Adherence to smoking cessation guidelines (5As) by psychiatrists and primary care physicians for persons with serious mental illness

Background Tobacco smoking is associated with significant morbidity and premature mortality in individuals with serious mental illness. A 2-year pragmatic clinical trial (PCORI PCS-1504-30472) that enrolled 1100 individuals with serious mental illness in the greater Boston area was conducted to test 2 interventions for tobacco cessation for individuals with serious mental illness: (1) academic detailing, which delivers education to primary care providers and highlights first-line pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation, and (2) provision of community health worker support to smoker participants. Implementing and scaling this intervention in other settings will require the systematic identification of barriers and facilitators, as well as the identification of relevant subgroups, effective and unique components, and setting-specific factors. Objective This protocol outlines the proposed mixed methods evaluation of the pragmatic clinical trial to (1) identify barriers and facilitators to effective implementation of the interventions, (2) examine group differences among primary care physicians, and (3) identify barriers that stakeholders such as clinical, payor, and policy leaders would anticipate to impact the implementation of effective components of the intervention. Methods Qualitative interviews will be conducted with all study community health workers and selected smoker participants, primary care providers, and other stakeholders. Measures of performance and engagement will guide purposive sampling. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research will guide qualitative data collection and analysis in accordance with the following framework approach: (1) familiarization, (2) identifying a thematic framework, (3) indexing, (4) charting, and (5) mapping and interpretation. Joint display analyses will be constructed to analyze and draw conclusions across the quantitative and qualitative data. Results The 3-year cluster-randomized trial has concluded, and the analysis of primary outcomes is underway. Results from the pragmatic trial and this mixed methods implementation evaluation will be used to help disseminate, scale, and expand a systems intervention. Conclusions The results of this mixed methods implementation evaluation will inform strategies for dissemination and solutions to potential barriers to the implementation of interventions from a smoking cessation trial for individuals with serious mental illness. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/25390

Download Full-text

Integrated Smoking Cessation for Smokers With Serious Mental Illness: Protocol for a Convergent Mixed Methods Implementation Evaluation Study (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.25390 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Kristina Schnitzer ◽

Melissa Culhane Maravić ◽

Diana Arntz ◽

Nathaniel L Phillips ◽

Gladys Pachas ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Mental Illness ◽

Smoking Cessation ◽

Mixed Methods ◽

Serious Mental Illness ◽

Qualitative Data ◽

Primary Care Providers ◽

Care Providers ◽

Pragmatic Clinical Trial ◽

Implementation Evaluation

BACKGROUND Tobacco smoking is associated with significant morbidity and premature mortality in individuals with serious mental illness. A 2-year pragmatic clinical trial (PCORI PCS-1504-30472) that enrolled 1100 individuals with serious mental illness in the greater Boston area was conducted to test 2 interventions for tobacco cessation for individuals with serious mental illness: (1) academic detailing, which delivers education to primary care providers and highlights first-line pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation, and (2) provision of community health worker support to smoker participants. Implementing and scaling this intervention in other settings will require the systematic identification of barriers and facilitators, as well as the identification of relevant subgroups, effective and unique components, and setting-specific factors. OBJECTIVE This protocol outlines the proposed mixed methods evaluation of the pragmatic clinical trial to (1) identify barriers and facilitators to effective implementation of the interventions, (2) examine group differences among primary care physicians, and (3) identify barriers that stakeholders such as clinical, payor, and policy leaders would anticipate to impact the implementation of effective components of the intervention. METHODS Qualitative interviews will be conducted with all study community health workers and selected smoker participants, primary care providers, and other stakeholders. Measures of performance and engagement will guide purposive sampling. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research will guide qualitative data collection and analysis in accordance with the following framework approach: (1) familiarization, (2) identifying a thematic framework, (3) indexing, (4) charting, and (5) mapping and interpretation. Joint display analyses will be constructed to analyze and draw conclusions across the quantitative and qualitative data. RESULTS The 3-year cluster-randomized trial has concluded, and the analysis of primary outcomes is underway. Results from the pragmatic trial and this mixed methods implementation evaluation will be used to help disseminate, scale, and expand a systems intervention. CONCLUSIONS The results of this mixed methods implementation evaluation will inform strategies for dissemination and solutions to potential barriers to the implementation of interventions from a smoking cessation trial for individuals with serious mental illness. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/25390

Download Full-text

Fool’s Gold: Psychologists Using Disingenuous Reasoning to Mislead Legislatures into Granting Psychologists Prescriptive Authority

American Journal of Law & Medicine ◽

10.1017/s0098858800002586 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 29 (4) ◽

pp. 489-524

Author(s):

Brent Pollitt

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Mental Illness ◽

Nurse Practitioners ◽

Primary Care Physicians ◽

American Psychological Association ◽

The United States ◽

Psychotropic Medications ◽

American Psychological ◽

Training Requirements ◽

Prescriptive Authority

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.

Download Full-text