Integrated dual diagnosis treatment among United States mental health treatment facilities: 2010 to 2018.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the correlates of and recent trends in implementation of Integrated Dual Diagnosis model, an evidence-based approach for dual diagnosis services, in US mental health facilities between 2010 and 2018. METHODS: Changes over time in Integrated Dual Diagnosis Treatment use were examined using multiple waves of a national survey of mental health treatment facilities that reported offering any substance use services. State and facility correlates of offering integrated dual diagnosis services among these facilities in 2018 were examined. RESULTS: The proportion of mental health treatment facilities that reported offering any substance use services increased significantly from 50.1% in 2010 to 57.1% in 2018. Among these facilities, significantly fewer reported offering Integrated Dual Diagnosis Treatment in 2018 (74.8%) than in 2010 (79.6%). The prevalence of Integrated Dual Diagnosis Treatment use increased in more recent years in tandem with increase in substance use services, though the increases in Integrated Dual Diagnosis Treatment have not matched the expansion of substance use services. Mental health facilities with substance use services more commonly offered other mental health services and had more funding sources available. Facilities with any substance use disorder services that offered Integrated Dual Diagnosis Treatment were more commonly licensed by State Substance Agencies and more commonly offered psychotropics and group therapies. Facilities located in states that implemented the Integrated Dual Diagnosis Treatment model had a higher odds of offering this model. CONCLUSIONS: The growth in the co-location of substance use treatment services within mental health treatment facilities has not been matched by true integration of these treatments, highlighting the need for further efforts to comprehensively address the complex needs of dually diagnosed patients.

Telepsychiatry Use in U.S. Mental Health Facilities, 2010-2017.

OBJECTIVE: The study examined the use of telepsychiatry in U.S. mental health facilities between 2010 and 2017. METHODS: Changes over time in the availability of telepsychiatry were examined by using multiple waves of a national survey of mental health facilities. State and facility correlates of offering telepsychiatry in 2017 were examined. RESULTS: The proportion of state facilities that self-reported offering telepsychiatry increased significantly from 15.2% in 2010 to 29.2% in 2017, with wide variability among states.. In 2017, facilities with telepsychiatry were more commonly publicly owned than to have others forms of ownership (odds ratio [OR]=2.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.47-2.99, p<0.001), although the percentage of privately owned facilities offering telepsychiatry has increased significantly since 2010 (OR=2.94, 95% CI=2.14-4.05, p<.001). Facilities offering telepsychiatry had lower odds of receiving funding from Medicaid (OR=0.86, 95% CI=0.75-0.98, p<0.001) but higher odds of receiving funding from all other sources. Facilities in states that did not fund telepsychiatry had lower odds of offering these services in 2017 (OR=0.57, 95% CI=0.51-0.62, p<0.001). Telepsychiatry was more commonly offered in states with higher proportions of rural population (OR=1.64, 95% CI=1.45-1.85, p<0.001) and designated medically underserved areas (OR=1.36, 95% CI=1.25-1.47, p<0.001), compared with other states. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly twice as many U.S. mental health facilities offered telepsychiatry in 2017 than in 2010. Medicaid funding lagged behind other funding sources, suggesting state administrative barriers. Telepsychiatry was commonly used by facilities in medically underserved and rural areas.

Availability of Assertive Community Treatment in the United States: 2010 to 2016.

OBJECTIVE: The study examined change in availability of assertive community treatment (ACT) and associated services over time. METHODS: Change over time in the availability of facilities in the United States offering ACT and its associated services was examined by using 2010 and 2016 data from the National Mental Health Services Survey. RESULTS: The proportion of facilities that self-reported provision of ACT and its associated services declined between 2010 and 2016 (odds ratio [OR]=0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.63-0.86, p<0.001). Although a higher proportion of facilities that provided ACT reported offering all the required services in 2016 (OR=1.31, 95% CI=1.04-1.66, p=0.026) compared with 2010, this proportion accounted for less than 20% of the programs. Compared with 2010, in 2016 increases were observed in peer (OR=1.72, 95% CI=1.38-2.13, p<0.001) and co-occurring disorders services (OR=1.23, 95% CI=1.08-1.42, p=0.004) as well as in secondary services, such as tobacco cessation (OR=4.53, 95% CI=3.51-5.84, p<0.001) and telemedicine (OR=2.08, 95% CI=1.67-2.57, p<0.001). Continuous education for staff was required at more facilities with ACT in 2016 compared with 2010. CONCLUSIONS: Although the proportion of facilities with ACT that offer all the required core services has increased in recent years, such programs remain a minority, and the overall number of facilities with ACT has declined.

Distribution and Correlates of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and ACT-Like Programs: Results From the 2015 N-MHSS.

OBJECTIVE: The study examined the availability and characteristics of assertive community treatment (ACT) programs across mental health treatment facilities in the United States. METHODS: Prevalence and correlates of facilities that reported offering ACT, broadly defined as intensive community services for serious mental illness provided by multidisciplinary teams in the clients' natural settings and including both ACT and "ACT-like" programs, were examined by using data from the National Mental Health Services Survey. Availability of services essential to the ACT model in these facilities was also examined. RESULTS: Of the 12,826 surveyed facilities, 13.4% reported offering ACT, with significant variability among states. Of the facilities with ACT, 19.2% reported offering all core ACT services. Few facilities offered peer support, employment, and housing services. Compared with programs at facilities that did not offer all core ACT services, facilities with ACT programs that offered these services had higher odds of being publicly owned (odds ratio [OR]=2.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.64-2.74) and of receiving federal (OR=3.60, CI=2.17-5.98) or grant funding (OR=1.87, CI=1.45-2.41). Facilities with ACT that offered all core services also had higher odds of offering other services important to individuals with serious mental disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial differences existed in availability of ACT and ACT-like programs among states, with evidence of a large unmet need overall, even when a very broad and inclusive definition of ACT was used. Few ACT programs offered all core services. Legislative, administrative, and funding differences may explain some of the variability.

Exposure to Direct-to-Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertising and Medication Nonadherence Among Patients With Serious Mental Illness.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored the association of exposure to direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) with medication nonadherence among individuals with serious mental disorders. METHODS: Results of an anonymous survey administered at an inner-city mental health clinic were examined by using logistic regression. Nonadherence was defined as not taking prescribed medications for at least two out of seven days. RESULTS: Of 246 respondents, 48% reported DTCA exposure and 43% reported nonadherence. Sixty-one percent of those exposed to DTCA reported nonadherence, compared with 26% of those not exposed (adjusted odds ratio=4.96, 95% confidence interval=2.64-9.33, p<.001). Among those exposed to advertisements and reporting nonadherence, 59% reported changing medication-taking behaviors or stopping prescribed medications because of side effect information in advertisements. Only a minority communicated with providers before becoming nonadherent. CONCLUSIONS: This study found an association between self-report of DTCA exposure and self-reported nonadherence. These results support further research on DTCA as a possible risk factor for nonadherence.