Are we being equitable enough? Lessons learned from sites lost in an implementation trial.

Background: There is a growing interest in practice-based implementation research, yet too often research prioritizes and is most successful in academic settings. During a national implementation trial to evaluate the effectiveness of Collaborative Care for co-occurring opioid use and mental health disorders, we lost three of our 11 participating implementation sites, all representing community sites. Method: To better understand needed supports for implementation trial participation, we conducted exit interviews (n = 5) with key staff at these community sites. Interview transcripts were double-coded and analyzed using Rapid Assessment Process. Qualitative themes were iteratively reviewed by the study team. Results: Three themes emerged characterizing challenges for community sites, including that: (1) research threatens sites' most precious resource-staff; (2) staff lack comfort with and skills for research; and (3) research participation in its current form does not offer a clear return on investment. Conclusions: Learnings from this work illuminate some of the barriers community sites face when trying to participate in multisite implementation research. An undercurrent of participant perspectives was the belief that community sites like theirs are just not set up to successfully participate in clinical trial research, including population-based implementation trials. Future implementation trials should consider strategies that disrupt traditional approaches, increasing the equitable inclusion of diverse practice settings in implementation research.

There is a growing interest in research that reflects community settings. Yet too often, research is most successful in academic settings. During a national implementation trial to evaluate the effectiveness of Collaborative Care for co-occurring opioid use and mental health disorders, we lost three of our 11 participating implementation sites, all representing community sites. To better understand their perspectives, we conducted exit interviews (n = 5) with staff at these community sites. Interview transcripts were double-coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. Analysis identified three themes: (1) research threatens sites' most precious resource­staff; (2) staff lack comfort with and skills for research, and (3) research participation in its current form does not offer a clear return on investment. Community sites face many barriers to participating in implementation research trials. Future trials should consider ways to disrupt traditional approaches and increase the equitable inclusion of community settings in implementation research.

Optimizing Patient Engagement in Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder: Primary Care Team Perspectives on Influencing Factors.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder (OUD) care engagement rates in primary care (PC) settings are often low. Little is known about PC team experiences when delivering OUD treatment and potential factors that influence their capacity to engage patients in treatment. Exploring PC team experiences may inform needed supports that can optimize OUD care delivery and improve outcomes for patients with OUD. OBJECTIVE: We explored multidisciplinary PC team perspectives on barriers and facilitators to engaging patients in OUD treatment. DESIGN: Qualitative study using in-depth interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care clinical teams. APPROACH: We conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 35) with PC team members involved in OUD care delivery, recruited using a combination of criterion and maximal variation sampling. Data collection and analysis were informed by existing theoretical literature about patient engagement, specifically that patient engagement is influenced by factors across individual (patient, provider), interpersonal (patient-provider), and health system domains. Interviews were professionally transcribed and doubled-coded using a coding schema based on the interview guide while allowing for emergent codes. Coding was iteratively reviewed using a constant comparison approach to identify themes and verified with participants and the full study team. KEY RESULTS: Analysis identified five themes that impact PC team ability to engage patients effectively, including limited patient contact (e.g., phone, text) in between visits, varying levels of provider confidence to navigate OUD treatment discussions, structural factors (e.g., schedules, productivity goals) that limited provider time, the role of team-based approaches in lessening discouragement and feelings of burnout, and lack of shared organizational vision for reducing harms from OUD. CONCLUSIONS: While the capacity of PC teams to engage patients in OUD care is influenced across multiple levels, some of the most promising opportunities may involve addressing system-level factors that limit PC team time and collaboration and promoting organizational alignment on goals for OUD treatment.

Primary care team perspectives on approaches to engaging patients in treatment for opioid use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Engagement is a critical component of successful treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, rates of patient engagement in OUD treatment, especially in outpatient settings, are variable and often low. Little is known about the specific strategies members of primary care teams use to initiate and encourage ongoing participation in OUD treatment. In a national cohort of primary care clinics in the U.S., we explored the perspectives of primary care team members on the meaning of and approaches to OUD treatment engagement. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 providers from multidisciplinary primary care teams in an existing national cohort of 13 clinics across seven states. Teams were delivering OUD treatment via the Collaborative Care Model, a model that combines primary care providers (PCP), behavioral health care managers (BHCM) and consulting psychiatric providers (CPP) in a structured way to provide patient-centered, team-based, and measurement-based care. Interview participants included 14 PCPs, 13 BHCMs, and 8 CPPs. Interviews asked open-ended questions about provider experiences and practices that aided or hindered patient engagement in OUD treatment. Interview transcripts were double-coded by trained qualitative researchers and analyzed using a combination of deductive and inductive approaches to identify themes. RESULTS: Two themes emerged that describe provider perspectives on the meaning of engagement: 1) qualifying engagement by the volume of contact with patients, and 2) the need for more multidimensional measures of engagement. Six themes emerged that characterized provider engagement practices: 1) creating an environment of disclosure, 2) normalizing OUD treatment, 3) offering gentle but persistent outreach, 4) providing human connection and encouragement, 5) tailoring treatment to patient needs, and 6) avoiding stigmatizing responses. Analysis identified multiple replicable strategies that providers used to support these engagement practices. CONCLUSIONS: Providers consistently apply a range of strategies when trying to engage patients in OUD treatment. Specific engagement strategies used embodied compassion and pragmatism, hallmarks of patient-centered care. Further research is needed to understand the impact of scaling engagement approaches across all care settings.

Sequenced Treatment Effectiveness for Posttraumatic Stress (STEPS) Trial: A protocol for a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial with baseline results.

BACKGROUND: There have only been two efficacy trials reporting a head-to-head comparison of medications and psychotherapy for PTSD, and neither was conducted in primary care. Therefore, this protocol paper describes a pragmatic trial that compares outcomes of primary care patients randomized to initially receive a brief trauma-focused psychotherapy or a choice of three antidepressants. In addition, because there are few trials examining the effectiveness of subsequent treatments for patients not responding to the initial treatment, this pragmatic trial also compares the outcomes of those switching or augmenting treatments. METHOD: Patients screening positive for PTSD (n = 700) were recruited from the primary care clinics of 7 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) and 8 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers and randomized in the ratio 1:1:2 to one of three treatment sequences: 1) selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) followed by augmentation with Written Exposure Therapy (WET), 2) SSRI followed by a switch to serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), or 3) WET followed by a switch to SSRI. Participants complete surveys at baseline, 4 months, and 8 months. The primary outcome is PTSD symptom severity as measured by the PTSD Checklist (PCL-5). RESULTS: Average PCL-5 scores (M = 52.8, SD = 11.1) indicated considerable severity. The most common bothersome traumatic event for VA enrollees was combat (47.8%), and for FQHC enrollees was other (28.2%), followed by sexual assault (23.4%), and child abuse (19.8%). Only 22.4% were taking an antidepressant at baseline. CONCLUSION: Results will help healthcare systems and clinicians make decisions about which treatments to offer to patients.

Veteran Experiences With an mHealth App to Support Measurement-Based Mental Health Care: Results From a Mixed Methods Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Mental health conditions are highly prevalent among US veterans. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is committed to enhancing mental health care through the integration of measurement-based care (MBC) practices, guided by its Collect-Share-Act model. Incorporating the use of remote mobile apps may further support the implementation of MBC for mental health care. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate veteran experiences with Mental Health Checkup (MHC), a VHA mobile app to support remote MBC for mental health. METHODS: Our mixed methods sequential explanatory evaluation encompassed mailed surveys with veterans who used MHC and follow-up semistructured interviews with a subset of survey respondents. We analyzed survey data using descriptive statistics. We then compared responses between veterans who indicated having used MHC for ≥3 versus <3 months using χ2 tests. We analyzed interview data using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We received 533 surveys (533/2631, for a 20% response rate) and completed 20 interviews. Findings from these data supported one another and highlighted 4 key themes. (1) The MHC app had positive impacts on care processes for veterans: a majority of MHC users overall, and a greater proportion who had used MHC for ≥3 months (versus <3 months), agreed or strongly agreed that using MHC helped them be more engaged in their health and health care (169/262, 65%), make decisions about their treatment (157/262, 60%), and set goals related to their health and health care (156/262, 60%). Similarly, interviewees described that visualizing progress through graphs of their assessment data over time motivated them to continue therapy and increased self-awareness. (2) A majority of respondents overall, and a greater proportion who had used MHC for ≥3 months (versus <3 months), agreed/strongly agreed that using MHC enhanced their communication (112/164, 68% versus 51/98, 52%; P=.009) and rapport (95/164, 58% versus 42/98, 43%; P=.02) with their VHA providers. Likewise, interviewees described how MHC helped focus therapy time and facilitated trust. (3) However, veterans also endorsed some challenges using MHC. Among respondents overall, these included difficulty understanding graphs of their assessment data (102/245, 42%), not receiving enough training on the app (73/259, 28%), and not being able to change responses to assessment questions (72/256, 28%). (4) Interviewees offered suggestions for improving the app (eg, facilitating ease of log-in, offering additional reminder features) and for increasing adoption (eg, marketing the app and its potential advantages for veterans receiving mental health care). CONCLUSIONS: Although experiences with the MHC app varied, veterans were positive overall about its use. Veterans described associations between the use of MHC and engagement in their own care, self-management, and interactions with their VHA mental health providers. Findings support the potential of MHC as a technology capable of supporting the VHA's Collect-Share-Act model of MBC.

Trauma exposure correlates among patients receiving care in federally qualified health centers.

Over 80% of adults in the general population experience trauma. Rates of patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are high in primary care settings and are likely to be even higher in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Trauma exposure has been linked to psychiatric symptoms and physical health comorbidities, though little research has focused on FQHC patients. This study addresses this by examining clinical and sociodemographic correlates of specific trauma types among FQHC patients. We analyzed secondary data from patients who screened positive for PTSD and were receiving health care in FQHCs in a clinical trial (N = 978). Individuals who did versus did not experience a specific trauma type were compared using between-group tests. In the sample, 91.3% of participants were exposed to a DSM-5 Criterion A traumatic event, with 79.6% experiencing two or more trauma types. Witnessing a life-threatening event (57.3%) and physical assault (55.7%) were the most common traumatic experiences. Physical health comorbidities and worse physical health functioning were associated with a higher likelihood of exposure to all trauma types, with effect sizes larger than PTSD, ds = 0.78-1.35. Depressive and anxiety symptoms were also associated with a higher likelihood of experiencing nearly all trauma types to a lesser magnitude. People of color, OR = 2.45, and individuals experiencing financial inequities, OR = 1.73, had higher odds of experiencing serious accidents as well as other trauma types. The findings highlight the need for trauma-informed care, including routine trauma and PTSD screening, for FQHC patients.

Similarities and Differences Between Pragmatic Trials and Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trials.

Pragmatism in clinical trials is focused on increasing the generalizability of research findings for routine clinical care settings. Hybridism in clinical trials (i.e., assessing both clinical effectiveness and implementation success) is focused on speeding up the process by which evidence-based practices are developed and adopted into routine clinical care. Even though pragmatic trial methodologies and implementation science evolved from very different disciplines, Pragmatic Trials and Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trials share many similar design features. In fact, these types of trials can easily be conflated, creating the potential for investigators to mislabel their trial type or mistakenly use the wrong trial type to answer their research question. Blurred boundaries between trial types can hamper the evaluation of grant applications, the scientific interpretation of findings, and policy-making. Acknowledging that most trials are not pure Pragmatic Trials nor pure Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trials, there are key differences in these trial types and they answer very different research questions. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the similarities and differences of these trial types for funders, researchers, and policy-makers. In addition, recommendations are offered to help investigators choose, label, and operationalize the most appropriate trial type to answer their research question. These recommendations complement existing reporting guidelines for clinical effectiveness trials (TIDieR) and implementation trials (StaRI).

Characteristics of Veterans With Depression Who Use the Veterans Choice Program of the Veterans Health Administration.

OBJECTIVE: The Veterans Choice Program (VCP) of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) allowed eligible veterans to use their benefits with participating providers outside the VHA. The authors aimed to identify characteristics of veterans with depression who used or did not use mental health care through the VCP. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, the authors analyzed secondary data from the national VHA Corporate Data Warehouse. VHA administrative data were linked with VCP claims to examine characteristics of VCP-eligible veterans with depression. The study sample included 595,943 unique veterans who were enrolled in the VHA before 2013, were eligible for the VCP in 2016, were alive in 2018, and had an assessed Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) score or depressive disorder diagnosis documented in the VHA between 2016 and 2018. RESULTS: Veterans who used the VCP had lower medical comorbidity scores and lived in less socioeconomically disadvantaged counties, compared with veterans who received only VHA care. VCP veterans were also more likely to have a PHQ-9 score assessment and to have higher mean depression scores. Mean counts of annual mental health visits per 1,000 veterans were markedly higher for direct VHA care than for care provided via the VCP. As a percentage of the total counts of visits per 1,000 veterans across the VCP and VHA, residential programs and outpatient procedures were the services that were most frequently delivered through the VCP. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2016 and 2018, the VCP was used primarily to augment mental health care provided by the VHA, rather than to fill a gap in care.

Cognitive and Emotional Responses to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations and Patterns of Care Seeking.

Rationale: Cognitive and emotional responses associated with care seeking for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are not well understood.Objectives: We sought to define care-seeking profiles based on whether and when U.S. veterans seek care for COPD exacerbations and compare cognitive and emotional responses with exacerbation symptoms across the profiles.Methods: This study analyzes data from a 1-year prospective observational cohort study of individuals with COPD. Cognitive and emotional responses to worsening symptoms were measured with the Response to Symptoms Questionnaire, adapted for COPD. Seeking care was defined as contacting or visiting a healthcare provider or going to the emergency department. Participants were categorized into four care-seeking profiles based on the greatest delay in care seeking for exacerbations when care was sought: 0-3 days (early), 4-7 days (short delay), >7 days (long delay), or never sought care for any exacerbation. The proportion of exacerbations for which participants reported cognitive and emotional responses was estimated for each care-seeking profile, stratified by the timing of when care was sought.Results: There were 1,052 exacerbations among 350 participants with Response to Symptoms Questionnaire responses. Participants were predominantly male (96%), and the mean age was 69.3 ± 7.2 years. For the 409 (39%) exacerbations for which care was sought, the median delay was 3 days. Those who sought care had significantly more severe COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 s, modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale) than those who never sought care. Regardless of the degree of delay until seeking care at one exacerbation, participants consistently reported experiencing serious symptoms if they sought care compared with events for which participants did not seek care (e.g., among early care seekers when care was sought, 36%; when care was not sought, 25%). Similar findings were seen in participants' assessment of the importance of getting care (e.g., among early care seekers when care was sought, 90%; when care was not sought, 52%) and their assessment of anxiety about the symptoms (e.g., among early care seekers when care was sought, 33%; when care was not sought, 17%).Conclusions: Delaying or not seeking care for COPD exacerbations was common. Regardless of care-seeking profile, cognitive and emotional responses to symptoms when care was sought differed from responses when care was not sought. Emotional and cognitive response to COPD exacerbations should be considered when developing individualized strategies to encourage seeking care for exacerbations.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02725294).

Bipolar Disorder Symptom Monitoring Measures: A Mixed-Methods Study of Patient Preferences.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the perceived acceptability and helpfulness of bipolar disorder symptom measures and rank the measures in order of preference among individuals with bipolar disorder. METHODS: We recruited 20 participants 18 years of age or older with any type of bipolar disorder from a primary care clinical site and a national advocacy organization. We used a simultaneous complementary mixed-method design involving completion of symptom measures, a semistructured interview, and numerical ranking of measures. Participants completed three symptom measures or combination of measures: 1) Affective Self-Rating Scale; 2) combination Patient Mania Questionnaire-9 (PMQ-9) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9); and 3) combination Altman Self-Rating Mania Rating Scale and PHQ-9. A semistructured interview was conducted, and participants ranked their preferences for measures. Interviews focused on participants' rationale for measuring preferences. Interviews were analyzed by two psychiatrist-investigators using content analysis, and themes were determined. Average rank of each measure was determined. RESULTS: The average rank for each measure was 1.48 for the combination PMQ-9 and PHQ-9, 1.68 for the Affective Self-Rating Scale, and 2.85 for the combination Altman Self-Rating Mania Rating Scale and PHQ-9, indicating that the combination PMQ-9 and PHQ-9 (top-ranked measure by 55% of participants) was the most preferred among the three measures. Major themes that emerged from the data were: 1) measure format; 2) patient experience; 3) clinical practice; and 4) therapeutic effects. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with bipolar disorder preferred the combination PMQ-9 and PHQ-9 for use in monitoring treatment due to perceived strengths such as format, ease of completion and interpretation, accurate description of experiences, and feasibility of use in practice.

Trust and perceived mental health access: Exploring the relationship between perceived access barriers and veteran-reported trust.

The importance of patients' trust in health care is well known. However, identifying actionable access barriers to trust is challenging. The goal of these exploratory analyses is to identify actionable access barriers that correlate with and predict patients' lack of trust in providers and in the health care system. This article combines existing data from three studies regarding perceived access to mental health services to explore the relationship between provider and system trust and other access barriers. Data from the Perceived Access Inventory (PAI) were analyzed from three studies that together enrolled a total of 353 veterans who screened positive for a mental health problem and had a VA mental health encounter in the previous 12 months. The PAI includes actionable barriers to accessing VA mental health services. The data are cross-sectional, and analyses include Spearman rank correlations of PAI access barriers and provider and system trust, and linear regressions examining the effect of demographic, clinical, and PAI barriers on lack of trust in VA mental health providers and in the VA health care system. Age, depression, and anxiety symptoms and PAI items demonstrated statistically significant bivariate correlations with provider and system trust. However, in multivariate linear regressions, only PAI items remained statistically significant. The PAI items that predicted provider and system trust could be addressed in interventions to improve provider- and system-level trust. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Improving the Usability of Written Exposure Therapy for Therapists in the Department of Veterans Affairs Telemental Health: Formative Study Using Qualitative and User-Centered Design Methods.

BACKGROUND: User modifications are common in evidence-based psychosocial interventions (EBPIs) for mental health disorders. Often, EBPIs fit poorly into clinical workflows, require extensive resources, or pose considerable burden to patients and therapists. Implementation science is increasingly researching ways to improve the usability of EBPIs before implementation. A user-centered design can be used to support implementation methods to prioritize user needs and solutions to improve EBPI usability. OBJECTIVE: Trauma-focused EBPIs are a first-line treatment for patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Written exposure therapy (WET) is a brief, trauma-focused EBPI wherein patients handwrite about trauma associated with their PTSD. Initially developed for in-person delivery, WET is increasingly being delivered remotely, and outcomes appear to be equivalent to in-person delivery. However, there are logistical issues in delivering WET via video. In this evaluation, we explored usability issues related to WET telehealth delivery via videoconferencing software and designed a solution for therapist-facing challenges to systematize WET telehealth delivery. METHODS: The Discover, Design and Build, and Test framework guided this formative evaluation and served to inform a larger Virtual Care Quality Enhancement Research Initiative. We used qualitative descriptive methods in the Discover phase to understand the experiences and needs of 2 groups of users providing care within the Department of Veterans Affairs: in-person therapists delivering WET via video because of the COVID-19 pandemic and telehealth therapists who regularly deliver PTSD therapies. We then used user-centered design methods in the Design and Build phase to brainstorm, develop, and iteratively refine potential workflows to address identified usability issues. All procedures were conducted remotely. RESULTS: In the Discover phase, both groups had challenges delivering WET and other PTSD therapies via telehealth because of technology issues with videoconferencing software, environmental distractions, and workflow disruptions. Narrative transfer (ie, patients sending handwritten trauma accounts to therapists) was the first target for design solution development as it was deemed most critical to WET delivery. In the Design and Build phase, we identified design constraints and brainstormed solution ideas. This led to the development of 3 solution workflows that were presented to a subgroup of therapist users through cognitive walkthroughs. Meetings with this subgroup allowed workflow refinement to improve narrative transfers. Finally, to facilitate using these workflows, we developed PDF manuals that are being refined in subsequent phases of the implementation project (not mentioned in this paper). CONCLUSIONS: The Discover, Design and Build, and Test framework can be a useful tool for understanding user needs in complex EBPI interventions and designing solutions to user-identified usability issues. Building on this work, an iterative evaluation of the 3 solution workflows and accompanying manuals with therapists and patients is underway as part of a nationwide WET implementation in telehealth settings.

Minimal important difference metrics and test-retest reliability of the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 with a primary care sample.

The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) is a measure of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom severity that is widely used for clinical and research purposes. Although previous work has examined metrics of minimal important difference (MID) of the PCL-5 in veteran samples, no work has identified PCL-5 MID metrics among adults in primary care in the United States. In this secondary analysis, data were evaluated from primary care patients (N = 971) who screened positive for PTSD and participated in a large clinical trial in federally qualified health centers in three U.S. states. Participants primarily self-identified as women (70.2%) and White (70.3%). We calculated test-retest reliability using clinic registry data and multiple distribution- and anchor-based metrics of MID using baseline and follow-up survey data. Test-retest reliability (Pearson's r, Spearman's ρ, intraclass correlation coefficient) ranged from adequate to excellent (.79-.94), with the shortest time lag demonstrating the highest reliability estimate. The MID for the PCL-5 was estimated using multiple approaches. Distribution-based approaches indicated an MID range of 8.5-12.5, and anchor-based approaches indicated an MID range of 9.8-11.7. Taken together, the MID metrics indicate that PCL-5 change scores of 9-12 likely reflect real change in PTSD symptoms and indicate at least an MID for patients, whereas PCL-5 change scores of 5 or less likely are not reliable. These findings can help inform clinicians using the PCL-5 in similar populations to track patient responses to treatment and help researchers interpret PCL-5 score changes in clinical trials.

Integrating Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Into Primary Care Settings.

Importance: Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) (eg, buprenorphine and naltrexone) can be offered in primary care, but barriers to implementation exist. Objective: To evaluate an implementation intervention over 2 years to explore experiences and perspectives of multidisciplinary primary care (PC) teams initiating or expanding MOUD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey-based and ethnographic qualitative study was conducted at 12 geographically and structurally diverse primary care clinics that enrolled in a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study from July 2020 to July 2022 and included PC teams (prescribing clinicians, nonprescribing behavioral health care managers, and consulting psychiatrists). Survey data analysis was conducted from February to April 2022. Exposure: Implementation intervention (external practice facilitation) to integrate OUD treatment alongside existing collaborative care for mental health services. Measures: Data included (1) quantitative surveys of primary care teams that were analyzed descriptively and triangulated with qualitative results and (2) qualitative field notes from ethnographic observation of clinic implementation meetings analyzed using rapid assessment methods. Results: Sixty-two primary care team members completed the survey (41 female individuals [66%]; 1 [2%] American Indian or Alaskan Native, 4 [7%] Asian, 5 [8%] Black or African American, 5 [8%] Hispanic or Latino, 1 [2%] Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 46 [4%] White individuals), of whom 37 (60%) were between age 25 and 44 years. An analysis of implementation meetings (n = 362) and survey data identified 4 themes describing multilevel factors associated with PC team provision of MOUD during implementation, with variation in their experience across clinics. Themes characterized challenges with clinical administrative logistics that limited the capacity to provide rapid access to care and patient engagement as well as clinician confidence to discuss aspects of MOUD care with patients. These challenges were associated with conflicting attitudes among PC teams toward expanding MOUD care. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this survey and qualitative study of PC team perspectives suggest that PC teams need flexibility in appointment scheduling and the capacity to effectively engage patients with OUD as well as ongoing training to maintain clinician confidence in the face of evolving opioid-related clinical issues. Future work should address structural challenges associated with workload burden and limited schedule flexibility that hinder MOUD expansion in PC settings.

Knowledge about Treatment (KaT) in Mental Health Services.

This study developed and psychometrically evaluated a brief measure of mental health treatment knowledge (N = 726). Scores from Knowledge about Treatment (KaT) demonstrated a unidimensional measure with good model fit, internal consistency reliability, convergent and predictive validity, test-retest reliability, and measurement invariance across gender, ethnicity, education, and poverty status.

A mixed-methods evaluation of why an implementation trial failed to engage veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder in trauma-focused psychotherapy.

An effectiveness trial found that telemedicine collaborative care for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) significantly increased engagement in trauma-focused psychotherapy (TFP) and improved PTSD symptoms. However, in a subsequent implementation trial, very few veterans enrolled in collaborative care initiated TFP. We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation to determine why veterans did not initiate TFP in the implementation trial. After conducting chart reviews of 1,071 veterans with PTSD enrolled in collaborative care, patients were categorized into four mutually exclusive TFP groups: TFP not discussed; TFP discussed, declined; TFP discussed, did not decline; and TFP initiated. We conducted semistructured interviews with 43 unique patients and 58 unique providers (i.e., care managers and mental health specialists). Almost half (48.6%) of the veterans had no documentation of discussing TFP with their care manager; another 28.9% discussed it but declined. Most veterans (77.1%) had an encounter with a mental health specialist, 36.8% of whom never discussed TFP, and 35.7% of whom discussed it but declined. Providers reported that many veterans were not able, willing, or ready to engage in TFP and that non-trauma-focused therapies were better aligned with their treatment goals. Veterans gave numerous reasons for not initiating TFP, including having bad prior experiences with TFP and wanting to avoid thinking about past traumatic experiences. Commonly cited reasons for noninitiation were providers never discussing TFP with veterans and veterans declining TFP after discussing it with their provider. Interventions, such as shared decision-making tools, may be needed to engage providers and patients in informed discussions about TFP.

Team-focused implementation strategies to improve implementation of mental health screening and referral in rural Children's Advocacy Centers: study protocol for a pilot cluster randomized hybrid type 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Children's Advocacy Centers (CACs) use multidisciplinary teams to investigate and respond to maltreatment allegations. CACs play a critical role in connecting children with mental health needs to evidence-based mental health treatment, especially in low-resourced rural areas. Standardized mental health screening and referral protocols can improve CACs' capacity to identify children with mental health needs and encourage treatment engagement. In the team-based context of CACs, teamwork quality is likely to influence implementation processes and outcomes. Implementation strategies that target teams and apply the science of team effectiveness may enhance implementation outcomes in team-based settings. METHODS: We will use Implementation Mapping to develop team-focused implementation strategies to support the implementation of the Care Process Model for Pediatric Traumatic Stress (CPM-PTS), a standardized screening and referral protocol. Team-focused strategies will integrate activities from effective team development interventions. We will pilot team-focused implementation in a cluster-randomized hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial. Four rural CACs will implement the CPM-PTS after being randomized to either team-focused implementation (n = 2 CACs) or standard implementation (n = 2 CACs). We will assess the feasibility of team-focused implementation and explore between-group differences in hypothesized team-level mechanisms of change and implementation outcomes (implementation aim). We will use a within-group pre-post design to test the effectiveness of the CPM-PTS in increasing caregivers' understanding of their child's mental health needs and caregivers' intentions to initiate mental health services (effectiveness aim). CONCLUSIONS: Targeting multidisciplinary teams is an innovative approach to improving implementation outcomes. This study will be one of the first to test team-focused implementation strategies that integrate effective team development interventions. Results will inform efforts to implement evidence-based practices in team-based service settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05679154 . Registered on January 10, 2023.