Integrated Behavioral Health Implementation Patterns in Primary Care Using the Cross-Model Framework: A Latent Class Analysis

Buchanan, Gretchen; Piehler, Timothy F.; Berge, Jerica M.; Hansen, Audrey; Stephens, Kari A.

doi:10.1007/s10488-021-01165-z

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, the wide variation in real-world implementation of BH integration in both residency and nonresidency practices made detecting any between-group differences that might otherwise exist difficult. 28,29 ACGME does not precisely define what BH integration should look like in residency training programs, 8,10 hence the implementation of integration could be highly variable across residency sites. Although our sample included only practices that had a baseline PIP score lower than the 75th percentile and had room to grow in BH integration, we found substantial variability in PIP scores among residency practices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Behavioral Health in Primary Care Residency and Nonresidency Practices

Mollis

West

et al. 2023

Fam Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: Integrated behavioral health (BH) is becoming a preferred model of care for primary care because it improves patient outcomes and satisfaction. Little is known about whether residency practices are consistently modeling this preferred care model relative to real-world nonresidency practices. The study compared levels of BH integration, patient health outcomes, and satisfaction with care between residency practices and nonresidency practices with colocated BH providers. Methods: Baseline data were collected in 2018-2019 from 44 practices and their adult patients with chronic conditions participating in a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial to improve BH integration. The sample included 18 (40.9%) residency and 26 (59.1%) nonresidency practices, with 1,817 (45.3%) patients from residency practices and 2,190 (54.7%) patients from nonresidency practices. Outcomes including BH integration levels (the Practice Integration Profile), patient health outcomes (the PROMIS-29), and patient satisfaction with care (the Consultation and Relational Empathy scale) were compared between residency and nonresidency practices using multivariate regression analyses. Results: No differences were found between BH integration levels, patient health outcomes, and patient satisfaction with care between residency and nonresidency practices. In a sample of primary care practices with colocated BH providers, residencies had BH integration and patient outcomes similar to real-world practices. Conclusions: Primary care practices with residency programs reported comparable levels of BH integration, patient health outcomes, and patient satisfaction compared to practices without residency programs. Both types of practices require interventions and resources to help them overcome challenges associated with dissemination of high levels of BH integration.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%