Although >10,000 behavioral health applications (“apps”) are currently available on the Apple and Google Play marketplaces, they have been minimally evaluated or regulated and little is known about “real world” usage patterns. This investigation combined data from online behavioral health app rating frameworks and a mobile health market research firm to identify the most downloaded apps as well as determine rating and ranking concordance between frameworks. Findings demonstrated that the most commonly downloaded apps focus on relaxation, mindfulness, and meditation skills and that they often have notably discordant reviews across rating frameworks. Our results suggest that there is a growing need for: (1) standardized behavioral health app quality and effectiveness measures, (2) up-to-date behavioral health app guidance for clinicians and consumers, and (3) evidence-based apps that incorporate revealed consumer preferences.

No abstract

IntroductionMental health disparities based on minority racial status are well characterized, including inequities in access, symptom severity, diagnosis, and treatment. For African Americans, racism may affect mental health through factors such as poverty and segregation, which have operated since slavery. While the need to address racism in medical training has been recognized, there are few examples of formal didactic curricula in the psychiatric literature. Antiracism didactics during psychiatry residency provide a unique opportunity to equip physicians to address bias and racism in mental health care.MethodsWith advocacy by residents in the Massachusetts General Hospital/McLean Psychiatry residency program, the Division of Public and Community Psychiatry developed a curriculum addressing racial inequities in mental health, particularly those experienced by African Americans. Four 50-minute interactive didactic lectures were integrated into the required didactic curriculum (one lecture per postgraduate training class) during the 2015–2016 academic year.ResultsOf residents who attended lectures and provided anonymous feedback, 97% agreed that discussing racism in formal didactics was at least “somewhat” positive, and 92% agreed that it should “probably” or “definitely” remain in the curriculum. Qualitative feedback centered on a need for more time to discuss racism as well as a desire to learn more about minority mental health advocacy in general.DiscussionTeaching about racism as part of required training conveys the explicit message that this is core curricular material and critical knowledge for all physicians. These lectures can serve as a springboard for dissemination and provide scaffolding for similar curriculum development in medical residency programs.

BACKGROUND: Although collaborative care (CoCM) is an evidence-based and widely adopted model, reimbursement challenges have limited implementation efforts nationwide. In recent years, Medicare and other payers have activated CoCM-specific codes with the primary aim of facilitating financial sustainability. OBJECTIVE: To investigate and describe the experiences of early adopters and explorers of Medicare's CoCM codes. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen interviews were conducted between October 2017 and May 2018 with 25 respondents representing 12 health care organizations and 2 payers. Respondents included dually boarded medicine/psychiatry physicians, psychiatrists, primary care physicians (PCPs), psychologists, a registered nurse, administrative staff, and billing staff. APPROACH: A semi-structured interview guide was used to address health care organization characteristics, CoCM services, patient consent, CoCM operational components, and CoCM billing processes. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed using a content analysis approach conducted jointly by the research team. KEY RESULTS: Successful billing required buy-in from key, interdisciplinary stakeholders. In planning for CoCM billing implementation, several organizations hired licensed clinical social workers (LICSWs) as behavioral health care managers to maximize billing flexibility. Respondents reported a number of consent-related difficulties, but these were not primary barriers. Workflow changes required for billing the CoCM codes (e.g., tracking cumulative treatment minutes, once-monthly code entry) were described as arduous, but also stimulated creative solutions. Since CoCM codes incorporate the work of the psychiatric consultant into one payment to primary care, organizations employed strategies such as inter-departmental ledger transfers. When challenges arose from variations in the local payer mix, some organizations billed CoCM codes exclusively, while others elected to use a mixture of CoCM and traditional fee-for-service (FFS) codes. For most organizations, it was important to demonstrate financial sustainability from the CoCM codes.CONCLUSIONS: With deliberate planning, persistence, and widespread organizational buy-in, successful utilization of newly available FFS CoCM billing codes is achievable.