Efficacy of life goals collaborative care for bipolar disorder: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder remains a disabling mental health condition despite the availability of effective treatments. Collaborative chronic care models (CCMs) represent an evidence-based way to structure care for conditions like bipolar disorder. Life Goals Collaborative Care (LGCC) was designed specifically for bipolar disorder, featuring psychoeducation alongside collaborative components (e.g. nurse care management or expert psychiatric consultation). Despite the use of Life Goals across health systems, a systematic review summarizing its effectiveness has never been conducted. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of LGCC through December 2023 to help guide the field in treating bipolar disorder (PROSPERO: #404581). We evaluated study quality and outcomes in several symptom and quality of life domains. RESULTS: Ten articles describing eight studies met inclusion criteria. All studies featured group-based LGCC; most were compared to treatment as usual (TAU). Three of eight studies found LGCC to be associated with statistically significant effects for the prevention of manic episodes. Most studies finding positive effects featured additional collaborative care components beyond psychoeducation and were conducted in capitated healthcare systems. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include: several types of potential bias in included studies; exclusion of observational studies of LGCC; lack of generalizability to pediatric populations; insufficient studies to conduct subgroup analyses; and low confidence in the quality of the evidence. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, group-based LGCC demonstrated some positive effects for reducing mania recurrence; results for other outcome domains were equivocal. Future studies should investigate one-on-one LGCC, both in person and virtually, to enhance well-being for people with bipolar disorder.

Sustaining the collaborative chronic care model in outpatient mental health: a matrixed multiple case study.

BACKGROUND: Sustaining evidence-based practices (EBPs) is crucial to ensuring care quality and addressing health disparities. Approaches to identifying factors related to sustainability are critically needed. One such approach is Matrixed Multiple Case Study (MMCS), which identifies factors and their combinations that influence implementation. We applied MMCS to identify factors related to the sustainability of the evidence-based Collaborative Chronic Care Model (CCM) at nine Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient mental health clinics, 3-4 years after implementation support had concluded. METHODS: We conducted a directed content analysis of 30 provider interviews, using 6 CCM elements and 4 Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) domains as codes. Based on CCM code summaries, we designated each site as high/medium/low sustainability. We used i-PARIHS code summaries to identify relevant factors for each site, the extent of their presence, and the type of influence they had on sustainability (enabling/neutral/hindering/unclear). We organized these data into a sortable matrix and assessed sustainability-related cross-site trends. RESULTS: CCM sustainability status was distributed among the sites, with three sites each being high, medium, and low. Twenty-five factors were identified from the i-PARIHS code summaries, of which 3 exhibited strong trends by sustainability status (relevant i-PARIHS domain in square brackets): "Collaborativeness/Teamwork [Recipients]," "Staff/Leadership turnover [Recipients]," and "Having a consistent/strong internal facilitator [Facilitation]" during and after active implementation. At most high-sustainability sites only, (i) "Having a knowledgeable/helpful external facilitator [Facilitation]" was variably present and enabled sustainability when present, while (ii) "Clarity about what CCM comprises [Innovation]," "Interdisciplinary coordination [Recipients]," and "Adequate clinic space for CCM team members [Context]" were somewhat or less present with mixed influences on sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: MMCS revealed that CCM sustainability in VA outpatient mental health clinics may be related most strongly to provider collaboration, knowledge retention during staff/leadership transitions, and availability of skilled internal facilitators. These findings have informed a subsequent CCM implementation trial that prospectively examines whether enhancing the above-mentioned factors within implementation facilitation improves sustainability. MMCS is a systematic approach to multi-site examination that can be used to investigate sustainability-related factors applicable to other EBPs and across multiple contexts.

Adaptation for sustainability in an implementation trial of team-based collaborative care.

Background: Sustaining healthcare interventions once they have been implemented is a pivotal public health endeavor. Achieving sustainability requires context-sensitive adaptations to evidence-based practices (EBPs) or the implementation strategies used to ensure their adoption. For replicability of adaptations beyond the specific setting in question, the underlying logic needs to be clearly described, and adaptations themselves need to be plainly documented. The goal of this project was to describe the process by which implementation facilitation was adapted to improve the uptake of clinical care practices that are consistent with the collaborative chronic care model (CCM). Method: Quantitative and qualitative data from a prior implementation trial found that CCM-consistent care practices were not fully sustained within outpatient general mental health teams that had received 1 year of implementation facilitation to support uptake. We undertook a multistep consensus process to identify adaptations to implementation facilitation based on these results, with the goal of enhancing the sustainability of CCM-based care in a subsequent trial. The logic for these adaptations, and the resulting adaptations themselves, were documented using two adaptation-oriented implementation frameworks (the iterative decision-making for evaluation of adaptations [IDEA] and the framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based implementation strategies [FRAME-IS], respectively). Results: Three adaptations emerged from this process and were documented using the FRAME-IS: (a) increasing the scope of implementation facilitation within the medical center, (b) having the internal facilitator take a greater role in the implementation process, and (c) shortening the implementation timeframe from 12 to 8 months, while increasing the intensity of facilitation support during that time. Conclusions: EBP sustainability may require careful adaptation of EBPs or the implementation strategies used to get them into routine practice. Recently developed frameworks such as the IDEA and FRAME-IS may be used to guide decision-making and document resulting adaptations themselves. An ongoing funded study is investigating the utility of the resulting adaptations for improving healthcare.

Evidence-based treatments may not be sustained after they have been implemented in healthcare settings. To address this, treatments and implementation strategies may need to be adapted to fit the local context or the patient population. Maximizing the usefulness of such adaptations requires documenting the decision-making process. Understanding how an implementation strategy has been adapted for a given study or setting is crucial to ensuring that adaptations don't compromise fidelity to the implementation strategy while enabling its replicability in similar settings. This article uses two adaptation frameworks to describe the process by which implementation facilitation, a common implementation strategy, was adapted to help establish and sustain effective mental health clinical teams in VA medical centers. It is our hope that our description of this process may help healthcare researchers, administrators, and policymakers to describe and document adaptations to implementation strategies in their own settings.

Defining and Improving Outcomes Measurement for Virtual Care: Report from the VHA State-of-the-Art Conference on Virtual Care.

Virtual care, including synchronous and asynchronous telehealth, remote patient monitoring, and the collection and interpretation of patient-generated health data (PGHD), has the potential to transform healthcare delivery and increase access to care. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Office of Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) convened a State-of-the-Art (SOTA) Conference on Virtual Care to identify future virtual care research priorities. Participants were divided into three workgroups focused on virtual care access, engagement, and outcomes. In this article, we report the findings of the Outcomes Workgroup. The group identified virtual care outcome areas with sufficient evidence, areas in need of additional research, and areas that are particularly well-suited to be studied within VHA. Following a rigorous process of literature review and consensus, the group focused on four questions: (1) What outcomes of virtual care should we be measuring and how should we measure them?; (2) how do we choose the "right" care modality for the "right" patient?; (3) what are potential consequences of virtual care on patient safety?; and (4) how can PGHD be used to benefit provider decision-making and patient self-management?. The current article outlines key conclusions that emerged following discussion of these questions, including recommendations for future research.

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).

A sociotechnical framework to assess patient-facing eHealth tools: results of a modified Delphi process.

Among the thousands of eHealth tools available, the vast majority do not get past pilot phases because they cannot prove value, and only a few have been systematically assessed. Although multiple eHealth assessment frameworks have been developed, these efforts face multiple challenges. This study aimed to address some of these challenges by validating and refining an initial list of 55 assessment criteria based on previous frameworks through a two-round modified Delphi process with in-between rounds of interviews. The expert panel (n = 57) included participants from 18 countries and 9 concerned parties. A consensus was reached on 46 criteria that were classified into foundational and contextual criteria. The 36 foundational criteria focus on evaluating the eHealth tool itself and were grouped into nine clusters: technical aspects, clinical utility and safety, usability and human centricity, functionality, content, data management, endorsement, maintenance, and developer. The 10 contextual criteria focus on evaluating the factors that vary depending on the context the tool is being evaluated for and were grouped into seven clusters: data-protection compliance, safety regulatory compliance, interoperability and data integration, cultural requirements, affordability, cost-benefit, and implementability. The classification of criteria into foundational and contextual helps us assess not only the quality of an isolated tool, but also its potential fit in a specific setting. Criteria subscales may be particularly relevant when determining the strengths and weaknesses of the tool being evaluated. This granularity enables different concerned parties to make informed decisions about which tools to consider according to their specific needs and priorities.

Discipline-level differences in mental health provider perceptions of video and phone telehealth.

COVID-19 led to a rapid increase in telemental health care via video or phone. It is important to examine contributors to the choice of video versus phone, as video may be more effective and preferred by patients. Medical mental health (MH) providers (e.g., psychiatrists) may conduct more phone and less video visits than nonmedical MH providers (e.g., psychologists). This study examined whether medical and nonmedical providers' perceptions of the quality and complexity of phone and video MH care may contribute to differences in use. A 32-item survey of 414 providers (79.5% response rate) assessed perceptions of care quality, factors contributing to modality choice, and telehealth challenges. The types of visits completed by providers in the months prior to the survey were extracted from administrative data. Medical and nonmedical providers generally viewed video care as higher quality and more preferred than phone, although to a lesser extent among medical providers. Nonmedical providers' decision making was more impacted by research regarding the modalities' relative effectiveness. Medical providers more frequently endorsed video challenges, including patient technical difficulties and lack of patient training. Administrative data demonstrated that medical providers conducted fewer video appointments than nonmedical providers. Medical providers may be less aware of research demonstrating that video care is effective and preferred by patients, and the complexity of video visits may be a barrier to use. Streamlining video processes, increasing technical support, and disseminating research that compares the quality of video and phone care may increase video use among medical providers. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

One-Year All-Cause Mortality and Delivery of the Collaborative Chronic Care Model in General Mental Health Clinics.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether the evidence-based collaborative chronic care model (CCM) is associated with reduced all-cause mortality among adult patients treated in general mental health clinics. METHODS: Data came from a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized CCM implementation trial across nine U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers. Survival analysis was used to estimate the relative effect of the treatment (N=5,570) compared with a control group (N=46,443) over 1 year. RESULTS: After adjustment for site-level and individual-level acute care utilization factors, analyses indicated that patients treated with the CCM experienced a reduction in all-cause mortality relative to patients in the control cohort (hazard ratio=0.76, 95% CI=0.60-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first in which CCM has been shown to reduce all-cause mortality for patients treated in general mental health clinics. Care delivery models should be considered part of efforts to reduce the life expectancy gap between individuals with psychiatric conditions and those without such conditions.

Interdisciplinary behavioral health provider perceptions of implementing the Collaborative Chronic Care Model: an i-PARIHS-guided qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The evidence-based Collaborative Chronic Care Model (CCM), developed to help structure care for chronic health conditions, comprises six elements: work role redesign, patient self-management support, provider decision support, clinical information systems, linkages to community resources, and organizational/leadership support. As the CCM is increasingly implemented in real-world settings, there is heightened interest in understanding specific influences upon implementation. Therefore, guided by the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework, we (i) identified innovation-, recipient-, context-, and facilitation-related influences on CCM implementation and (ii) assessed the influences' relationship to each CCM element's implementation. METHODS: Using semi-structured interviews, we examined interdisciplinary behavioral health providers' experiences at nine VA medical centers that implemented the CCM. We used i-PARIHS constructs as a priori codes for directed content analysis, then analyzed the data for cross-coding by CCM element and i-PARIHS construct. RESULTS: Participants (31 providers) perceived the CCM innovation as enabling comprehensive care but challenging to coordinate with existing structures/procedures. As recipients, participants recounted not always having the authority to design CCM-consistent care processes. They perceived local leadership support to be indispensable to implementation success and difficult to garner when CCM implementation distracted from other organizational priorities. They found implementation facilitation helpful for keeping implementation on track. We identified key themes at the intersection of i-PARIHS constructs and core CCM elements, including (i) the CCM being an innovation that offers a formal structure to stepping down care intensity for patients to encourage their self-management, (ii) recipients accessing their multidisciplinary colleagues' expertise for provider decision support, (iii) relationships with external services in the community (e.g., homelessness programs) being a helpful context for providing comprehensive care, and (iv) facilitators helping to redesign specific interdisciplinary team member roles. CONCLUSIONS: Future CCM implementation would benefit from (i) facilitating strategic development of supportive maintenance plans for patients' self-management, (ii) collocating multidisciplinary staff (on-site or virtually) to enhance provider decision support, (iii) keeping information on available community resources up to date, and (iv) making clearer the explicit CCM-consistent care processes that work roles can be designed around. This work can inform concrete tailoring of implementation efforts to focus on the more challenging CCM elements, which is crucial to better account for multiple influences that vary across diverse care settings in which the CCM is being implemented.

Sustainability of the Collaborative Chronic Care Model in Outpatient Mental Health Teams Three Years Post-Implementation: A Qualitative Analysis.

Our goal was to investigate the sustainability of care practices that are consistent with the collaborative chronic care model (CCM) in nine outpatient mental health teams located within US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers, three to four years after the completion of CCM implementation. We conducted qualitative interviews (N = 30) with outpatient mental health staff from each of the nine teams. We based our directed content analysis on the six elements of the CCM. We found variable sustainability of CCM-based care processes across sites. Some care processes, such as delivery of evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) and use of measurement-based care (MBC) to guide clinic decision-making, were robustly maintained or even expanded within participating teams. In contrast, other care processes-which had in some cases been developed with considerable effort-had not been sustained. For example, care manager roles were diminished in scope or eliminated completely in response to workload pressures, frontline care needs, or the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, processes for engaging Veterans more fully in decision-making had generally been scaled back. Leadership support in the form of adequate team staffing and time to conduct team meetings were seen as crucial for sustaining CCM-consistent care. Given the potential impact of leadership turnover on sustainability in mental health, future efforts to implement CCM-based mental health care should strive to involve multiple leaders in implementation and sustainment efforts, lest one key departure undo years of implementation work. Our results also suggest that implementing CCM processes may best be conceptualized as a partnership across multiple levels of medical center leadership.

Use of telemental health for VA family services before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Military veterans experiencing relationship or family difficulties are able to access family services (i.e., couple and family therapy) through the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System. Although family services have historically been provided face-to-face (F2F), the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a sudden shift to the provision of care via telemental health, which includes videoconferencing (TMH-V) or audio-only phone appointments. This study demonstrated an unprecedented 16-fold increase in the number of TMH-V appointments for family services in VA during the first 9 months of the pandemic. The present study also examined demographic, mental health, and military variables associated with TMH-V utilization before and during the pandemic using a large national VA data set of 13,344 veterans who were referred to couple or family therapy from October 2017 through December 2020. Logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of having any appointments via TMH-V before and during COVID-19, respectively, as well as predictors of having 50% or more of family service appointments via TMH-V versus phone versus face-to-face appointments during the COVID-19 era. Pre-COVID predictors of TMH-V utilization were limited to obsessive-compulsive disorder diagnosis and history of psychiatric hospitalization, suggesting that TMH-V usage was largely related to clinical indications. In the COVID-19 era, older and rural veterans were less likely to attend appointments via TMH-V than younger and suburban/urban veterans, while Hispanic veterans were more likely to do so than non-Hispanic veterans. The findings from the present study may aid efforts to ensure equity in access to care among veterans in the VA Health Care System. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Getting Connected: a Retrospective Cohort Investigation of Video-to-Home Telehealth for Mental Health Care Utilization Among Women Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, women are serving in the military and seeking care at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Women veterans face unique challenges and barriers in seeking mental health (MH) care within VHA. VA Video Connect (VVC), which facilitates video-based teleconferencing between patients and providers, can reduce barriers while maintaining clinical effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: Primary aims were to examine gender differences in VVC use, describe changes in VVC use over time (including pre-COVID and 6 months following the beginning of COVID), and determine whether changes over time differed by gender. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort investigation of video-to-home telehealth for MH care utilization among veterans having at least 1 MH visit from October 2019 to September 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans (236,268 women; 1,318,024 men). INTERVENTIONS (IF APPLICABLE): VVC involves face-to-face, synchronous, video-based teleconferencing between patients and providers, enabling care at home or another private location. MAIN MEASURES: Percentage of MH encounters delivered via VA Video Connect. KEY RESULTS: Women veterans were more likely than men to have at least 1 VVC encounter and had a greater percentage of MH care delivered via VVC in FY20. There was an increase in the percentage of MH encounters that were VVC over FY20, and this increase was greater for women than men. Women veterans who were younger than 55 (compared to those 55 and older), lived in urban areas (compared to those in rural areas), or were Asian (compared to other races) had a greater percentage of MH encounters that were VVC since the start of the pandemic, controlling for the mean percentage of VVC MH encounters in the 6 months pre-pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: VVC use for MH care is greater in women veterans compared to male veterans and may reduce gender-specific access barriers. Future research and VVC implementation efforts should emphasize maximizing patient choice and satisfaction.

Factors influencing uptake of telemental health via videoconferencing at high and low adoption sites within the Department of Veterans Affairs during COVID-19: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic dramatically increased the use of telemental health via videoconferencing (TMH-V). While TMH-V has been found to be effective and satisfactory to both patients and providers, little is known regarding factors that influence site-level uptake. We examined facilitators and barriers to TMH-V uptake at higher and lower adoption sites within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). METHODS: We conducted twenty-four semi-structured qualitative interviews at four northeastern VA medical centers (two with higher TMH-V adoption and two with lower adoption). Six interviews were conducted per site (one member of mental health leadership, one facility telehealth coordinator/technician, and four mental health providers per site). We performed directed content analysis, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), followed by a matrix rating process to rank the degree of influence of each of the 19 included CFIR constructs at the four sites. Positive overall influences, negative overall influences, and differentiators were then identified based on patterns in ratings across sites. RESULTS: Five CFIR constructs had positive overall influences across sites: Relative advantage, Patient needs and resources, Relative priority, Knowledge and beliefs, and Self-efficacy. Complexity had a negative overall influence across sites. Four constructs significantly differentiated between higher and lower adoption sites with regards to TMH-V use: Quality, Compatibility, Leadership engagement, and Champions. CONCLUSIONS: Several positive overall influences on TMH-V uptake were identified across sites; respondents acknowledged multiple advantages of TMH-V (e.g., convenience), and providers' attitudes towards TMH-V improved as they gained experience. In contrast, complexity was a negative overall influence; TMH-V platforms and processes must be simple and user friendly to promote use. The emergence of Quality, Leadership engagement, and Champions as differentiators speaks to the importance of educating frontline staff and leadership at lower adoption sites about the evidence base demonstrating that TMH-V is high-quality care. Compatibility also emerged as a differentiator; if TMH-V is not easily integrated into provider workflows, uptake will falter. Future work should draw from these findings to develop implementation strategies aiming to increase TMH-V uptake at lower adoption sites, thereby increasing access to high-quality mental health care.

Perceptions and Use of Telehealth Among Mental Health, Primary, and Specialty Care Clinicians During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Clinician attitudes toward telehealth may impact utilization rates, and findings may differ based on specialty. Objective: To determine whether clinician beliefs regarding telehealth quality and ease of use were associated with the proportion of care delivered via video, phone, and in-person across specialties. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used a voluntary, anonymous survey conducted from August to September 2021 in the Department of Veterans Affairs New England Healthcare System (VANEHS). Mental health (MH), primary care (PC), and specialty care (SC) clinicians were invited to participate. Data were analyzed from October 2021 to January 2022. Exposures: Participation in a 32-item survey. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were clinicians' views on relative quality of video, phone, and in-person care; factors contributing to clinicians' modality choice; telehealth challenges; and clinician modality preferences and utilization when treating new and established patients. Results: There were 866 survey respondents (estimated 64% response rate); 52 respondents reported no video or phone telehealth use in the 3 months prior to survey completion and were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 814 respondents. Respondents were divided among MH (403 respondents [49.5%]), PC (153 respondents [18.8%]), and SC (258 respondents [31.7%]). Compared with PC and SC clinicians, MH clinicians rated the quality of video care the highest (eg, compared with in-person care with masks when treating new patients: χ2 = 147.8; P < .001) and were more likely to prefer video over phone when treating both new (χ2 = 26.6; P < .001) and established (χ2 = 100.4; P < .001) patients remotely. PC and SC clinicians were more likely to rate phone care as being at least equivalent in quality to video for both new (χ2 = 26.3; P < .001) and established (χ2 = 33.5; P < .001) patients. PC and SC clinicians were also more likely to endorse challenges of video care, including patient barriers and the inability to conduct a physical examination (χ2 = 292.0; P < .001). Most PC and SC clinicians either had no preference (46 PC respondents [36.2%]; 59 SC respondents [28.4%]) or preferred phone (36 PC respondents [28.3%]; 67 SC respondents [32.2%]) for remote care of established patients. Findings aligned with utilization rates within VANEHS, with MH clinicians conducting significantly more of their encounters via video (36 734 encounters [40.3%]) than PC (3201 encounters [3.9%]) and SC (1157 encounters [4.9%]) clinicians. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that clinician attitudes regarding telehealth quality and ease of use were associated with utilization rates. Moving forward, clinician use of telehealth may be impacted by additional data regarding the relative effectiveness of modalities as well as improvements in video telehealth workflows.

Provider perspectives on telemental health implementation: Lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic and paths forward.

After years of slow and fragmented implementation of telemental health (TMH), the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated widespread adoption. With the initial state of public health emergency behind us, we are at a decision point on whether to continue with TMH or return to a largely in-person care model. In this qualitative study, we investigated clinicians' perspectives on advantages and disadvantages of TMH in outpatient mental healthcare as well as considerations for future implementation. We conducted 29 semistructured interviews with outpatient mental health providers. Data were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis methodology. Advantages included increased utilization of services, improved therapeutic processes, and improved provider wellbeing. Providers, however, also noted that TMH has some disadvantages in terms of therapeutic processes and provider wellbeing, and they reported technology issues as an additional disadvantage. Overall providers reported they can provide high quality care via TMH, but indicated some patient populations and appointment types are a better fit for in-person services. Most providers preferred a hybrid model of care moving forward with reimbursement discrepancies and out-of-state licensure restrictions as barriers. They indicated that, as TMH becomes a mainstay in psychiatric care, training and professional guidelines will be important. Continued implementation of TMH alongside in-person care is likely to offer improved access and enhanced service quality when applied to the right patient populations and appointment types. Effective implementation may require policy and systems level support on equitable reimbursement rates, out-of-state licensure restrictions and professional guidelines for delivering TMH. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Time-motion analysis of external facilitation for implementing the Collaborative Chronic Care Model in general mental health clinics: Use of an interval-based data collection approach.

Background: Facilitation is an effective strategy to implement evidence-based practices, often involving external facilitators (EFs) bringing content expertise to implementation sites. Estimating time spent on multifaceted EF activities is complex. Furthermore, collecting continuous time-motion data for facilitation tasks is challenging. However, organizations need this information to allocate implementation resources to sites. Thus, our objectives were to conduct a time-motion analysis of external facilitation, and compare continuous versus noncontinuous approaches to collecting time-motion data. Methods: We analyzed EF time-motion data from six VA mental health clinics implementing the evidence-based Collaborative Chronic Care Model (CCM). We documented EF activities during pre-implementation (4-6 weeks) and implementation (12 months) phases. We collected continuous data during the pre-implementation phase, followed by data collection over a 2-week period (henceforth, "a two-week interval") at each of three time points (beginning/middle/end) during the implementation phase. As a validity check, we assessed how closely interval data represented continuous data collected throughout implementation for two of the sites. Results: EFs spent 21.8 ± 4.5 h/site during pre-implementation off-site, then 27.5 ± 4.6 h/site site-visiting to initiate implementation. Based on the 2-week interval data, EFs spent 2.5 ± 0.8, 1.4 ± 0.6, and 1.2 ± 0.6 h/week toward the implementation's beginning, middle, and end, respectively. Prevalent activities were preparation/planning, process monitoring, program adaptation, problem identification, and problem-solving. Across all activities, 73.6% of EF time involved email, phone, or video communication. For the two continuous data sites, computed weekly time averages toward the implementation's beginning, middle, and end differed from the interval data's averages by 1.0, 0.1, and 0.2 h, respectively. Activities inconsistently captured in the interval data included irregular assessment, stakeholder engagement, and network development. Conclusions: Time-motion analysis of CCM implementation showed initial higher-intensity EF involvement that tapered. The 2-week interval data collection approach, if accounting for its potential underestimation of irregular activities, may be promising/efficient for implementation studies collecting time-motion data.

Initial concurrent and convergent validity of the Perceived Access Inventory (PAI) for mental health services.

Access to high-quality health care, including mental health care, remains a high priority for the Department of Veterans Affairs and civilian health care systems. Increased access to mental health care is associated with improved outcomes, including decreased suicidal behavior. Multiple policy changes and interventions are being developed and implemented to improve access to mental health care. The Perceived Access Inventory (PAI) is a patient-centered questionnaire developed to understand the veteran perspective about access to mental health services. The PAI is a self-report measure that includes 43 items across 5 domains: Logistics (6 items), Culture (4 items), Digital (9 items), Systems of Care (13 items), and Experiences of Care (11 items). This article is a preliminary examination of the concurrent and convergent validity of the PAI with respect to the Hoge Perceived Barriers to Seeking Mental Health Services scale (concurrent) and the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ; convergent). Telephone interviews were conducted with veterans from 3 geographic regions. Eligibility criteria included screening positive for posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol use disorder, or depression in the past 12 months. Data from 92 veterans were analyzed using correlation matrices. PAI scores were significantly correlated with the Hoge total score (concurrent validity) and CSQ scores (convergent validity). The PAI items with the strongest correlation with CSQ were in the Systems of Care domain and the weakest were in the Logistics domain. Future efforts will evaluate validity using larger data sets and utilize the PAI to develop and test interventions to improve access to care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Provider perspectives on delivering dialectical behavior therapy via telehealth during COVID-19 in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) is an evidence-based psychotherapy (EBP) for repeated suicidal and nonsuicidal self-injury and Borderline Personality Disorder. There has been little research on the effectiveness or implementation of DBT via telehealth. However, literature has demonstrated that other EBPs delivered via telehealth are just as effective as in person. DBT differs from these EBPs in complexity, inclusion of group sessions, length of treatment, and focus on individuals at high risk for suicide. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused mental health care services across the country and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to transition to telehealth to reduce infection risk for patients and providers. This transition offered an opportunity to learn about implementing DBT via telehealth on a national scale. We conducted a survey of DBT team points of contact in VA (N = 32) to gather information about how DBT via telehealth was being implemented, challenges and solutions, and provider perceptions. The majority reported that their site continued offering the modes of DBT via telehealth that they had offered in person. The predominant types of challenges in transitioning to telehealth were related to technology on the provider and patient side. Despite challenges, most providers reported their experience was better than expected and had positive perceptions of patient acceptability. Skills group was the more difficult mode to provide via telehealth. Providers endorsed needing additional tools (e.g., means to get diary card data electronically). Multiple benefits of DBT via telehealth were identified, such as addressing barriers to care including distance, transportation issues, and caregiving and work responsibilities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Patient and provider predictors of telemental health use prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic within the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The current study examined patient and provider differences in use of phone, video, and in-person mental health (MH) services. Participants included patients who completed ≥ 1 MH appointment within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from 10/1/17-7/10/20 and providers who completed ≥ 100 VA MH appointments from 10/1/17-7/10/20. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) are reported of patients and providers: (a) completing ≥1 video MH appointment in the pre-COVID (10/1/17-3/10/20) and COVID (3/11/20-7/10/20) periods; and (b) completing the majority of MH visits via phone, video, or in-person during COVID. The sample included 2,480,119 patients/31,971 providers in the pre-COVID period, and 1,054,670 patients/23,712 providers in the COVID period. During the pre-COVID and COVID periods, older patients had lower odds of completing ≥ 1 video visit (aORs < .65). During the COVID period, older age and low socioeconomic status predicted lower odds of having ≥ 50% of visits via video versus in-person or phone (aORs < .68); schizophrenia and MH hospitalization history predicted lower odds of having ≥ 50% of visits via video or phone versus in-person (aORs < . 64). During the pre-COVID and COVID periods, nonpsychologists (e.g., psychiatrists) had lower odds of completing video visits (aORs < . 44). Older providers had lower odds of completing ≥ 50% of visits via video during COVID (aORs <. 69). Findings demonstrate a digital divide, such that older and lower income patients, and older providers, engaged in less video care. Nonpsychologists also had lower video use. Barriers to use must be identified and strategies must be implemented to ensure equitable access to video MH services. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).