The dual burden of tuberculosis (TB) and diabetes mellitus (DM) presents a growing challenge for health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including Pakistan. Despite global and national policies advocating for integrated care, evidence on health facility readiness to operationalize integration remains scarce. This study assessed the readiness of TB basic management units (BMUs) to deliver integrated TB-DM care and explored implementation barriers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

We conducted an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study from September 2024 to February 2025 across 13 TB BMUs in five districts of Pakistan. Quantitative readiness data were collected using a structured tool adapted from the WHO Service Availability and Readiness Assessment (SARA), generating a composite score across four domains. Subsequently, qualitative data were gathered through multi-stakeholder focus group discussions with healthcare providers, facility managers, patients, caregivers, and policymakers. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted and mapped to CFIR Inner Setting constructs to contextualize quantitative findings.

Only one facility demonstrated high readiness, while 12 showed low readiness. Facilities lacked routine comorbidity screening, trained staff, diagnostic capacity, and essential medicines. Key barriers included inadequate infrastructure, workforce shortages, fragmented information systems, and low prioritisation of integrated care. Financial constraints and limited coordination further hindered implementation.

This study highlights critically low readiness among TB facilities in different districts of Pakistan to deliver integrated TB-DM care, reflecting systemic weaknesses across core domains. Strengthening systems, building capacity, and improving integration strategies are essential to bridge gaps between policy and practice.

Dual disorder, comprising of substance use and mental health disorders, requires a comprehensive treatment approach. The most effective is integrated dual disorder treatment, which involves addressing both conditions concurrently by the same specialists and in the same setting. This study examines characteristics of integrated dual disorder care offered by treatment services across European countries.

In 2022, representatives of 14 integrated care for dual disorder providers in 10 European countries were asked to respond to a survey about their treatment process, outcomes, barriers and facilitators when implementing dual disorder treatment in respective countries. Thematic qualitative analysis was used to explore closed- and open-ended responses, focusing on commonalities and differences between surveyed services.

Integrated care services varied in treatment settings and structure, but all offered comprehensive support for dual disorder. Among 14 services, half addressed tobacco addiction or provided suicide prevention, three treated cannabis use, and none accepted patients in opioid agonist therapy. Few services reported evaluating treatment outcomes in standardised way. Services supported patients with social security, employment, housing and education, but also noted difficulties in coordinating post-treatment care due to divergent views on dual disorder among specialists from different services.

Integrated care services provide comprehensive and tailored support for people with dual disorder but remain distinct within the healthcare options available to this patient group across Europe. Existing and future integrated care services would benefit from addressing tobacco and cannabis use, measuring treatment outcomes and improving continuity of care.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the Collaborative Care Model demonstrate strong evidence for effectively managing depression in a stepped-care approach across diverse patient populations. Despite alignment with the American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, which recommend a stepped-care approach for managing depression and anxiety in cancer patients, implementation of collaborative care in cancer centers remains limited and sparse real-world data exist. The Supportive Oncology Collaborative, a program integrating behavioral health and palliative care, was developed at an NCI-designated academic cancer center. This study aims to evaluate depression outcomes within this collaborative care program.

A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with at least 2 Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores recorded within a 12-month period between January 2022 and December 2023 at 1 regional campus. Depression response, defined as a 50% reduction in PHQ-9 scores, was assessed at 12 and 24 weeks. Response rates were compared to those reported in RCTs of collaborative care.

Mean PHQ-9 scores were 17.3 at baseline (n = 47), 11.1 at 12 weeks (n = 43), and 10.1 at 24 weeks (n = 22). Depression response rates were 34.9% at 12 weeks (n = 43) and 54.5% at 24 weeks (n = 22).

We observed depression response rates comparable to those reported in RCTs of collaborative care in individuals with cancer. However, the high proportion of missing data highlights the difficulty of tracking outcomes in real-world clinical settings and the need for further evaluation and strategies to improve data completeness.

To better meet the growing demand and complexity of clinical need, there is a broad international trend towards greater integration of various elements of health- and social care. However, there has been a lack of research aimed at understanding how healthcare providers have experienced these changes, including facilitators and inhibitors of integration.

This study set out to generate new understandings of this from three UK staffing ‘levels’: ‘micro’ frontline workers, a ‘meso’ level of those leading a healthcare organisation and a ‘macro’ level of commissioners.

Using Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation framework, qualitative analysis of individual interviews from provider staff perceptions was undertaken at these three levels (total N = 33) in London.

English legislation and policy captured the need for change, but fail to describe problems or concerns of staff. There is little guidance that might facilitate learning. Staff identity, effective leadership and culture were considered critical in implementing effective integration, yet are often forgotten or ignored, compounded by an overall lack of organisational communication and learning. Cultural gains from integration with social care have largely been overlooked, but show promising opportunities in enhancing care delivery and experience.

Findings are mixed insofar as staff generally support the drivers for greater integration, but their concerns, and means for measuring change, have largely been ignored, limiting learning and optimisation of implementation. There is a need to emphasise the importance of culture and leadership in integrated care, and the benefits from closer working with social care.

This research aimed to explore the perspectives of primary and community care providers on the challenges that hinder the delivery and uptake of personalized type 2 diabetes (T2D) care, with a focus on the integration of mental health support and care.

The day-to-day burden and demand of self-managing T2D can negatively impact quality of life and take a toll on mental health and psychological well-being. As a result, there is a need for personalized T2D self-management education and support that integrates mental health care. Despite the need for this personalized care, existing systems remain siloed, hindering access and uptake. In response, innovative, comprehensive, and collaborative models of care have been developed to address fragmentations in care. As individuals living with T2D often receive their care in primary care settings, linking mental health care to existing teams and networks in primary care settings is required. However, there is a need to understand how best to support access, adoption, and engagement with these models in these unique contexts.

A cross-sectional survey was distributed to primary and community providers of an Ontario-based smoking cessation network. Survey data were analyzed descriptively with free text responses thematically reported.

Survey respondents (n = 85) represented a broad mix of health professions across primary and community care settings. Addressing challenges to the delivery and uptake of personalized T2D care requires comprehensive strategies to address patient-, practice-, and system-level challenges. Findings from this survey identify the need to tailor these models of care to individual needs, clearly addressing mental health needs, and building strong partnership as means of enhancing accessibility and sustainability of integrated care delivery in primary care settings.

This article describes an innovative program to provide safe, evidence-based psychiatric care at the Baltimore Convention Center Field Hospital (BCCFH), set up for COVID-19 patients, to alleviate overextended hospitals.

This article describes the staffing and workflows utilized at the BCCFH including universal suicide risk assessment and co-management of high acuity patients by an NP-led psychiatry service.

The Columbia-Suicide Screening Rating Scale (C-SSRS) proved feasible as a suicide screening tool. Using the SAFE-T protocol, interdisciplinary teams cared for moderate and low risk patients. The NP psychiatry service evaluated over 70 patients, effecting medication changes in more than half and identified and transferred several decompensating patients for higher-level psychiatric care. Group therapy attendees demonstrated high participation. There were no assaults, self-harm incidents, or suicides.

The BCCFH psychiatry/mental health program, a potential model for other field hospitals, promotes evidence-based, integrated care. Emphasizing safety, including suicide risk, is crucial within alternate care sites during disasters. The engagement of dually-certified (psychiatric and medical) nurse practitioners boosts safety and provides expertise with advanced medication management and psychotherapeutic interventions. Similar future sites should be ready to handle chronically ill psychiatric patients, detect high-risk or deteriorating ones, and develop therapeutic programs for patient stabilization and support.

Although psychological interventions can be used to improve chronic pain management, underserved individuals (i.e., racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged) may be less likely to engage in such services. The purpose of this study was to examine whether offering a psychological intervention for chronic pain in a primary care clinic could be a method in which to successfully engage underserved patients.

There were 220 patients with chronic pain in a primary care clinic located in a socioeconomically and racially diverse city who were approached to discuss enrolment in a pilot randomized controlled trial of a five-session psychological intervention for chronic pain. Patients were introduced to the study by their primary care provider using the warm handoff model. We compared whether there were sociodemographic differences between those who enrolled in the study and those who declined to enrol.

There were no differences between those who enrolled and those who declined enrolment with regard to race, age, insurance type, and household income. However, females were more likely to enrol in the study compared to males.

Recruiting patients to participate in a trial of a psychological intervention for chronic pain in a primary care clinic appeared to be effective for engaging Black patients, patients with lower income, and those with government insurance. Thus, offering a psychological intervention for chronic pain in a primary care clinic may encourage engagement among racially minoritized individuals and those with lower socioeconomic status.

Only a third of people with dementia receive a diagnosis and post-diagnostic support. An eight session, manualised, modular post-diagnostic support system (New Interventions for Independence in Dementia Study (NIDUS) – family), delivered remotely by non-clinical facilitators is the first scalable intervention to improve personalised goal attainment for people with dementia. It could significantly improve care quality.

We aimed to explore system readiness for NIDUS–family, a scalable, personalised post-diagnostic support intervention.

We conducted semi-structured interviews with professionals from dementia care services; the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided interviews and their thematic analysis.

From 2022 to 2023, we interviewed a purposive sample of 21 professionals from seven English National Health Service, health and social care services. We identified three themes: (1) potential value of a personalised intervention – interviewees perceived the capacity for choice and supporting person-centred care as relative advantages over existing resources; (2) compatibility and deliverability with existing systems – the NIDUS–family intervention model was perceived as compatible with service goals and clients’ needs, but current service infrastructures, financing and commissioning briefs constraining resources to those at greatest need were seen as barriers to providing universal, post-diagnostic care; (3) fit with current workforce skills – the intervention model aligned well with staff development plans; delivery by non-clinically qualified staff was considered an advantage over current care options.

Translating evidence for scalable and effective post-diagnostic care into practice will support national policies to widen access to support and upskill support workers, but requires a greater focus on prevention in commissioning briefs and resource planning.