Generating psychotherapy breakthroughs: Transtheoretical strategies from population health psychology.

Over the past 40 years, few breakthroughs have dramatically increased the impacts of psychotherapy. There have been new and exciting therapies, but the research does not convincingly demonstrate that any recent or more established therapies produce greater impacts than 40 years ago. Seven strategies from the transtheoretical model that have produced breakthroughs in health psychology/population health are analyzed to illustrate how they can similarly generate breakthroughs in mental health outcomes. The first three strategies can enhance impacts by increasing the percentage of troubled populations entering and completing best-practice treatments: reach, recruit, and retain. The fourth strategy accords higher value to synergy than to specificity by generating more benefits from whole-health therapies that briefly treat the small number of behaviors that account for a large percentage of chronic disabilities and premature deaths. The fifth breakthrough strategy creates multiple synergistic changes within individuals; changing one problem behavior promotes the probabilities that individuals will change a second problem (coaction). The sixth strategy increases impacts by complementing psychologists with tailored technology that extends their influence into homes, schools, workplaces, and communities. The seventh strategy calls on researchers to test their innovations against best practices and to benchmark outcomes, like those found with depression. We conclude by advancing a framework that can generate more inclusive and effective psychotherapies by integrating individual health care with population health practices. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Systematic Review of the Impact of Behavioral Health Homes on Cardiometabolic Risk Factors for Adults With Serious Mental Illness.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examined the impact of health homes on cardiometabolic risk among adults with serious mental illness. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses procedures were used to conduct the systematic review. Databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between 1946 and August 2018 that compared health homes with a control condition (e.g., usual care and secondary data analyses using matched samples). Participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design criteria were used to assess study eligibility. Studies were assessed for methodological quality by using the Quality Assessment of Before and After Studies With No Control Group and the Quality Assessment of Controlled Intervention Studies. RESULTS: Eighteen studies (i.e., 11 observational studies, four quasi-experimental studies, and three randomized controlled trials) reported on 17 health homes. Most studies reported increases in receipt of screening for cardiometabolic risk factors and service use. There was a modest reduction in selected cardiometabolic risk factors among people with serious mental illness, but clinical outcomes varied widely among studies. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in cardiometabolic risk factors varied across the studies, and the clinical significance of these reductions was not clear. Peer support and self-management training may represent strategies to improve cardiometabolic risk factors. Colocation of services may not be enough to significantly affect cardiometabolic risk factors. Health homes that include standardized screening, peer support and self-management training, and intervention components that target interdependent risk factors may have a greater impact on clinical outcomes.

The clinician crowdsourcing challenge: using participatory design to seed implementation strategies.

BACKGROUND: In healthcare settings, system and organization leaders often control the selection and design of implementation strategies even though frontline workers may have the most intimate understanding of the care delivery process, and factors that optimize and constrain evidence-based practice implementation within the local system. Innovation tournaments, a structured participatory design strategy to crowdsource ideas, are a promising approach to participatory design that may increase the effectiveness of implementation strategies by involving end users (i.e., clinicians). We utilized a system-wide innovation tournament to garner ideas from clinicians about how to enhance the use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) within a large public behavioral health system. METHODS: Our innovation tournament occurred in three phases. First, we invited over 500 clinicians to share, through a web-based platform, their ideas regarding how their organizations could best support use of EBPs. Clinicians could rate and comment on ideas submitted by others. Second, submissions were judged by an expert panel (including behavioral scientists, system leaders, and payers) based on their rated enthusiasm for the idea. Third, we held a community-facing event during which the six clinicians who submitted winning ideas presented their strategies to 85 attendees representing a cross-section of clinicians and system and organizational leaders. RESULTS: We had a high rate of participation (12.3%), more than double the average rate of previous tournaments conducted in other settings (5%). A total of 65 ideas were submitted by 55 participants representing 38 organizations. The most common categories of ideas pertained to training (42%), financing and compensation (26%), clinician support and preparation tools (22%), and EBP-focused supervision (17%). The expert panel and clinicians differed on their ratings of the ideas, highlighting value of seeking input from multiple stakeholder groups when developing implementation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Innovation tournaments are a useful and feasible methodology for engaging end users, system leaders, and behavioral scientists through a structured approach to developing implementation strategies. The process and resultant strategies engendered significant enthusiasm and engagement from participants at all levels of a healthcare system. Research is needed to compare the effectiveness of strategies developed through innovation tournaments to strategies developed through design approaches.

Society of Behavioral Medicine position statement: Society of Behavioral Medicine supports oral cancer early detection by all healthcare providers.

In response to the increasing incidence of certain oral and oropharyngeal cancers, the Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM) calls on healthcare providers and legislators to expand awareness of oral and oropharyngeal cancer risk factors, increase early detection, and support policies that increase utilization of dental services. SBM supports the American Dental Association's 2017 guideline for evaluating potentially malignant oral cavity disorders and makes the following recommendations to healthcare providers and legislators. We encourage healthcare providers and healthcare systems to treat oral exams as a routine part of patient examination; communicate to patients about oral/oropharyngeal cancers and risk factors; encourage HPV vaccination for appropriate patients based on recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; support avoidance of tobacco use and reduction of alcohol consumption; and follow the current recommendations for evaluating potentially malignant oral cavity lesions. Because greater evidence is needed to inform practice guidelines in the primary care setting, we call for more research in collaborative health and dental services. We encourage legislators to support policies that expand Medicaid to cover adult dental services, increase Medicaid reimbursement for dental services, and require dental care under any modification of, or replacement of, the Affordable Care Act.

Pathways for translating behavioral medicine research to practice and policy.

The diversity of behavioral medicine, including investigators' disciplines, health conditions, settings, and intervention approaches, creates challenges for promoting the translation of research to practice and policy. Most papers on research translation focus on one pathway, so there is a need for a model that considers multiple pathways of research translation. The purpose is to propose a model of translating research to practice and policy that is broad enough to apply to many behavioral medicine scenarios and suggests options for behavioral medicine investigators to become engaged in research translation. This is a commentary, with examples drawn from scientific and gray literature. A model is proposed that describes five pathways of research translation: research, practice, business, policy, and public opinion. Target audiences, approaches, communication materials, and examples are suggested for each translation pathway. Resources are available for overcoming barriers to research translation. The main benefit of becoming engaged in research translation is a higher likelihood of health impact from the research. Researchers can choose one or more of the pathways of research translation that are suitable for their situation.

The National Physicians Cooperative: transforming fertility management in the cancer setting and beyond.

Once unimaginable, fertility management is now a nationally established part of cancer care in institutions, from academic centers to community hospitals to private practices. Over the last two decades, advances in medicine and reproductive science have made it possible for men, women and children to be connected with an oncofertility specialist or offered fertility preservation soon after a cancer diagnosis. The Oncofertility Consortium's National Physicians Cooperative is a large-scale effort to engage physicians across disciplines - oncology, urology, obstetrics and gynecology, reproductive endocrinology, and behavioral health - in clinical and research activities to enable significant progress in providing fertility preservation options to children and adults. Here, we review the structure and function of the National Physicians Cooperative and identify next steps.

Measuring Efficiency at the Interface of Behavioral and Physical Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Measures of efficiency in healthcare delivery, particularly between different parts of the healthcare system could potentially improve health resource utilization. We use a typology adapted from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to characterize current measures described in the literature by stakeholder perspective (payer, provider, patient, policy-maker), type of output (reduced utilization or improved outcomes) and input (physical, financial or both). AIMS OF THE STUDY: To systematically describe measures of healthcare efficiency at the interface of behavioral and physical healthcare and identify gaps in the literature base that could form the basis for further measure development. METHODS: We searched the Medline database for studies published in English in the last ten years with the terms 'efficiency', 'inefficiency', 'productivity', 'cost' or 'QALY' and 'mental' or 'behavioral' in the title or abstract. Studies on healthcare resource utilization, costs of care, or broader healthcare benefits to society, related to the provision of behavioral health care in physical health care settings or to people with physical health conditions or vice versa were included. RESULTS: 85 of 6,454 studies met inclusion criteria. These 85 studies described 126 measures of efficiency. 100 of these measured efficiency according to the perspective of the purchaser or provider, whilst 13 each considered efficiency from the perspective of society or the consumer. Most measures counted physical resources (such as numbers of therapy sessions) rather than the costs of these resources as inputs. Three times as many measures (95) considered service outputs as did quality outcomes (31). DISCUSSION: Measuring efficiency at the interface of behavioral and physical care is particularly difficult due to the number of relevant stakeholders involved, ambiguity over the definition of efficiency and the complexity of providing care for people with multimorbidity. Current measures at this interface concentrate on a limited range of outcomes. LIMITATIONS: We only searched one database and did not review the gray literature, nor solicit a call for relevant but unpublished work. We did not assess the methodological quality of the studies identified. IMPLICATION FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: Most measures of healthcare efficiency are currently viewed from the perspective of payers and providers, with very few studies addressing the benefits of healthcare to society or the individual interest of the consumer. One way this imbalance could be addressed is through much stronger involvement of consumers in measurement-development, for example, by an expansion in patient-reported outcome measures in assessing quality of care. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: Integrating behavioral and physical care is a major area of implementation as health systems in high income countries move from volume to value based care delivery. Measuring efficiency at this interface has the potential to incentivize and also evaluate integration efforts. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: There has been only one previous systematic review of efficiency measurement and none at the interface of behavioral and physical care. We identify gaps in the evidence base for efficiency measurement which could inform further research and measurement development.

Legislative and Policy Developments and Imperatives for Advancing the Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH) Model.

The Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH) practice model continues to gain converts among primary care and behavioral health professionals as the evidence supporting its effectiveness continues to accumulate. Despite a growing number of practices and organizations using the model effectively, widespread implementation has been hampered by outmoded policies and regulatory barriers. As policymakers and legislators begin to recognize the contributions that PCBH model services make to the care of complex patients and the expansion of access to those in need of behavioral health interventions, some encouraging policy initiatives are emerging and the policy environment is becoming more favorable to implementation of the PCBH model. This article outlines the necessity for policy change, exposing the policy issues and barriers that serve to limit the practice of the PCBH model; highlights innovative approaches some states are taking to foster integrated practice; and discusses the compatibility of the PCBH model with the nation's health care reform agenda. Psychologists have emerged as leaders in the design and implementation of PCBH model integration and are encouraged to continue to advance the model through the demonstration of efficient and effective clinical practice, participation in the expansion of an appropriately trained workforce, and advocacy for the inclusion of this practice model in emerging healthcare systems and value-based payment methodologies.

The Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH) Model: An Overview and Operational Definition.

The Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH) model is a prominent approach to the integration of behavioral health services into primary care settings. Implementation of the PCBH model has grown over the past two decades, yet research and training efforts have been slowed by inconsistent terminology and lack of a concise, operationalized definition of the model and its key components. This article provides the first concise operationalized definition of the PCBH model, developed from examination of multiple published resources and consultation with nationally recognized PCBH model experts. The definition frames the model as a team-based approach to managing biopsychosocial issues that present in primary care, with the over-arching goal of improving primary care in general. The article provides a description of the key components and strategies used in the model, the rationale for those strategies, a brief comparison of this model to other integration approaches, a focused summary of PCBH model outcomes, and an overview of common challenges to implementing the model.

Creating a Primary Care Workforce: Strategies for Leaders, Clinicians, and Nurses.

Many primary care clinics struggle with rapid implementation and systematic expansion of primary care behavioral health (PCBH) services. Often, an uneven course of program development is due to lack of attention to preparing clinic leadership, addressing operational factors, and training primary care providers (PCPs) and nurses. This article offers competency tools for clinic leaders, PCPs, and nurses to use in assessing their status and setting change targets. These tools were developed by researchers working to disseminate evidence-based interventions in primary care clinics that included fully integrated behavioral health consultants and were then used by early adaptors of the PCBH model. By deploying these strategies, both practicing and teaching clinics will take a big step forward in developing the primary care workforce needed for primary care teams, where the behavioral health needs of a patient of any age can be addressed at the time of need.

Toward a Unified Integration Approach: Uniting Diverse Primary Care Strategies Under the Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH) Model.

Primary care continues to be at the center of health care transformation. The Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH) model of service delivery includes patient-centered care delivery strategies that can improve clinical outcomes, cost, and patient and primary care provider satisfaction with services. This article reviews the link between the PCBH model of service delivery and health care services quality improvement, and provides guidance for initiating PCBH model clinical pathways for patients facing depression, chronic pain, alcohol misuse, obesity, insomnia, and social barriers to health.

Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH) Model Research: Current State of the Science and a Call to Action.

The Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH) model of service delivery is being used increasingly as an effective way to integrate behavioral health services into primary care. Despite its growing popularity, scientifically robust research on the model is lacking. In this article, we provide a qualitative review of published PCBH model research on patient and implementation outcomes. We review common barriers and potential solutions for improving the quantity and quality of PCBH model research, the vital data that need to be collected over the next 10 years, and how to collect those data.

The State and Future of the Primary Care Behavioral Health Model of Service Delivery Workforce.

The growth of the Primary Care Behavioral Health model (PCBH) nationally has highlighted and created a workforce development challenge given that most mental health professionals are not trained for primary care specialization. This work provides a review of the current efforts to retrain mental health professionals to fulfill roles as Behavioral Health Consultants (BHCs) including certificate programs, technical assistance programs, literature and on-the-job training, as well as detail the future needs of the workforce if the model is to sustainably proliferate. Eight recommendations are offered including: (1) the development of an interprofessional certification body for PCBH training criteria, (2) integration of PCBH model specific curricula in graduate studies, (3) integration of program development skill building in curricula, (4) efforts to develop faculty for PCBH model awareness, (5) intentional efforts to draw students to graduate programs for PCBH model training, (6) a national employment clearinghouse, (7) efforts to coalesce current knowledge around the provision of technical assistance to sites, and (8) workforce specific research efforts.

Behavioral Health Integration in Health Care Settings: Lessons Learned from a Pediatric Hospital Primary Care System.

Behavioral health integration within primary care has been evolving, but literature traditionally focuses on smaller scale efforts. We detail how behavioral health has been integrated across a large, urban pediatric hospital system's six primary care clinics (serving over 35,000 children annually and insured predominately through Medicaid) and discuss strategies for success in sustaining and expanding efforts to achieve effective integration of behavioral health into primary care. In a time span of 3 years, the clinics have implemented routine, universal behavioral health screening at well child visits, participated in a 15-month behavioral health screening quality improvement learning collaborative, and integrated the work of psychologists and psychiatrists. Additional work remains to be done in improving family engagement, further expanding services, and ensuring sustainability.

Behavioral Health Integration in Large Multi-group Pediatric Practice.

There is increasing interest in methods to improve access to behavioral health services for children and adolescents. Children's Community Pediatric Behavioral Health Service (CCPBHS) is an integrated behavioral health service whose method of (a) creating a leadership team with empowered administrative and clinical stakeholders who can act on a commitment to change and (b) having a clear mission statement with integrated administrative and clinical care processes can serve as a model for implementing integration efforts within the medical home. Community Pediatrics Behavioral Health Service (CPBHS) is a sustainable initiative that improved the utilization of physical health and behavioral health systems for youth and improved the utilization of evidence-based interventions for youth served in primary care.

Military and veteran health behavior research and practice: challenges and opportunities.

There are 2.1 million current military servicemembers and 21 million living veterans in the United States. Although they were healthier upon entering military service compared to the general U.S. population, in the longer term veterans tend to be of equivalent or worse health than civilians. One primary explanation for the veterans' health disparity is poorer health behaviors during or after military service, especially areas of physical activity, nutrition, tobacco, and alcohol. In response, the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs continue to develop, evaluate, and improve health promotion programs and healthcare services for military and veteran health behavior in an integrated approach. Future research and practice is needed to better understand and promote positive health behavior during key transition periods in the military and veteran life course. Also paramount is implementation and evaluation of existing interventions, programs, and policies across the population using an integrated and person centered approach.