite, pragmatic clinical trial evaluating the implementation and effectiveness of behavioral health consultants treating patients with chronic pain using a manualized intervention, brief cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (BCBT-CP). The paper highlights key choice points using the PRagmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) tool. We discuss the dilemmas of pragmatic research that we faced and offer recommendations for aspiring integrated primary care pragmatic trialists.

Introduction ‘Task-shifting’ or ‘task-sharing’ is an effective strategy for delivering behavioural healthcare in lower resource communities. However, little is known regarding the actual steps (methods) in carrying out a task-shifting project. This paper presents a protocol for a systematic review that will identify steps in adapting an evidence-based psychological treatment for delivery by lay/non-licenced personnel. Methods and analysis A systematic review of peer-reviewed, published studies involving a non-licenced, non-specialist (eg, community health worker, promotor/a, peer and lay person) delivering an evidence-based psychological treatment for adults will be conducted. Study design of selected articles must include a statistical comparison (eg, randomised controlled trials, quasiexperimental trials, pre–post designs and pragmatic trials). Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SCOPUS, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, APA PsycInfo and Google Scholar will be searched from 2000 to 2020. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias (RoB 2) tool, and publication bias will be evaluated with the Cochrane GRADE approach. A narrative synthesis will be conducted for all included studies, and a summary table following Proctor’s framework for operationalising implementation strategies will be included. This protocol was developed following the 2015 guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Ethics and dissemination This review will analyse data from published studies only; thus, it will not require institutional board review. Findings will be presented at conferences, to the broader community via the Community Health Worker Translational Advisory Board and social media, and the final systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Background: Manualized cognitive and behavioral therapies are increasingly used in primary care environments to improve nonpharmacological pain management. The Brief Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Pain (BCBT-CP) intervention, recently implemented by the Defense Health Agency for use across the military health system, is a modular, primary care–based treatment program delivered by behavioral health consultants integrated into primary care for patients experiencing chronic pain. Although early data suggest that this intervention improves functioning, it is unclear whether the benefits of BCBT-CP are sustained. The purpose of this paper is to describe the methods of a pragmatic clinical trial designed to test the effect of monthly telehealth booster contacts on treatment retention and long-term clinical outcomes for BCBT-CP treatment, as compared with BCBT-CP without a booster, in 716 Defense Health Agency beneficiaries with chronic pain. Design: A randomized pragmatic clinical trial will be used to examine whether telehealth booster contacts improve outcomes associated with BCBT-CP treatments. Monthly booster contacts will reinforce BCBT-CP concepts and the home practice plan. Outcomes will be assessed 3, 6, 12, and 18 months after the first appointment for BCBT-CP. Focus groups will be conducted to assess the usability, perceived effectiveness, and helpfulness of the booster contacts. Summary: Most individuals with chronic pain are managed in primary care, but few are offered biopsychosocial approaches to care. This pragmatic brief trial will test whether a pragmatic enhancement to routine clinical care, monthly booster contacts, results in sustained functional changes among patients with chronic pain receiving BCBT-CP in primary care.

Background: The NIH-DOD-VA Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC) supports 11 pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) on nonpharmacological approaches to management of pain and co-occurring conditions in U.S. military and veteran health organizations. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group is supported by a separately funded Coordinating Center and was formed with the goal of developing respectful and productive partnerships that will maximize the ability to generate trustworthy, internally valid findings directly relevant to veterans and military service members with pain, front-line primary care clinicians and health care teams, and health system leaders. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group provides a forum to promote success of the PCTs in which principal investigators and/or their designees discuss various stakeholder engagement strategies, address challenges, and share experiences. Herein, we communicate features of meaningful stakeholder engagement in the design and implementation of pain management pragmatic trials, across the PMC. Design: Our collective experiences suggest that an optimal stakeholder-engaged research project involves understanding the following: i) Who are research stakeholders in PMC trials? ii) How do investigators ensure that stakeholders represent the interests of a study’s target treatment population, including individuals from underrepresented groups?, and iii) How can sustained stakeholder relationships help overcome implementation challenges over the course of a PCT? Summary: Our experiences outline the role of stakeholders in pain research and may inform future pragmatic trial researchers regarding methods to engage stakeholders effectively.

Integrated primary care settings are ideal locations for treatment of posttraumatic stress concerns as primary care is the principal access point for mental health treatment in the United States. The COVID-19 global pandemic will increase the necessity of posttraumatic stress-related psychological care for vulnerable populations and frontline providers through traditional and virtual methods; integrated primary care settings are rapidly adapting to meet this need. Integrating more behavioral health clinicians into primary care clinics will provide better access to whole-person care when it is needed most. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).