Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of mental health services are delivered in outpatient settings, the effect of changes in non-hospital-based mental health care on increased suicide rates is largely unknown. This study examines the association between changes in community mental health center (CMHC) supply and suicide mortality in the United States. Methods Retrospective analysis was performed using data from National Mental Health Services Survey (N-MHSS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) (2014–2017). Population-weighted multiple linear regressions were used to examine within-state associations between CMHCs per capita and suicide mortality. Models controlled for state-level characteristics (i.e., number of hospital psychiatric units per capita, number of mental health professionals per capita, age, race, and percent low-income), year and state. Results From 2014 to 2017, the number of CMHCs decreased by 14% nationally (from 3406 to 2920). Suicide increased by 9.7% (from 15.4 to 16.9 per 100,000) in the same time period. We find a small but negative association between the number of CMHCs and suicide deaths (− 0.52, 95% CI − 1.08 to 0.03; p  = 0.066). Declines in the number of CMHCs from 2014 to 2017 may be associated with approximately 6% of the national increase in suicide, representing 263 additional suicide deaths. Conclusions State governments should avoid the declining number of CMHCs and the services these facilities provide, which may be an important component of suicide prevention efforts.

Cancer care today often provides state-of-the-science biomedical treatment, but fails to address the psychological and social (psychosocial) problems associated with the illness. This failure can compromise the effectiveness of health care and thereby adversely affect the health of cancer patients. Psychological and social problems created or exacerbated by cancer-including depression and other emotional problems; lack of information or skills needed to manage the illness; lack of transportation or other resources; and disruptions in work, school, and family life-cause additional suffering, weaken adherence to prescribed treatments, and threaten patients' return to health. Today, it is not possible to deliver high-quality cancer care without using existing approaches, tools, and resources to address patients' psychosocial health needs. All patients with cancer and their families should expect and receive cancer care that ensures the provision of appropriate psychosocial health services. Cancer Care for the Whole Patient recommends actions that oncology providers, health policy makers, educators, health insurers, health planners, researchers and research sponsors, and consumer advocates should undertake to ensure that this standard is met.

National levels of personal health-care access and quality can be approximated by measuring mortality rates from causes that should not be fatal in the presence of effective medical care (ie, amenable mortality). Previous analyses of mortality amenable to health care only focused on high-income countries and faced several methodological challenges. In the present analysis, we use the highly standardised cause of death and risk factor estimates generated through the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) to improve and expand the quantification of personal health-care access and quality for 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2015. We mapped the most widely used list of causes amenable to personal health care developed by Nolte and McKee to 32 GBD causes. We accounted for variations in cause of death certification and misclassifications through the extensive data standardisation processes and redistribution algorithms developed for GBD. To isolate the effects of personal health-care access and quality, we risk-standardised cause-specific mortality rates for each geography-year by removing the joint effects of local environmental and behavioural risks, and adding back the global levels of risk exposure as estimated for GBD 2015. We employed principal component analysis to create a single, interpretable summary measure–the Healthcare Quality and Access (HAQ) Index–on a scale of 0 to 100. The HAQ Index showed strong convergence validity as compared with other health-system indicators, including health expenditure per capita (r=0·88), an index of 11 universal health coverage interventions (r=0·83), and human resources for health per 1000 (r=0·77). We used free disposal hull analysis with bootstrapping to produce a frontier based on the relationship between the HAQ Index and the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a measure of overall development consisting of income per capita, average years of education, and total fertility rates. This frontier allowed us to better quantify the maximum levels of personal health-care access and quality achieved across the development spectrum, and pinpoint geographies where gaps between observed and potential levels have narrowed or widened over time. Between 1990 and 2015, nearly all countries and territories saw their HAQ Index values improve; nonetheless, the difference between the highest and lowest observed HAQ Index was larger in 2015 than in 1990, ranging from 28·6 to 94·6. Of 195 geographies, 167 had statistically significant increases in HAQ Index levels since 1990, with South Korea, Turkey, Peru, China, and the Maldives recording among the largest gains by 2015. Performance on the HAQ Index and individual causes showed distinct patterns by region and level of development, yet substantial heterogeneities emerged for several causes, including cancers in highest-SDI countries; chronic kidney disease, diabetes, diarrhoeal diseases, and lower respiratory infections among middle-SDI countries; and measles and tetanus among lowest-SDI countries. While the global HAQ Index average rose from 40·7 (95% uncertainty interval, 39·0–42·8) in 1990 to 53·7 (52·2–55·4) in 2015, far less progress occurred in narrowing the gap between observed HAQ Index values and maximum levels achieved; at the global level, the difference between the observed and frontier HAQ Index only decreased from 21·2 in 1990 to 20·1 in 2015. If every country and territory had achieved the highest observed HAQ Index by their corresponding level of SDI, the global average would have been 73·8 in 2015. Several countries, particularly in eastern and western sub-Saharan Africa, reached HAQ Index values similar to or beyond their development levels, whereas others, namely in southern sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and south Asia, lagged behind what geographies of similar development attained between 1990 and 2015. This novel extension of the GBD Study shows the untapped potential for personal health-care access and quality improvement across the development spectrum. Amid substantive advances in personal health care at the national level, heterogeneous patterns for individual causes in given countries or territories suggest that few places have consistently achieved optimal health-care access and quality across health-system functions and therapeutic areas. This is especially evident in middle-SDI countries, many of which have recently undergone or are currently experiencing epidemiological transitions. The HAQ Index, if paired with other measures of health-system characteristics such as intervention coverage, could provide a robust avenue for tracking progress on universal health coverage and identifying local priorities for strengthening personal health-care quality and access throughout the world. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

ABSTRACT 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 (β=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.

Post-release opioid-related overdose mortality is the leading cause of death among people released from jails or prisons (PRJP). Informed by the proximate determinants framework, this paper presents the Post-Release Opioid-Related Overdose Risk Model. It explores the underlying, intermediate, proximate and biological determinants which contribute to risk of post-release opioid-related overdose mortality. PRJP share the underlying exposure of incarceration and the increased prevalence of several moderators (chronic pain, HIV infection, trauma, race, and suicidality) of the risk of opioid-related overdose. Intermediate determinants following release from the criminal justice system include disruption of social networks, interruptions in medical care, poverty, and stigma which exacerbate underlying, and highly prevalent, substance use and mental health disorders. Subsequent proximate determinants include interruptions in substance use treatment, including access to medications for opioid use disorder, polypharmacy, polydrug use, insufficient naloxone access, and a return to solitary opioid use. This leads to the final biological determinant of reduced respiratory tolerance and finally opioid-related overdose mortality. Mitigating the risk of opioid-related overdose mortality among PRJP will require improved coordination across criminal justice, health, and community organizations to reduce barriers to social services, ensure access to health insurance, and reduce interruptions in care continuity and reduce stigma. Healthcare services and harm reduction strategies, such as safe injection sites, should be tailored to the needs of PRJP. Expanding access to opioid agonist therapy and naloxone around the post-release period could reduce overdose deaths. Programs are also needed to divert individuals with substance use disorder away from the criminal justice system and into treatment and social services, preventing incarceration exposure.

IMPROVING STIGMA BY FOCUSING ON HEALTH IMPROVEMENT The benefits of integrating behavioral health and primary care can be understood in the conceptual framework of the Triple Aim approach described by Berwick et al.: (1) improving the patient experience of care (including quality and satisfaction), (2) improving the health of populations, and (3) reducing the cost of health care.4 From a patient-level perspective, stigma about mental illness (including self-imposed and perceived stigma) is a major factor that contributes to lack of treatment or undertreatment. Because the risk factors for physical disease and mental illness are often the same, emphasis by primary care providers on healthy lifestyles and decreasing overall health risk factors for disease can also promote mental health.

This article describes a peer support project developed and carried out by a group of experienced mental health professionals, organized to offer peer psychological support from overseas to healthcare professionals on the frontline of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China. This pandemic extremely challenged the existing health care systems and caused severe mental distress to frontline healthcare workers. The authors describe the infrastructure of the team and a novel model of peer support and crisis intervention that utilized a popular social media application on smartphone. Such a model for intervention that can be used elsewhere in the face of current global pandemic, or future disaster response.

The federal government has proposed an end to HIV transmission in the United States by 2030. Although the United States has made substantial overall progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS, data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have raised concerns about widening, yet largely unrecognized, HIV infection disparities among Hispanic and Latino populations. This commentary identifies underlying drivers of increasing new HIV infections among Hispanics/Latinos, discusses existing national efforts to fight HIV in Hispanic/Latino communities, and points to gaps in the federal response. Consideration of the underlying drivers of increased HIV incidence among Hispanics/Latinos is warranted to achieve the administration’s 2030 HIV/AIDS goals. Specifically, the proposed reinforcement of national efforts to end the US HIV epidemic must include focused investment in four priority areas: (1) HIV stigma reduction in Hispanic/Latino communities, (2) the availability and accessibility of HIV treatment of HIV-positive Hispanics/Latinos, (3) the development of behavioral interventions tailored to Hispanic/Latino populations, and (4) the engagement of Hispanic/Latino community leaders.

Objectives. We analyzed the prevalence of chronic illnesses, including mental illness, and access to health care among US inmates. Methods. We used the 2002 Survey of Inmates in Local Jails and the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities to analyze disease prevalence and clinical measures of access to health care for inmates. Results. Among inmates in federal prisons, state prisons, and local jails, 38.5% (SE = 2.2%), 42.8% (SE = 1.1%), and 38.7% (SE = 0.7%), respectively, suffered a chronic medical condition. Among inmates with a mental condition ever treated with a psychiatric medication, only 25.5% (SE = 7.5%) of federal, 29.6% (SE = 2.8%) of state, and 38.5% (SE = 1.5%) of local jail inmates were taking a psychiatric medication at the time of arrest, whereas 69.1% (SE = 4.8%), 68.6% (SE = 1.9%), and 45.5% (SE = 1.6%) were on a psychiatric medication after admission. Conclusions. Many inmates with a serious chronic physical illness fail to receive care while incarcerated. Among inmates with mental illness, most were off their treatments at the time of arrest. Improvements are needed both in correctional health care and in community mental health services that might prevent crime and incarceration.