Recruitment tools for transgender and gender diverse veterans in health care research.

Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) veterans in the Veterans Health Administration experience health and health care disparities, and research with this population is needed to improve gender-affirming care in Veterans Health Administration. However, TGD veterans may experience hesitancy to participate in research. We must address barriers to participation through feasible and acceptable methods. Opt-out letters are an effective tool used to recruit veterans in mental health research. The present study examined the feasibility and acceptability of opt-out letters modified for TGD veterans. Opt-out letters were sent to 54 potential TGD participants at three sites. The letters stated the research team would begin contacting veterans by phone in 2 weeks if they did not opt out of being contacted. Feasibility was measured through response rate. Acceptability was assessed through qualitative template analysis of interview data. Of the 54 potential participants, two opted out, three letters were undeliverable, and eight veterans called to opt in. Veterans reported that they found the letters to be clear and useful. The responses to the opt-out letters resulted in completing recruitment for two of the three sites. The research team then called the veterans who received the letter at the third site (three veterans) and recruited one additional veteran, for a total of nine TGD veterans. Opt-out letters may be a helpful tool to recruit TGD veterans to participate in research. Although these letters were designed to opt out, 89% of participants called the research team to opt in. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Impact of Primary Care-Mental Health Care Integration on Mental Health Care Engagement Across Racial and Ethnic Groups.

OBJECTIVE: Receiving mental health services as part of primary care in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) might increase engagement in specialty mental health care. The authors reexamined the association between primary care-mental health integration (PCMHI) and continued engagement in specialty mental health care for VHA patients and assessed differences by race and ethnicity. METHODS: The study included 437,051 primary care patients with a first in-person specialty mental health encounter in 2015-2016 (no specialty mental health encounters in prior 12 months), including 46,417 patients with new PCMHI encounters in the year before the first specialty mental health encounter. Multivariable logistic regression assessed odds of follow-up specialty mental health care within 3 months of the first specialty mental health encounter. The dependent variable was care engagement (attending a second specialty mental health appointment); independent variables were whether patients were seen by PCMHI on the same day as the primary care appointment ("same-day access"), the time between PCMHI and first specialty mental health appointments, and race and ethnicity. RESULTS: PCMHI was associated with increased engagement in specialty mental health care for all patients, with a greater likelihood of engagement among non-Hispanic White patients. Same-day access to PCMHI was positively associated with care engagement, with no significant differences by race or ethnicity. PCMHI care within 3 months before a first specialty mental health encounter was associated with greater care engagement. CONCLUSIONS: PCMHI, especially same-day access to PCMHI care, may boost engagement in mental health care, although the study design precluded conclusions regarding causal relationships.

Challenges and promising solutions to engaging patients in healthcare implementation in the United States: an environmental scan.

BACKGROUND: One practice in healthcare implementation is patient engagement in quality improvement and systems redesign. Implementers in healthcare systems include clinical leadership, middle managers, quality improvement personnel, and others facilitating changes or adoption of new interventions. Patients provide input into different aspects of health research. However, there is little attention to involve patients in implementing interventions, especially in the United States (U.S.), and this might be essential to reduce inequities. Implementers need clear strategies to overcome challenges, and might be able to learn from countries outside the U.S. METHODS: We wanted to understand existing work about how patients are being included in implementation activities in real world U.S. healthcare settings. We conducted an environmental scan of three data sources: webinars, published articles, and interviews with implementers who engaged patients in implementation activities in U.S. healthcare settings. We extracted, categorized, and triangulated from data sources the key activities, recurring challenges, and promising solutions using a coding template. RESULTS: We found 27 examples of patient engagement in U.S. healthcare implementation across four webinars, 11 published articles, and seven interviews, mostly arranging patient engagement through groups and arranging processes for patients that changed how engaged they were able to be. Participants rarely specified if they were engaging a population experiencing healthcare inequities. Participants described eight recurring challenges; the two most frequently identified were: (1) recruiting patients representative of those served in the healthcare system; and (2) ensuring processes for equitable communication among all. We matched recurring challenges to promising solutions, such as logistic solutions on how to arrange meetings to enhance engagement or training in inclusivity and power-sharing. CONCLUSION: We clarified how some U.S. implementers are engaging patients in healthcare implementation activities using less and more intensive engagement. It was unclear whether reducing inequities was a goal. Patient engagement in redesigning U.S. healthcare service delivery appears similar to or less intense than in countries with more robust infrastructure for this, such as Canada and the United Kingdom. Challenges were common across jurisdictions, including retaining patients in the design/delivery of implementation activities. Implementers in any region can learn from those in other places.

Increasing consumer engagement: tools to engage service users in quality improvement or implementation efforts.

Introduction: Engaging service users or consumers in quality improvement or implementing a new service is important across settings and may reduce health inequities. Implementation strategies leveraging consumer engagement are neither commonly used nor robustly operationalized in implementation science. Implementers (e.g., middle managers, facilitators) want to involve consumers in implementation activities, but do not always feel confident in how to proceed. We developed a compendium of tools called Consumer Voice to guide others how to engage consumers in design/delivery of implementation strategies. Although generalizable to other settings, we developed Consumer Voice within the context of implementing suicide prevention treatments in healthcare to reach rural U.S. military veterans, as there are suicide inequities for people in rural areas. Methods: We developed Consumer Voice using a multistep process and human-centered design methods. In between steps, a design team met to generate insights from data, and decide which prototypes to create/refine. In preliminary work, we conducted a scan of examples in healthcare of patient engagement in implementation activities and interviewed two implementation experts about preferred learning styles. In Step 1, we interviewed 26 participants with experience in community engagement, implementation, or lived experience as a rural U.S. veteran with suicidal thoughts/behavior. In Step 2, 11 implementers beta tested prototypes then share feedback in focus groups. In Step 3, we reconvened participants from prior steps to review tools and, using nominal group technique, prioritized remaining recommendations. Results: Consumer Voice is online, modular, and nonlinear for self-guided learning tailored to beginner, intermediate, or advanced experience with consumer engagement. Tools consist of slides, audiovisual content with written text, and templates. Findings indicated there is not one "right" way to engage consumers in implementation activities, rather that implementers wanted tools showcasing core principles for consumer engagement and practical ideas. Discussion: Consumer Voice can be used by implementers to reflect and decide on how to apply consumer engagement implementation strategies to improve equitable dissemination and uptake of evidence-based practices. Most insights generated by user data were explicitly to build trust between consumers and professionals representing institutions, which may be one component to reducing healthcare inequities.

Implementation of LGBTQ+ affirming care policies in the Veterans Health Administration: preliminary findings on barriers and facilitators in the southern United States.

Background: In the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), veterans who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and similar gender and sexual minoritized people (LGBTQ+) experience health disparities compared to cisgender, heterosexual veterans. VA's LGBTQ+ Health Program created two healthcare policies on providing LGBTQ+ affirming care (healthcare that is inclusive, validating, and understanding of the LGBTQ+ population). The current project examines providers' barriers and facilitators to providing LGBTQ+ affirming care and LGBTQ+ veterans' barriers and facilitators to receiving LGBTQ+ affirming care. Methods: Data collection and analysis were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, which was adapted to include three health equity domains. Data collection involved telephone interviews conducted with 11 VA providers and 12 LGBTQ+ veterans at one rural and one urban VA medical center, and one rural VA community clinic. Qualitative data were rapidly analyzed using template analysis, a data reduction technique. Results: Providers described limited education, limited time, lack of experience with the population, and a lack of awareness of resources as barriers. Providers discussed comfort with consulting trusted peers, interest in learning more about providing LGBTQ+ affirming care, and openness and acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community as facilitators. LGBTQ+ veterans described a lack of provider awareness of their needs, concerns related to safety and discrimination, and structural discrimination as barriers. LGBTQ+ veterans described positive relationships with providers, knowledge of their own healthcare needs, and ability to advocate for their healthcare needs as facilitators. Although VA's LGBTQ+ affirming care policies are in place, providers and veterans noted a lack of awareness regarding specific healthcare processes. Conclusion: Allowing more time and capacity for education and engaging LGBTQ+ veterans in determining how to improve their healthcare may be the path forward to increase adherence to LGBTQ+ affirming care policies. Engaging patients, especially those from marginalized backgrounds, in strategies focused on the uptake of policy may be a path to improve policy implementation. It is possible that creating truly collaborative structures in which patients, staff, providers, leadership, and policymakers can work together towards policy implementation may be a useful strategy. In turn, improved policy implementation would result in increased physical and mental health for LGBTQ+ veterans.

Determining feasibility of incorporating consumer engagement into implementation activities: study protocol of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation type II pilot.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation researchers could draw from participatory research to engage patients (consumers of healthcare) in implementation processes and possibly reduce healthcare disparities. There is a little consumer involvement in healthcare implementation, partially because no formal guidance exists. We will create and pilot a toolkit of methods to engage consumers from the US' Veterans Health Administration (VHA) in selecting and tailoring implementation strategies. This toolkit, Consumer Voice, will provide guidance on what, when, where, how and why an implementer might engage consumers in implementing treatments. We will pilot the toolkit by implementing Safety Planning Intervention for suicide prevention with rural veterans, a population with suicide disparities. Safety Planning Intervention is effective for reducing suicidal behaviours. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In Aim 1, we will use participatory approaches and user-centred design to develop Consumer Voice and its methods. In Aim 2, we will pilot Consumer Voice by implementing the Safety Planning Intervention in two clinics serving rural VHA patients. One site will receive a current implementation strategy (Implementation Facilitation) only; the second will receive Implementation Facilitation plus Consumer Voice. We will use mixed methods to assess feasibility and acceptability of Consumer Voice. We will compare sites on preliminary implementation (reach, adoption, fidelity) and clinical outcomes (depression severity, suicidal ideation, suicidal behaviour). In Aim 3, we will evaluate Aim 2 outcomes at 20 months to assess sustained impact. We will gather qualitative data on sustainability of the Safety Planning Intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: These studies are overseen by the Institutional Review Board at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System. We plan to use traditional academic modalities of dissemination (eg, conferences, publications). We plan to disseminate findings through meetings with other trainers in implementation practice so they may adopt Consumer Voice. We plan to share results with local community boards.

A more practical guide to incorporating health equity domains in implementation determinant frameworks.

BACKGROUND: Due to striking disparities in the implementation of healthcare innovations, it is imperative that researchers and practitioners can meaningfully use implementation determinant frameworks to understand why disparities exist in access, receipt, use, quality, or outcomes of healthcare. Our prior work documented and piloted the first published adaptation of an existing implementation determinant framework with health equity domains to create the Health Equity Implementation Framework. We recommended integrating these three health equity domains to existing implementation determinant frameworks: (1) culturally relevant factors of recipients, (2) clinical encounter or patient-provider interaction, and (3) societal context (including but not limited to social determinants of health). This framework was developed for healthcare and clinical practice settings. Some implementation teams have begun using the Health Equity Implementation Framework in their evaluations and asked for more guidance. METHODS: We completed a consensus process with our authorship team to clarify steps to incorporate a health equity lens into an implementation determinant framework. RESULTS: We describe steps to integrate health equity domains into implementation determinant frameworks for implementation research and practice. For each step, we compiled examples or practical tools to assist implementation researchers and practitioners in applying those steps. For each domain, we compiled definitions with supporting literature, showcased an illustrative example, and suggested sample quantitative and qualitative measures. CONCLUSION: Incorporating health equity domains within implementation determinant frameworks may optimize the scientific yield and equity of implementation efforts by assessing and ideally addressing implementation and equity barriers simultaneously. These practical guidance and tools provided can assist implementation researchers and practitioners to concretely capture and understand barriers and facilitators to implementation disparities.

Time and Organizational Cost for Facilitating Implementation of Primary Care Mental Health Integration.

BACKGROUND: Integrating mental health services into primary care settings is complex and challenging. Although facilitation strategies have successfully supported implementation of primary care mental health integration and other complex innovations, we know little about the time required or its cost. OBJECTIVE: To examine the time and organizational cost of facilitating implementation of primary care mental health integration. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis. PARTICIPANTS: One expert external facilitator and two internal regional facilitators who helped healthcare system stakeholders, e.g., leaders, managers, clinicians, and non-clinical staff, implement primary care mental health integration at eight clinics. INTERVENTION: Implementation facilitation tailored to the needs and resources of the setting and its stakeholders. MAIN MEASURES: We documented facilitators' and stakeholders' time and types of activities using a structured spreadsheet collected from facilitators on a weekly basis. We obtained travel costs and salary information. We conducted descriptive analysis of time data and estimated organizational cost. KEY RESULTS: The external facilitator devoted 263 h (0.09 FTE), including travel, across all 8 clinics over 28 months. Internal facilitator time varied across networks (1792 h versus 1169 h), as well as clinics. Stakeholder participation time was similar across networks (1280.6 versus 1363.4 person hours) but the number of stakeholders varied (133 versus 199 stakeholders). The organizational cost of providing implementation facilitation also varied across networks ($263,490 versus $258,127). Stakeholder participation accounted for 35% of the cost of facilitation activities in one network and 47% of the cost in the other. CONCLUSIONS: Although facilitation can improve implementation of primary care mental health integration, it requires substantial organizational investments that may vary by site and implementation effort. Furthermore, the cost of using an external expert to transfer facilitation skills and build capacity for implementation efforts appears to be minimal.

Longitudinal assessment of the association between implementation strategy use and the uptake of hepatitis C treatment: Year 2.

BACKGROUND: To increase the uptake of evidence-based treatments for hepatitis C (HCV), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) established the Hepatitis Innovation Team (HIT) Collaborative. Teams of providers were tasked with choosing implementation strategies to improve HCV care. The aim of the current evaluation was to assess how site-level implementation strategies were associated with HCV treatment initiation and how the use of implementation strategies and their association with HCV treatment changed over time. METHODS: A key HCV provider at each VA site (N = 130) was asked in two consecutive fiscal years (FYs) to complete an online survey examining the use of 73 implementation strategies organized into nine clusters as described by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. The number of Veterans initiating treatment for HCV, or "treatment starts," at each site was captured using national data. Providers reported whether the use of each implementation strategy was due to the HIT Collaborative. RESULTS: Of 130 sites, 80 (62%) responded in Year 1 (FY15) and 105 (81%) responded in Year 2 (FY16). Respondents endorsed a median of 27 (IQR19-38) strategies in Year 2. The strategies significantly more likely to be chosen in Year 2 included tailoring strategies to deliver HCV care, promoting adaptability, sharing knowledge between sites, and using mass media. The total number of treatment starts was significantly positively correlated with total number of strategies endorsed in both years. In Years 1 and 2, respectively, 28 and 26 strategies were significantly associated with treatment starts; 12 strategies overlapped both years, 16 were unique to Year 1, and 14 were unique to Year 2. Strategies significantly associated with treatment starts shifted between Years 1 and 2. Pre-implementation strategies in the "training/educating," "interactive assistance," and "building stakeholder interrelationships" clusters were more likely to be significantly associated with treatment starts in Year 1, while strategies in the "evaluative and iterative" and "adapting and tailoring" clusters were more likely to be associated with treatment starts in Year 2. Approximately half of all strategies were attributed to the HIT Collaborative. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that measuring implementation strategies over time is a useful way to catalog implementation of an evidence-based practice over time and across settings.

The health equity implementation framework: proposal and preliminary study of hepatitis C virus treatment.

BACKGROUND: Researchers could benefit from methodological advancements to advance uptake of new treatments while also reducing healthcare disparities. A comprehensive determinants framework for healthcare disparity implementation challenges is essential to accurately understand an implementation problem and select implementation strategies. METHODS: We integrated and modified two conceptual frameworks-one from implementation science and one from healthcare disparities research to develop the Health Equity Implementation Framework. We applied the Health Equity Implementation Framework to a historical healthcare disparity challenge-hepatitis C virus (HCV) and its treatment among Black patients seeking care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). A specific implementation assessment at the patient level was needed to understand any barriers to increasing uptake of HCV treatment, independent of cost. We conducted a preliminary study to assess how feasible it was for researchers to use the Health Equity Implementation Framework. We applied the framework to design the qualitative interview guide and interpret results. Using quantitative data to screen potential participants, this preliminary study consisted of semi-structured interviews with a purposively selected sample of Black, rural-dwelling, older adult VA patients (N = 12), living with HCV, from VA medical clinics in the Southern part of the USA. RESULTS: The Health Equity Implementation Framework was feasible for implementation researchers. Barriers and facilitators were identified at all levels including the patient, provider (recipients), patient-provider interaction (clinical encounter), characteristics of treatment (innovation), and healthcare system (inner and outer context). Some barriers reflected general implementation issues (e.g., poor care coordination after testing positive for HCV). Other barriers were related to healthcare disparities and likely unique to racial minority patients (e.g., testimonials from Black peers about racial discrimination at VA). We identified several facilitators, including patient enthusiasm to obtain treatment because of its high cure rates, and VA clinics that offset HCV stigma by protecting patient confidentiality. CONCLUSION: The Health Equity Implementation Framework showcases one way to modify an implementation framework to better assess health equity determinants as well. Researchers may be able to optimize the scientific yield of research inquiries by identifying and addressing factors that promote or impede implementation of novel treatments in addition to eliminating healthcare disparities.

Outcomes of a partnered facilitation strategy to implement primary care-mental health.

BACKGROUND: Implementing new programs and practices is challenging, even when they are mandated. Implementation Facilitation (IF) strategies that focus on partnering with sites show promise for addressing these challenges. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of an external/internal IF strategy within the context of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mandate of Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI). DESIGN: This was a quasi-experimental, Hybrid Type III study. Generalized estimating equations assessed differences across sites. PARTICIPANTS: Patients and providers at seven VA primary care clinics receiving the IF intervention and national support and seven matched comparison clinics receiving national support only participated in the study. INTERVENTION: We used a highly partnered IF strategy incorporating evidence-based implementation interventions. MAIN MEASURES: We evaluated the IF strategy using VA administrative data and RE-AIM framework measures for two 6-month periods. KEY RESULTS: Evaluation of RE-AIM measures from the first 6-month period indicated that PC patients at IF clinics had nine times the odds (OR=8.93, p<0.001) of also being seen in PC-MHI (Reach) compared to patients at non-IF clinics. PC providers at IF clinics had seven times the odds (OR=7.12, p=0.029) of referring patients to PC-MHI (Adoption) than providers at non-IF clinics, and a greater proportion of providers' patients at IF clinics were referred to PC-MHI (Adoption) compared to non-IF clinics (ß=0.027, p<0.001). Compared to PC patients at non-IF sites, patients at IF clinics did not have lower odds (OR=1.34, p=0.232) of being referred for first-time mental health specialty clinic visits (Effectiveness), or higher odds (OR=1.90, p=0.350) of receiving same-day access (Implementation). Assessment of program sustainability (Maintenance) was conducted by repeating this analysis for a second 6-month time period. Maintenance analyses results were similar to the earlier period. CONCLUSION: The addition of a highly partnered IF strategy to national level support resulted in greater Reach and Adoption of the mandated PC-MHI initiative, thereby increasing patient access to VA mental health care.

Psychological traumas of war: training school counselors as home-front responders.

PURPOSE: With nearly 3 million U.S. troops having deployed for Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and New Dawn (OEF/OIF/OND) since the conflicts began, an estimated 2 million children have been separated from a parent. This manuscript describes a collaborative project between a state's Veterans Healthcare System, a branch of the American Counseling Association, and a medical university on the OEF/OIF/OND deployment experience. METHODS: The project sought to educate school counselors about experiences of OEF/OIF/OND families and learn from their observations as home-front responders in public schools during a 2-day summer workshop. This manuscript describes the framework of the workshop, pre/post evaluation results, and implications for counselors, educators, and supervisors. FINDINGS: School counselors identified childcare and parenting, emotions and behaviors, finances, and barriers to counseling services as challenges for military children and families. Following the workshop, school counselors reported a greater knowledge concerning understanding aspects of outreach for schools and communities in working with veterans and their families. They also reported a better understanding of the impact of war on military families and knowledge of local and state resources for this population. Specifically, attendees felt they could better identify issues and needs of OEF/OIF/OND families with young children, recommend parenting skills to assist these families, and recognize their psychiatric or medical issues. CONCLUSION: In addressing the mental health disparities of military children experiencing combat-related parental separation, it is important to identify protective environments that could provide prevention interventions for this population. Collaboration between the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and Department of Education could help support military families and a society facing continued conflicts abroad.

Partnering with communities to address the mental health needs of rural veterans.

PURPOSE: Many veterans who face mental illness and live in rural areas never obtain the mental health care they need. To address these needs, it is important to reach out to community stakeholders who are likely to have frequent interactions with veterans, particularly those returning from Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF). METHODS: Three community stakeholder groups-clergy, postsecondary educators, and criminal justice personnel-are of particular importance for OEF/OIF veterans living in rural areas and may be more likely to come into contact with rural veterans struggling with mental illness or substance abuse than the formal health care system. This article briefly describes the conceptualization, development, initial implementation, and early evaluation of a Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center-based program designed to improve engagement in, and access to, mental health care for veterans returning to rural areas. FINDINGS: One year since initial funding, 90 stakeholders have attended formal training workshops (criminal justice personnel = 36; educators = 31; clergy = 23). Two training formats (a 2-hour workshop and an intensive 2.5-day workshop) have been developed and provided to clergy in 1 rural county with another county scheduled for training. A veteran outreach initiative, which has received 32 referrals for various student services, has been established on 4 rural college campuses. A Veterans Treatment Court also has been established with 16 referrals for eligibility assessments. CONCLUSIONS: While this pilot program is in the early stages of evaluation, its success to date has encouraged program and VA clinical leadership to expand beyond the original sites.

Organizational cost of quality improvement for depression care.

OBJECTIVE: We documented organizational costs for depression care quality improvement (QI) to develop an evidence-based, Veterans Health Administration (VA) adapted depression care model for primary care practices that performed well for patients, was sustained over time, and could be spread nationally in VA. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Project records and surveys from three multistate VA administrative regions and seven of their primary care practices. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive analysis. DATA COLLECTION: We documented project time commitments and expenses for 86 clinical QI and 42 technical expert support team participants for 4 years from initial contact through care model design, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, and achievement of stable workloads in which models functioned as routine care. We assessed time, salary costs, and costs for conference calls, meetings, e-mails, and other activities. PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: Over an average of 27 months, all clinics began referring patients to care managers. Clinical participants spent 1,086 hours at a cost of $84,438. Technical experts spent 2,147 hours costing $197,787. Eighty-five percent of costs derived from initial regional engagement activities and care model design. CONCLUSIONS: Organizational costs of the QI process for depression care in a large health care system were significant, and should be accounted for when planning for implementation of evidence-based depression care.

Creating a quality-improvement dialogue: utilizing knowledge from frontline staff, managers, and experts to foster health care quality improvement.

There is a growing consensus that a hybrid of two common approaches to quality improvement (QI), local participatory QI and expert QI, might be the best method for achieving quality care. Achieving such a hybrid requires that content experts establish an ongoing dialogue with both frontline staff members and managers. In this study we examined frontline staff members' and managers' preferences regarding how to conduct such a dialogue, and we provide practical suggestions for implementation. The two groups shared a number of preferences (e.g., verbal face-to-face exchanges, discussions focused on quality of care). There were also some differences. For example, although managers were interested in discussions of business aspects (e.g., costs), frontline staff members were concerned with workload issues. Finally, although informants acknowledged that engaging in a QI dialogue was time consuming, they also believed it was essential if health care organizations are to improve the quality of care they provide.

Balancing health care evidence and art to meet clinical needs: policymakers' perspectives.

Rationale, aims and objectives Although many believe that evidence-based practice (EBP) has great potential, critics have identified limitations including a focus on randomized clinical trial (RCT) evidence to the exclusion of other evidence types and a disregard for the art of medicine. Others have argued, however, that proper application of EBP involves reasoned consideration of a wide variety of information; thus, the dichotomy between medical science and art may be false. We explore the views of executive-level policymakers from the Veterans Health Administration, a leader in the EBP movement, regarding what constitutes evidence and the relative importance of evidence versus practical needs when determining clinical policy. Method We conducted 26 semi-structured qualitative interviews and performed a content analysis. Results Although informants generally believed in the value of EBP and the role of RCTs within it, they also valued other types of evidence. Further, they had concerns that were sometimes antithetical with strict adherence to an evidence-based approach. These included practical concerns, fit with organizational values and with local circumstances, resources, political pressures and patient needs. They were especially concerned about how to address medical conditions that affect many individuals or high-risk populations that have no evidence-based treatment. Conclusion When possible, health care practice should be evidence-based. When this is not possible, health care providers must turn to the art of medicine by using consensus-based best practices. Further, it is important for policymakers and researchers to work in concert to develop EBPs that are practical and meet needs.

Growing our own: a regional approach to encourage psychiatric residents to enter research.

OBJECTIVE: This article describes a regional program developed by the Department of Veterans Affairs South Central Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center for training psychiatry residents in research and attracting them to academic careers. METHODS: The authors describe a low-cost, innovative program developed to increase the number of psychiatry residents entering postresidency research training fellowships by providing them with mentorship and exposure to seasoned researchers, didactic coursework, and a stipend to cover academic expenses. RESULTS: Over the first 4 years, the program has generated enthusiastic participation among postgraduate year 3 (PGY-3) residents, with a high percentage of underrepresented ethnic minorities and women. Products include publication of four first-authored and two coauthored manuscripts, one first-authored abstract, submission of six additional papers, 28 academic presentations and development of research projects. Half of graduating awardees have gone on to pursue research careers. CONCLUSION: Our regional approach provides sufficient academic expertise to make residency training feasible in a cost-effective manner.

Equity in veterans' mental health care: Veterans Affairs medical center clinics versus community-based outpatient clinics.

This study examined differences in structures and processes of mental health care at Veterans Administration (VA) primary care clinics, comparing VA medical center (VAMC) clinics to community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). A survey was conducted of nurse managers at 46 of 49 primary care clinics (23 VAMC clinics and 23 CBOCs) within a VA health care network in the south central United States. Integration of care and services overall was comparable between VAMC clinics and CBOCs. The service mix differed. Integrated CBOCs more often offered group therapy, medication management, and smoking cessation. Integrated VAMC clinics more frequently used written suicide protocols and depression screening. Distance to offsite specialty care and wait times for referrals were shorter for patients at VAMCs than at CBOCs. The provision of mental health care at CBOCs is comparable to that at VAMC clinics, although differences in patient access to offsite care indicate that full equity was not achieved at the time of the survey. Since 2000, the VA has initiated several programs to address this need.

Utilization and cost of mental health, substance abuse, and medical services among at-risk drinkers.

The objective of this research was to examine whether users of mental health or substance abuse (MH/SA) services incurred greater costs for non-MH/SA services than nonusers of MH/SA services. Two years of health care utilization data were collected on 443 at-risk drinkers from six southern U.S. states. We then examined predictors of using MH/SA services and costs associated with non-MH/SA services. The results showed that use of MH/SA services was associated with female gender, military service, health insurance, and not being employed full-time. Unadjusted analyses indicated that non-MH/SA service costs were significantly higher among MH/SA service users than nonusers. However, this association did not endure in multivariable models. In fact, emergency department costs were significantly lower among MH/SA users. It is commonly assumed that users of MH/SA services are also heavy users of other medical services. Through multivariable models, this study found that overall costs of non-MH/SA services were similar between users and nonusers of MH/SA services.

Blending education, research, and service missions: the Arkansas model.

Creating school and community partnerships with academic health centers (AHC) offers one strategy for initiating and sustaining broad-based change in health systems. This article describes the development, initial evaluation, and current iteration of the Arkansas Partners in Behavioral Health Sciences Model, a collaboration between personnel from an AHC and K-12 schools to address behavioral health issues in children. The model's focus on education, research, and service provides an opportunity for AHC faculty and school personnel to collaborate to promote mental health in school-aged youth. Quantitative and qualitative methods have been used to inform development and confirm effectiveness of the program. From 2001 through 2005, more than 2,700 school personnel from 72 of the 75 counties in Arkansas participated in more than 30,000 hours of continuing education. The programs have also targeted students using interactive televideo presentations, supplemental classroom curricula, and an exhibit in a state science museum, resulting in an outreach to more than 2,500 youths. Results of longitudinal and randomized studies also show changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. In an era of extraordinary need and finite resources for school systems, AHCs are poised to provide the critical link to improve the scientific knowledge and understanding of behavioral health conditions. The current program targets behavioral health, but AHCs also can incorporate other health conditions, scientific topics, and medical interventions to provide a important service for the public and to accomplish an important mission toward health leadership in the community.