Lived Experience-Led Research Agenda to Address Early Death in People With a Diagnosis of a Serious Mental Illness: A Consensus Statement.

Importance: People with serious mental illness (SMI), defined as a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder, or disabling major depressive disorder) die approximately 10 to 25 years earlier than the general population. Objective: To develop the first-ever lived experience-led research agenda to address early mortality in people with SMI. Evidence Review: A virtual 2-day roundtable comprising 40 individuals convened on May 24 and May 26, 2022, and used a virtual Delphi method to arrive at expert group consensus. Participants responded to 6 rounds of virtual Delphi discussion via email that prioritized research topics and agreement on recommendations. The roundtable was composed of individuals with lived experience of mental health and/or substance misuse, peer support specialists, recovery coaches, parents and caregivers of people with SMI, researchers and clinician-scientists with and without lived experience, policy makers, and patient-led organizations. Twenty-two of 28 (78.6%) of the authors who provided data represented people with lived experiences. Roundtable members were selected by reviewing the peer-reviewed and gray literature on early mortality and SMI, direct email, and snowball sampling. Findings: The following recommendations are presented in order of priority as identified by the roundtable participants: (1) improve the empirical understanding of the direct and indirect social and biological contributions of trauma on morbidity and early mortality; (2) advance the role of family, extended families, and informal supporters; (3) recognize the importance of co-occurring disorders and early mortality; (4) redefine clinical education to reduce stigma and support clinicians through technological advancements to improve diagnostic accuracy; (5) examine outcomes meaningful to people with an SMI diagnosis, such as loneliness and sense of belonging, and stigma and their complex relationship with early mortality; (6) advance the science of pharmaceuticals, drug discovery, and choice in medication use; (7) use precision medicine to inform treatment; and (8) redefine the terms system literacy and health literacy. Conclusions and Relevance: The recommendations of this roundtable are a starting point for changing practice and highlighting lived experience-led research priorities as an option to move the field forward.

Peer support to reduce readmission in Medicaid-enrolled adults with substance use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Peer support service in substance use disorder systems (PS SUD) is an optional supplement to treatment services for Medicaid-enrolled individuals across Pennsylvania. The value of PS SUD was defined through association with improved service utilization patterns. We examined service utilization in a subset of individuals receiving PS SUD following an acute service (hospitalization or withdrawal management) compared to utilization in propensity-score-matched controls via an observational analysis. METHODS: We identified all Medicaid-enrolled adults with receipt of PS SUD from 2016 to 2019 and included those with prior acute service (n = 349); the study successfully matched all to individuals receiving outpatient SUD services without peer support (n = 698). Individuals were matched on age, gender, race, ethnicity, diagnosis, and prior utilization of acute care. A large percentage of individuals receiving PS SUD (74 %) had co-occurring mental health diagnoses, which we included in matching. We examined service utilization rates via administrative paid claims data for both groups in the first 90 days following peer support/outpatient discharge. RESULTS: Acute service utilization differed between groups over time, p = .0014. We observed a larger reduction in the rate of acute care during PS SUD service (8.6 %) versus outpatient service (21.2 %), with lower rates remaining 90 days following PS SUD (13.8 %) or outpatient discharge (16.8 %). Individuals receiving PS SUD showed connection to community-based services in the 90 days following discharge from PS SUD, including 45.0 % receiving outpatient SUD and 31.8 % receiving outpatient mental health services. CONCLUSIONS: Peer support may help individuals to navigate the behavioral health system and reduce hospitalization or other restrictive levels of care.

Scaling a Behavioral Health Home Delivery Model to Special Populations.

The present project utilized a Learning Collaborative (LC) to disseminate the Behavioral Health Home Plus (BHHP) physical-behavioral health integration model to providers serving two behavioral health populations at risk for adverse health conditions: youth psychiatric residential treatment facilities (five sites) and adult opioid treatment providers (seven sites). Following the positive results of a randomized controlled trial utilizing an LC to implement two behavioral health home models in community mental health provider organizations serving adults with serious mental illness, Community Care Behavioral Health Organization facilitated integration of the models to scale health and wellness supports to additional behavioral health care delivery settings. This paper presents provider results focused on BHHP implementation training, LC implementation, physical health and wellness promotion within sites, and BHHP model sustainment plans. Provider self-reported data indicate that the LC approach is a successful tool for integrating and sustaining BHHP model components in routine care.

Staff Perceptions of Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation of Behavioral Health Homes at Community Mental Health Provider Settings.

Individuals living with a serious mental illness are disproportionately affected by preventable and/or manageable chronic conditions. Integrated care and support for behavioral and physical health within community mental health provider (CMHP) settings, also known as behavioral health homes (BHH), can lead to improvements in care and cost outcomes. This study explored staff perceptions of barriers and facilitators to BHH implementation. We conducted semi-structured interviews with CMHP staff at baseline, 1, and 2 years after the start of implementation. We analyzed interviews to identify major themes. We conducted 65 total interviews with 30 unique staff members. Common barriers included staff turnover, hesitation to change care processes, and acute service user needs. Facilitators included agency-wide culture change, intervention champions, and integration of intervention processes into daily workflows. Despite common barriers, CMHP staff identified several elements related to successful BHH implementation, including the CMHP-wide cultural shift to comprehensively address health/wellness that benefitted service users and staff alike.

A Payer-Guided Approach To Widespread Diffusion Of Behavioral Health Homes In Real-World Settings.

People with serious mental illness experience decreased life expectancy related to co-occurring medical conditions. A nonprofit behavioral health managed care organization implemented an innovative behavioral health home, in partnership with community mental health providers, to build a culture of wellness among all staff members, with a focus on prevention and holistic (that is, behavioral, social, and physical) health. The behavioral health home added one of two distinct care approaches, one patient driven and the other provider driven. The innovative approaches were implemented at eleven community mental health providers: Six delivered patient-driven care, and five delivered provider-driven care. We studied outcomes in the period October 2013-January 2016. Multiple diffusion strategies were utilized to encourage uptake. Our results revealed that both approaches significantly increased patient activation in care (more quickly in provider-supported care), engagement in primary and specialty care, and perceived mental health status. The success of this behavioral health home in improving important outcomes and the use of novel diffusion strategies led to its dissemination to forty-three additional providers across Pennsylvania.

Challenges encountered in the conduct of Optimal Health: A patient-centered comparative effectiveness study of interventions for adults with serious mental illness.

BACKGROUND: The aim of patient-centered comparative effectiveness research is to conduct stakeholder-driven investigations that identify which interventions are most effective for which patients under specific circumstances. Conducting this research in real-world settings comes with unique experiences and challenges. We provide the study design, challenges confronted, and the solutions we devised for Optimal Health, a stakeholder-informed patient-centered comparative effectiveness study focused on the needs of seriously mentally ill individuals receiving case management services in community mental health centers across Pennsylvania. METHODS: Optimal Health, supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, is a cluster-randomized trial of two evidence-based interventions for improving health and wellness across 11 provider sites. Participants were followed for 18-24 months, with repeated measurements of self-reported health status and activation in care and administrative measurements of primary and specialty health service utilization. Health-related quality of life, engagement in care, and service utilization are to be compared via random effects mixed models. Stakeholders were, and continue to be, engaged via focus groups, interviews, and stakeholder advisory board meetings. A learning collaborative model was used to support shared learning and implementation fidelity across provider sites. RESULTS: From 1 November 2013 through 15 July 2014, we recruited 1229 adults with serious mental illness, representing 85.1% of those eligible for study participation. Of these, 713 are in the Provider-Supported arm of the study and 516 in Patient Self-Directed Care. Across five data collection time points, we retained 86% and 83% of the participants in the Provider-Supported and Self-Directed arms, respectively. LESSONS LEARNED: Lessons learned relate to estimation of the size of our study population, the value of multiple data sources, and intervention training and implementation. The use of historical claims data can lead to an overestimation of eligible participants and, subsequently, a reduced study sample and an imbalance between intervention arms. Disruptions in continuity of care in real-world settings can pose challenges to on-site self-report data collection, although the inclusion of multiple data sources in study design can improve data completeness. Geographic dispersion of rural provider sites and staff turnover can lead to training and intervention fidelity challenges that can be overcome with the use of a "train-the-trainer" model, "wellness champions," and the use of a Learning Collaborative approach. Stakeholder engagement in mitigating these challenges proved to be critical to study progress. CONCLUSION: Conducting real-world patient-centered comparative effectiveness research in healthcare systems that care for seriously mentally ill persons is an important yet challenging undertaking, one which requires flexibility in identifying potential adaptations within all major study phases. Advice from a wide range of stakeholders is critical in development of successful strategies.