Objective Over 90 clinical trials demonstrate the efficacy of the collaborative care model (CoCM) to treat depression in primary care but there is significant variability in real‐world CoCM implementation and scalability. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of an adapted CoCM in a safety‐net primary care setting. Methods Bring It Up! (BIU) is a pilot trial comparing an adapted CoCM (intervention group) to usual care (historical controls) for primary care safety‐net clinic patients with depression. Inclusion criteria: (1) age ≥18; (2) Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (PHQ‐9) score ≥10; and (3) major depressive disorder diagnosis. Patients who completed ≥6 months of treatment upon rolling enrollment (April 1, 2018–October 31, 2019) were included. Historical controls completed ≥6 months of usual care in 2017. BIU included all aspects of CoCM except accountable care and leveraged existing staff rather than a dedicated care manager. The primary outcome was depressi

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) young men consistently have the highest suicide rates. In 2021, among AIAN men aged 20–29 years, the suicide rate was 92.36 per 100000 (1), a stark contrast to the national average of 31.27 per 100,000 (1) among all other men of the same age. Nationally, firearms are the most common and most lethal method of suicide. Among AIAN men aged 20–29 years, the firearm suicide rate was 34.38 per 100,000 (1) compared to 18.25 per 100,000 nationally in 2021 (1). Despite the

Objective Italian residential facilities (RFs) aim to promote human rights and recovery for individuals with severe mental disorders. Italian RFs can be distinguished into five main types: high‐intensity rehabilitation (RF1), medium‐intensity rehabilitation (RF2), medium‐level support (RF3.1), high‐level support (RF3.2), low‐level support (RF3.3). This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of Italian RFs in achieving functional autonomy while upholding human rights and recovery. Methods Data on socio‐demographics, clinical information, patient and staff assessments of functional autonomy, types of interventions, and RF performance in various domains were collected in a pilot study with a cross‐sectional design. Descriptive and inferential analyses were conducted. Results Twelve RFs and 113 patients participated, with varying proportions in each RF type. RF1 patients were the oldest (p < 0.001) with the lowest functional autonomy (p < 0.001), while RF2 patients were the youngest (p <