Association between wait time and behavioral health appointment attendance across patient characteristics.

Adequate access to behavioral health (BH) services is a critical issue. Many patients who are referred to BH care miss their appointments. One barrier to BH care is that longer wait times decrease the likelihood of appointment attendance. The present study examines the relationship between the wait time for BH services and appointment attendance, overall and by multiple patient characteristics. Logistic regression was performed to analyze the association between wait time and patient attendance for BH referrals made from March 1, 2016, to February 28, 2019, at an urban academic medical center. In total, 1,587 referrals were included. Most patients were female (72%) and of non-Hispanic/Latinx Black race (55%). Each additional week of waiting between the referral and scheduled appointment was associated with a 5% decrease in odds of attendance. In adjusted race/ethnicity-stratified analyses, Hispanic/Latinx patients had a 9% lower odds of attendance per week of waiting. Non-Hispanic/Latinx White and Black patients had a 5% lower odds of attendance per week of waiting. Patients with private insurance had a 7% lower odds of attendance per week of waiting, and patients with Medicare had a 6% lower odds of attendance per week of waiting. Limiting scheduling may improve BH care utilization by decreasing the rate of "no shows." (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Population Health, Portal-Based Depression Screening: the PORTAL-Depression Study.

BACKGROUND: A population health approach to depression screening using patient portals may be a promising strategy to proactively engage and identify patients with depression. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a population health approach to depression screening is more effective than screening during clinic appointments alone for identifying patients with depression. DESIGN: A pragmatic clinical trial at an adult outpatient internal medicine clinic at an urban, academic, tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Eligible patients (n = 2713) were adults due for depression screening with active portal accounts. Patients with documented depression or bipolar disorder and those who had been screened in the year prior to the study were excluded. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to usual (n = 1372) or population healthcare (n = 1341). For usual care, patients were screened by medical assistants during clinic appointments. Population healthcare patients were sent letters through the portal inviting them to fill out an online screener regardless of whether they had a scheduled appointment. The same screening tool, the Computerized Adaptive Test for Mental Health (CAT-MH™), was used for clinic- and portal-based screening. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the depression screening rate. KEY RESULTS: The depression screening rate in the population healthcare arm was higher than that in the usual care arm (43% (n = 578) vs. 33% (n = 459), p < 0.0001). The rate of positive screens was also higher in the population healthcare arm compared to that in the usual care (10% (n = 58) vs. 4% (n = 17), p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest depression screening via a portal as part of a population health approach can increase screening and case identification, compared to usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03832283.

Quality of Care for US Adults With Medicaid Insurance and Type 2 Diabetes in Federally Qualified Health Centers Compared With Other Primary Care Settings.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate indicators of diabetes quality of care for US nonelderly, adult Medicaid enrollees with type 2 diabetes and compare federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) versus non-FQHCs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed diabetes process measures and acute health services utilization with 2012 US fee-for-service and managed care Medicaid claims in all 50 states and DC. We compared FQHC (N=121,977) to non-FQHC patients (N=700,401) using propensity scores to balance covariates and generalized estimating equation models. RESULTS: Overall, laboratory-based process measures occurred more frequently (range, 65.7%-76.6%) than measures requiring specialty referrals (retinal examinations, 33.3%; diabetes education, 3.4%). Compared with non-FQHC patients, FQHC patients had about 3 percentage point lower rates of each process measure, except for higher rates of diabetes education [relative risk=1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03-1.16]. FQHC patients had fewer overall [incident rate ratio (IRR)=0.87, 95% CI: 0.86-0.88] and diabetes-related hospitalizations (IRR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.77-0.81), but more overall (IRR=1.06, 95% CI: 1.05-1.07) and diabetes-related emergency department visits (IRR=1.10, 95% CI: 1.08-1.13). CONCLUSIONS: This national analysis identified opportunities to improve diabetes management among Medicaid enrollees with type 2 diabetes, especially for retinal examinations or diabetes education. Overall, we found slightly lower rates of most diabetes care process measures for FQHC patients versus non-FQHC patients. Despite having higher rates of emergency department visits, FQHC patients were significantly less likely to be hospitalized than non-FQHC patients. These findings emphasize the need to identify innovative, effective approaches to improve diabetes care for Medicaid enrollees, especially in FQHC settings.

Longer-term Benefits and Risks of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors in Type 2 Diabetes: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2Is) are a recent class of medication approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Previous meta-analyses have quantified the benefits and harms of SGLT2Is; however, these analyses have been limited to specific outcomes and comparisons and included trials of short duration. We comprehensively reviewed the longer-term benefits and harms of SGLT2Is compared to placebo or other anti-hyperglycemic medications. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to July 2019 for randomized controlled trials of minimum 52 weeks' duration that enrolled adults with T2D, compared an SGLT2I to either placebo or other anti-hyperglycemic medications, and reported at least one outcome of interest including cardiovascular risk factors, microvascular and macrovascular complications, mortality, and adverse events. We conducted random effects meta-analyses to provide summary estimates using weighted mean differences (MD) and pooled relative risks (RR). The study was registered a priori with PROSPERO (CRD42018090506). RESULTS: Fifty articles describing 39 trials (vs. placebo, n = 28; vs. other anti-hyperglycemic medication, n = 12; vs. both, n = 1) and 112,128 patients were included in our analyses. Compared to placebo, SGLT2Is reduced cardiovascular risk factors (e.g., hemoglobin A1c, MD - 0.55%, 95% CI - 0.62, - 0.49), macrovascular outcomes (e.g., hospitalization for heart failure, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62, 0.78), and mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80, 0.94). Compared to other anti-hyperglycemic medications, SGLT2Is reduced cardiovascular risk factors, but insufficient data existed for other outcomes. About a fourfold increased risk of genital yeast infections for both genders was observed for comparisons vs. placebo and other anti-hyperglycemic medications. DISCUSSION: We found that SGLT2Is led to durable reductions in cardiovascular risk factors compared to both placebo and other anti-hyperglycemic medications. Reductions in macrovascular complications and mortality were only observed in comparisons with placebo, although trials comparing SGLT2Is vs. other anti-hyperglycemic medications were not designed to assess longer-term outcomes.

The Longer-Term Benefits and Harms of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses of the benefits and harms of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) have been limited to specific outcomes and comparisons and often included short-term results. We aimed to estimate the longer-term effects of GLP1RAs on cardiovascular risk factors, microvascular and macrovascular complications, mortality, and adverse events in patients with type 2 diabetes, compared to placebo and other anti-hyperglycemic medications. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov (inception-July 2019) for randomized controlled trials ≥ 52 weeks' duration that compared a GLP1RA to placebo or other anti-hyperglycemic medication and included at least one outcome of interest. Outcomes included cardiovascular risk factors, microvascular and macrovascular complications, all-cause mortality, and treatment-related adverse events. We performed random effects meta-analyses to give summary estimates using weighted mean differences (MD) and pooled relative risks (RR). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias in randomized trials tool. Quality of evidence was summarized using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The study was registered a priori with PROSPERO (CRD42018090506). RESULTS: Forty-five trials with a mean duration of 1.7 years comprising 71,517 patients were included. Compared to placebo, GLP1RAs reduced cardiovascular risk factors, microvascular complications (including renal events, RR 0.85, 0.80-0.90), macrovascular complications (including stroke, RR 0.86, 0.78-0.95), and mortality (RR 0.89, 0.84-0.94). Compared to other anti-hyperglycemic medications, GLP1RAs only reduced cardiovascular risk factors. Increased gastrointestinal events causing treatment discontinuation were observed in both comparisons. DISCUSSION: GLP1RAs reduced cardiovascular risk factors and increased gastrointestinal events compared to placebo and other anti-hyperglycemic medications. GLP1RAs also reduced MACE, stroke, renal events, and mortality in comparisons with placebo; however, analyses were inconclusive for comparisons with other anti-hyperglycemic medications. Given the high costs of GLP1RAs, the lack of long-term evidence comparing GLP1RAs to other anti-hyperglycemic medications has significant policy and clinical practice implications.