Dataset Information

Conceptualizing patient-centered care for substance use disorder treatment: findings from a systematic scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite ongoing efforts aimed to improve treatment engagement for people with substance-related disorders, evidence shows modest rates of utilization as well as client-perceived barriers to care. Patient-centered care (PCC) is one widely recognized approach that has been recommended as an evidence-based practice to improve the quality of substance use disorder treatment. PCC includes four core principles: a holistic and individualized focus to care, shared decision-making and enhanced therapeutic alliance.

Aims

This scoping review aimed to explore which PCC principles have been described and how they have defined and measured among people with substance-related disorders.

Methods

Following the iterative stages of the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review methodology, empirical (from Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and ISI Web of Science) and grey literature references were eligible if they focused on people accessing treatment for substance-related disorders and described PCC. Two reviewers independently screened the title/abstract and full-texts of references. Descriptive analyses and a directed content analysis were performed on extracted data.

Findings

One-hundred and forty-nine references met inclusion from the 2951 de-duplicated references screened. Therapeutic alliance was the most frequent principle of PCC described by references (72%); this was consistently defined by characteristics of empathy and non-judgment. Shared decision-making was identified in 36% of references and was primarily defined by client and provider strategies of negotiation in the treatment planning process. Individualized care was described by 30% of references and included individualized assessment and treatment delivery efforts. Holistic care was identified in 23% of references; it included an integrated delivery of substance use, health and psychosocial services via comprehensive care settings or coordination. Substance use and treatment engagement outcomes were most frequently described, regardless of PCC principle.

Conclusions

This review represents a necessary first step to explore how PCC has been defined and measured for people accessing substance use disorder treatment. The directed content analysis revealed population and context-specific evidence regarding the defining characteristics of PCC-principles that can be used to further support the implementation of PCC.

SUBMITTER: Marchand K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6739978 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveSubstance use disorder treatment professionals are paying increased attention to implementing patient-centered care. Understanding environmental and organizational factors associated with clinicians' efforts to engage patients in clinical decision-making processes is essential for bringing patient-centered care to the addictions field. This study examined factors associated with patient-centered care practices in substance use disorder treatment.MethodsData were from the 2017 National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey, a nationally representative survey of U.S substance use disorder treatment clinics (outpatient nonopioid treatment programs, outpatient opioid treatment programs, inpatient clinics, and residential clinics). Multivariate regression analyses examined whether clinics invited patients into clinical decision-making processes and whether clinical supervisors supported and believed in patient-centered care practices.ResultsOf the 657 substance use disorder clinics included in the analysis, about 23% invited patients to participate in clinical decision-making processes. Clinicians were more likely to engage patients in decision-making processes when working in residential clinics (compared with outpatient nonopioid treatment programs) or in clinics serving a smaller proportion of patients with alcohol or opioid use disorder. Clinical supervisors were more likely to value patient-centered care practices if the organization's administrative director perceived less regional competition or relied on professional information sources to understand developments in the substance use disorder treatment field. Clinicians' tendency to engage patients in decision-making processes was positively associated with clinical supervisors' emphasis on patient-centered care.ConclusionsA minority of U.S. substance use disorder clinics invited patients into clinical decision-making processes. Therefore, patient-centered care may be unavailable to certain vulnerable patient groups.

Project description:BackgroundWorldwide, patient-centered care is becoming a widely used concept in medical practice, getting more and more attention because of its proven ability to improve quality of care and reduce costs. Although several studies show that patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) influence certain aspects of patient-centered care, the possible contribution of PAEHR implementation to patient-centered care as a comprehensive concept has not, to our knowledge, been structurally evaluated to date.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to review whether and how the use of PAEHRs contributes to patient-centered care both in general and among specific population groups.MethodsWe followed PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines. We identified literature in 5 databases, using the terms "patient-accessible medical records," "patient experiences," and "professional experiences" as key concepts. A total of 49 articles were included and analyzed with a charting code list containing 10 elements of patient-centered care.ResultsStudies were diverse in design, country of origin, functionalities of the investigated PAEHR, and target population. Participants in all studies were adults. Most studies reported positive influence of PAEHR use on patient-centered care; patient accessible health records were appreciated for their opportunity to empower patients, inform patients about their health, and involve patients in their own care. There were mixed results for the extent to which PAEHRs affected the relation between patients and clinicians. Professionals and patients in mental health care held opposing views concerning the impact of transparency, where professionals appeared more worried about potential negative impact of PAEHRs on the patient-clinician relationship. Their worries seemed to be influenced by a reluctant attitude toward patient-centered care. Disadvantaged groups appeared to have less access to and make less use of patient-accessible records than the average population but experienced more benefits than the average population when they actually used PAEHRs.ConclusionsThe review indicates that PAEHRs bear the potential to positively contribute to patient-centered care. However, concerns from professionals about the impact of transparency on the patient-clinician relationship as well as the importance of a patient-centered attitude need to be addressed. Potentially significant benefits for disadvantaged groups will be achieved only through easily accessible and user-friendly PAEHRs.

Project description:BackgroundIndividuals with substance use disorders (SUD) have disproportionately high rates of unintended pregnancy. Reducing harm associated with this risk and its biopsychosocial consequences requires evidence-based, non-coercive interventions that ensure access to contraception for individuals who choose to prevent pregnancy. We examined feasibility and impact of SexHealth Mobile, a mobile unit-based intervention that aimed to increase access to patient-centered contraceptive care for individuals in SUD recovery programs.MethodsWe conducted a quasi-experimental study (enhanced usual care [EUC] followed by intervention) at three recovery centers with participants (n = 98) at risk for unintended pregnancy. EUC participants were offered printed information on community locations where they could access contraception care. SexHealth Mobile participants were offered same-day, onsite clinical consultation on a medical mobile unit and contraception if desired. The primary outcome was use of contraception (hormonal or intrauterine device) at one-month post-enrollment. Secondary outcomes were at two-weeks and three-months. Confidence in preventing unintended pregnancy, reasons for non-use of contraception at follow-up, and intervention feasibility were also assessed.ResultsParticipants (median age = 31, range 19-40) enrolled in the intervention period were almost 10 times more likely to be using contraception at one-month (51.5%) versus the those enrolled in the EUC period (5.4%) (unadjusted relative risk [URR] = 9.3 [95%CI: 2.3-37.1]; adjusted relative risk [ARR] = 9.8 [95%CI: 2.4-39.2]). Intervention participants were also more likely to be using contraception at 2-weeks (38.7% vs. 2.6%; URR = 14.3 [95%CI: 2.0-104.1]) and three-months (40.9% vs. 13.9%; URR = 2.9 [95% CI: 1.1-7.4]). EUC participants reported more barriers (cost, time) and less confidence in preventing unintended pregnancies. Mixed-methods feasibility data indicated high acceptability and feasible integration into recovery settings.ConclusionsMobile contraceptive care based on principles of reproductive justice and harm reduction reduces access barriers, is feasible to implement in SUD recovery settings, and increases contraception use. Expanding interventions like SexHealth Mobile may help reduce harm from unintended pregnancies among individuals in SUD recovery. Trial Registration NCT04227145.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic is creating severe issues for healthcare and broad social structures, exposing societal vulnerabilities. Among the populations affected by COVID-19 are people engaged in substance use, such as people who smoke; vape (e-cigarette use); use opioids, cannabis, alcohol, or psychoactive prescription drugs; or have a substance use disorder (SUD). Monitoring substance use and SUD during the pandemic is essential, as people who engage in substance use or present with SUD are at greater risk for COVID-19, and the economic and social changes resulting from the pandemic may aggravate SUD. There have been several reviews focused on COVID-19 in relation to substance use and SUD. Reviews generally did not consider on a large range of substance use variants or SUDs. We plan a scoping review that seeks to fill gaps in our current understanding of substance use and SUD, in the COVID-19 era.MethodsA scoping review focused on substance use and SUD, in relation to COVID-19, will be conducted. We will search (from January 2020 onwards) Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Africa-Wide Information, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, Global Health, WHO Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease Database, WHO Global Index Medicus, PsycINFO, PubMed, Middle Eastern Central Asian Studies, CINAHL Complete, and Sociological Abstracts. Grey literature will be identified using Disaster Lit, Google Scholar, HSRProj, governmental websites, and clinical trials registries (e.g., ClinicalTrial.gov , World Health Organization, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and International Standard Randomized Con-trolled Trial Number registry). Study selection will conform to Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual 2015 Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews. Only English language, original studies investigating substance use and SUD, in relation to COVID-19 in all populations and settings, will be considered for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. A narrative summary of findings will be conducted. Data analysis will involve quantitative (e.g., frequencies) and qualitative (e.g., content and thematic analysis) methods.DiscussionOriginal research is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of COVID-19 on substance use and SUD. The planned scoping review will help to address this gap.Systematic review registrationOpen Science Framework (osf/io/tzgm5).

Project description:IntroductionFollowing a cancer diagnosis, patients and their caregivers face crucial decisions regarding goals of care and treatment, which have consequences that can persist throughout their cancer journey. To foster informed and value-driven treatment choices, evidence-based information on outcomes relevant to patients is needed. Traditionally, clinical studies have largely focused on a few concrete and easily measurable outcomes such as survival, disease progression and immediate treatment toxicities. These outcomes do not capture other important factors that patients consider when making treatment decisions. Patient-centred outcomes (PCOs) reflect the patients' individual values, preferences, needs and circumstances that are essential to directing meaningful and informed healthcare discussions. Often, however, these outcomes are not included in research protocols in a standardised and practical fashion. This scoping review will summarise the existing literature on PCOs in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer care as well as the tools used to assess these outcomes. A comprehensive list of these PCOs will be generated for future efforts to develop a core outcome set.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will follow Arksey and O'Malley's expanded framework for scoping reviews. We will systematically search Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and APA PsycINFO databases for studies examining PCOs in the context of GI cancer. We will include studies published in or after the year 2000 up to the date of the final searches, with no language restrictions. Studies involving adult patients with GI cancers and discussion of any PCOs will be included. Opinion pieces, protocols, case reports and abstracts will be excluded. Two authors will independently perform two rounds of screening to select studies for inclusion. The data from full texts will be extracted, charted and summarised both quantitatively and qualitatively.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is required for this scoping review. Results will be disseminated through scientific publication and presentation at relevant conferences.

Project description:IntroductionPatient-centered care (PCC) has been declared as a desirable goal for health care in Latin American countries, but a coherent definition of what exactly PCC entails for clinical practice is missing. This article's aim was to identify how PCC is conceptualized in Latin American countries.MethodsScientific databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scielo, Scopus, Web of Science) and webpages of the ministries of health were searched, and experts were contacted for suggestions of literature. References were included if they contained one of a range of a priori defined keywords related to PCC in the title, were published between 2006 and 2021, and were carried out in or concerned Latin America. Definitions of PCC were extracted from the included articles and analyzed using deductive and inductive coding. Deductive coding was based on the integrative model of patient-centeredness, which unites the definitions of PCC in the international literature (mainly North America and Europe) and proposes 16 dimensions describing PCC.ResultsThirty-two articles were included in the analysis and about half of them were from Brazil. Numerous similarities were found between the integrative model of patient-centeredness and the definitions of PCC given in the selected literature. The dimensions of the integrative model of patient-centeredness that were least and most prominent in the literature were physical support and patient information, respectively. A differentiation between PCC and family-centered care (FCC) was observed. Definitions of PCC and FCC as well as their cited references were diverse.ConclusionA considerable overlap between the conceptualization of PCC in Latin America and the integrative model of patient-centeredness has been identified. However, there are substantial differences between countries in Latin America regarding the emphasis of research on PCC versus FCC and diverse conceptualizations of PCC and FCC exist.Patient contributionThis scoping review takes the patient's perspective based on the integrative model of patient-centeredness. Due to the study being a review, no patients, neither caregivers, nor members of the public, were involved.

Project description:BackgroundAcute-care interventions that identify patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), initiate treatment, and link patients to community-based services, have proliferated in recent years. Yet, much is unknown about the specific strategies being used to support continuity of care from emergency department (ED) or inpatient hospital settings to community-based SUD treatment. In this scoping review, we synthesize the existing literature on patient transition interventions, and form an initial typology of reported strategies.MethodsWe searched Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL and PsychINFO for peer-reviewed articles published between 2000-2021 that studied interventions linking SUD patients from ED or inpatient hospital settings to community-based SUD services. Eligible articles measured at least one post-discharge treatment outcome and included a description of the strategy used to promote linkage to community care. Detailed information was extracted on the components of the transition strategies and a thematic coding process was used to categorize strategies into a typology based on shared characteristics. Facilitators and barriers to transitions of care were synthesized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.ResultsForty-five articles met inclusion criteria. 62% included ED interventions and 44% inpatient interventions. The majority focused on patients with opioid (71%) followed by alcohol (31%) use disorder. The transition strategies reported across studies were heterogeneous and often not well described. An initial typology of ten transition strategies, including five pre-and five post-discharge transition strategies is proposed. The most common strategy was scheduling an appointment with a community-based treatment provider prior to discharge. A range of facilitators and barriers were described, which can inform efforts to improve hospital-to-community transitions of care.ConclusionsStrategies to support transitions from acute-care to community-based SUD services, although critical for ensuring continuity of care, vary greatly across interventions and are inconsistently measured and described. More research is needed to classify SUD care transition strategies, understand their components, and explore which lead to the best patient outcomes.