Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"This book provides a step-by-step guide to integrating early childhood behavioral health care into primary care with hands-on advice for creating, implementing, and evaluating programs. It discusses the unique advantages of pediatric primary care as a setting for mental health services from birth into the early school years, particularly for addressing parent/child stress and trauma issues. Contributors illustrate in depth how bringing behavioral health into pediatric services can engender care that is replicable and sustainable, not only cost-effective but also clinically effective. Guidelines and case examples from frontline practitioners highlight typical challenges and workable recommendations ... Integrated Early Childhood Behavioral Health in Primary Care is an essential resource for clinicians/practitioners, graduate students, and researchers in child and school psychology, pediatrics, and social work.\"--Page 4 of cover.

The Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH) model is a prominent approach to the integration of behavioral health services into primary care settings. Implementation of the PCBH model has grown over the past two decades, yet research and training efforts have been slowed by inconsistent terminology and lack of a concise, operationalized definition of the model and its key components. This article provides the first concise operationalized definition of the PCBH model, developed from examination of multiple published resources and consultation with nationally recognized PCBH model experts. The definition frames the model as a team-based approach to managing biopsychosocial issues that present in primary care, with the over-arching goal of improving primary care in general. The article provides a description of the key components and strategies used in the model, the rationale for those strategies, a brief comparison of this model to other integration approaches, a focused summary of PCBH model outcomes, and an overview of common challenges to implementing the model.

The Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH) model of service delivery is being used increasingly as an effective way to integrate behavioral health services into primary care. Despite its growing popularity, scientifically robust research on the model is lacking. In this article, we provide a qualitative review of published PCBH model research on patient and implementation outcomes. We review common barriers and potential solutions for improving the quantity and quality of PCBH model research, the vital data that need to be collected over the next 10 years, and how to collect those data.

BackgroundIntegrating mental health services into primary care settings is complex and challenging. Although facilitation strategies have successfully supported implementation of primary care mental health integration and other complex innovations, we know little about the time required or its cost.ObjectiveTo examine the time and organizational cost of facilitating implementation of primary care mental health integration.DesignDescriptive analysis.ParticipantsOne expert external facilitator and two internal regional facilitators who helped healthcare system stakeholders, e.g., leaders, managers, clinicians, and non-clinical staff, implement primary care mental health integration at eight clinics.InterventionImplementation facilitation tailored to the needs and resources of the setting and its stakeholders.Main MeasuresWe documented facilitators’ and stakeholders’ time and types of activities using a structured spreadsheet collected from facilitators on a weekly basis. We obtained travel costs and salary information. We conducted descriptive analysis of time data and estimated organizational cost.Key ResultsThe external facilitator devoted 263 h (0.09 FTE), including travel, across all 8 clinics over 28 months. Internal facilitator time varied across networks (1792 h versus 1169 h), as well as clinics. Stakeholder participation time was similar across networks (1280.6 versus 1363.4 person hours) but the number of stakeholders varied (133 versus 199 stakeholders). The organizational cost of providing implementation facilitation also varied across networks ($263,490 versus $258,127). Stakeholder participation accounted for 35% of the cost of facilitation activities in one network and 47% of the cost in the other.ConclusionsAlthough facilitation can improve implementation of primary care mental health integration, it requires substantial organizational investments that may vary by site and implementation effort. Furthermore, the cost of using an external expert to transfer facilitation skills and build capacity for implementation efforts appears to be minimal.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a prominent public health problem in the United States, with significant health impacts that are often severe and persistent. Healthcare systems have been called upon to improve both the systematic identification and treatment of IPV largely by adopting secondary and tertiary prevention efforts. Research to date demonstrates both benefits and challenges with the current strategies employed. In this paper, we summarize current knowledge about the healthcare system’s response to IPV and evaluate the strengths, limitations, and opportunities. We offer recommendations to broaden the continuum of healthcare resources to address IPV, which include a population health approach to primary prevention.

Background Mental health care lags behind other forms of medical care in its reliance on subjective clinician assessment. Although routine use of standardized patient-reported outcome measures, measurement-based care (MBC), can improve patient outcomes and engagement, clinician efficiency, and, collaboration across care team members, full implementation of this complex practice change can be challenging. This study seeks to understand whether and how an intensive facilitation strategy can be effective in supporting the implementation of MBC. Implementation researchers partnering with US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) leaders are conducting the study within the context of a national initiative to support MBC implementation throughout VA mental health services. This study will focus specifically on VA Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PCMHI) programs. Methods A mixed-methods, multiple case study design will include 12 PCMHI sites recruited from the 23 PCMHI programs that volunteered to participate in the VA national initiative. Guided by a study partnership panel, sites are clustered into similar groups using administrative metrics. Site pairs are recruited from within these groups. Within pairs, sites are randomized to the implementation facilitation strategy (external facilitation plus QI team) or standard VA national support. The implementation strategy provides an external facilitator and MBC experts who work with intervention sites to form a QI team, develop an implementation plan, and, identify and overcome barriers to implementation. The RE-AIM framework guides the evaluation of the implementation facilitation strategy which will utilize data from administrative, medical record, and primary qualitative and quantitative sources. Guided by the iPARIHS framework and using a mixed methods approach, we will also examine factors associated with implementation success. Finally, we will explore whether implementation of MBC increases primary care team communication and function related to the care of mental health conditions. Discussion MBC has significant potential to improve mental health care but it represents a major change in practice. Understanding factors that can support MBC implementation is essential to attaining its potential benefits and spreading these benefits across the health care system.

Objective: Behavioral and physical health services are increasingly being integrated, with care provided by interprofessional teams of physicians, nurses, social workers, and other professionals. The objective of this study was to describe the functions of social workers on interprofessional teams in primary care and to assess the impact of interprofessional teams that include social workers in integrated care settings. Method: We undertook a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of routine vs. integrated primary care where social workers served on interprofessional teams. A 5-phase search process to identify RCTs from 9 electronic databases and the gray literature published between 2000 and 2016 was used. We calculated effect sizes across identified studies and conducted 2 subsample meta-analyses for behavioral health outcomes. Results: The searches recovered 502 citations. After screening, 107 reports were retained for a full-text review, and 32 of those (from 26 RCTs) met study criteria. In the 26 RCTs, social workers engaged in 3 patient-centered activities: behavioral health treatment, care management, and referral for social services. Conclusion: Although mixed, the findings suggest that, compared to routine services, integrated primary care provided by interprofessional teams that include social workers significantly improves the behavioral health and care of patients.

Background Childhood adversity and trauma are prevalent risk factors for the development of mental health conditions. This two-part paper describes the conceptual basis and pilot implementation of a tiered model of pediatric population mental health, highlighting the local socioecological context in which it was developed and the trauma-informed approach used. Methods Using retrospective record review of three datasets from the primary and secondary care pediatric clinics of a large academic medical center, which were harmonized to cover the study period from July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024, we conducted descriptive analyses of patients across three levels: pediatric primary care ( n  = 9535), an integrated primary care program, which embeds mental health clinicians in primary care ( n  = 267), and family-centered trauma-informed psychotherapies in secondary care ( n  = 63), designed to address emotion dysregulation in pre-adolescent children. Demographics and lifetime history of trauma and adversity (assessed with a comprehensive 19-item list coded based on standardized screeners) were assessed through electronic medical records. Results Relative to the pediatric primary care population, more patients in the integrated primary care program and trauma-informed psychotherapies identified as White. Using our 19-item assessment, the lifetime prevalence of adversity or trauma was nearly universal among patients in the integrated primary care (94.4%) and trauma-informed psychotherapy (98.4%) programs. However, the lifetime prevalence of childhood adversities differed significantly across the two programs (integrated primary care: 76.8%; trauma-informed psychotherapy: 98.4%) when we assessed prevalence based only on the 10-item Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire (Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, Koss MP, Marks JS, Am J Prev Med 14:245–58, 1998). There was a higher prevalence of family and parent-related adversities in the trauma-informed psychotherapy program. Conclusions Findings support the need for trauma-informed, population mental health approaches in pediatric care. Developmentally tailored, family-centered, transdiagnostic screening and interventions are essential. Study findings, including gaps in programmatic fiscal sustainability, suggest avenues for policy reform to support and scale trauma-informed programs like ours. Programs seeking to implement trauma-informed approaches should leverage implementation and participatory research to ensure effectiveness and equitable accessibility for patients of diverse identities.