A critical review of clinician-directed nudges.

As nudges-subtle changes to the way options are presented to guide choice-have gained popularity across policy domains in the past 15 years, healthcare systems and researchers have eagerly deployed these light-touch interventions to improve clinical decision-making. However, recent research has identified the limitations of nudges. Although nudges may modestly improve clinical decisions in some contexts, these interventions (particularly nudges implemented as electronic health record alerts) can also backfire and have unintended consequences. Further, emerging research on crowd-out effects suggests that healthcare nudges may direct attention and resources toward the clinical encounter and away from the main structural drivers of poor health outcomes. It is time to move beyond nudges and toward the development of multi-level, structurally focused interventions.

Change in suicidal ideation, depression, and anxiety following collaborative care in the community.

BACKGROUND: The Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) increases access to mental health treatment and improves outcomes among patients with mild to moderate psychopathology; however, it is unclear how effective CoCM is for patients with elevated suicide risk. METHODS: We examined data from the Penn Integrated Care program, a CoCM program including an intake and referral management center plus traditional CoCM services implemented in primary care clinics within a large, diverse academic medical system. In this community setting, we examined: (1) characteristics of patients with and without suicidal ideation who initiated CoCM, (2) changes in suicidal ideation (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] item 9), depression (PHQ-9 total scores), and anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 scores) from the first to last CoCM visit overall and across demographic subgroups, and (3) the relationship between amount of CoCM services provided and degree of symptom reduction. RESULTS: From 2018 to 2022, 3,487 patients were referred to CoCM, initiated treatment for at least 15 days, and had completed symptom measures at the first and last visit. Patients were 74% female, 45% Black/African American, and 45% White. The percentage of patients reporting suicidal ideation declined 11%-7% from the first to last visit. Suicidal ideation severity typically improved, and very rarely worsened, during CoCM. Depression and anxiety declined significantly among patients with and without suicidal ideation and across demographic subgroups; however, the magnitude of these declines differed across race, ethnicity, and age. Patients with suicidal ideation at the start of CoCM had higher depression scores than patients without suicidal ideation at the start and end of treatment. Longer CoCM episodes were associated with greater reductions in depression severity. CONCLUSIONS: Suicidal ideation, depression, and anxiety declined following CoCM among individuals with suicidal ideation in a community setting. Findings are consistent with emerging evidence from clinical trials suggesting CoCM's potential for increasing access to mental healthcare and improving outcomes among patients at risk for suicide.

Should contingency management protocols and dissemination practices be modified to accommodate rising stimulant use and harm reduction frameworks?

BACKGROUND: Stimulant-related overdoses have increased dramatically, with almost 50% of overdoses in the United States now involving stimulants. Additionally, harm-reduction approaches are increasingly seen as key to reducing the negative impact of substance use. Contingency management (CM), the provision of financial incentives for abstinence, is the most effective treatment for stimulant use disorder, but historically has not been widely implemented. Many recent, large-scale implementation efforts have relied upon foundational CM protocols that may not sufficiently account for recent increases in the prevalence and lethality of stimulant use nor the growing preference for harm reduction versus abstinence-only frameworks. ARGUMENT: We argue the need to (1) consider whether and how CM protocols might be modified to address rising stimulant use and harm reduction frameworks and (2) make CM widely accessible so that it can reduce population-level stimulant use while ensuring that it is delivered with fidelity to its basic principles. Proposed changes include changing CM reinforcement schedules to emphasize treatment engagement and reductions in use in addition to abstinence, changing guidelines on the duration of and re-engagement in CM, investing in research on virtual CM, incentivizing providers and health systems to deliver CM, making it easier to purchase and use point-of-care drug screens, using direct-to-consumer marketing to increase demand for CM and adapting CM to the community in which it is being implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed modifications to contingency management (CM) protocols and accessibility may more effectively address rising stimulant use and align CM more closely with harm-reduction frameworks. Given the urgent need to reduce overdose deaths, developing and testing modified CM protocols may need to rely upon methods other than randomized controlled trials. Efforts to disseminate CM widely to reduce population-level stimulant use must be balanced with the need to maintain fidelity to CM's basic principles.

Impact of U.S. Federal Loan Repayment Programs on the Behavioral Health Workforce: Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: Federal loan repayment programs (LRPs) are one strategy to address the shortage of behavioral health providers. This scoping review aimed to identify and characterize the federal LRPs' impact on the U.S. behavioral health workforce. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with JBI (formerly known as the Joanna Briggs Institute) methodology for scoping reviews. The authors searched the Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, APA PsycInfo, EconLit, PAIS Index, and Embase databases, and gray literature was also reviewed. Two coders screened each article's abstract and full text and extracted study data. Findings were narratively synthesized and conceptually organized. RESULTS: The full-text screening identified 17 articles that met eligibility criteria. Of these, eight were peer-reviewed studies, and all but one evaluated the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) LRP. Findings were conceptually organized into five categories: descriptive studies of NHSC behavioral health needs and the NHSC workforce (k=4); providers' perceptions of, and experiences with, the NHSC (k=2); associations between NHSC funding and the number of NHSC behavioral health providers (k=4); NHSC behavioral health workforce productivity and capacity (k=3); and federal LRP recruitment and retention (k=4). CONCLUSIONS: The literature on federal LRPs and their impact on the behavioral health workforce is relatively limited. Although federal LRPs are an important and effective tool to address the behavioral health workforce shortage, additional federal policy strategies are needed to attract and retain behavioral health providers and to diversify the behavioral health workforce.