REACH of Interventions Integrating Primary Care and Behavioral Health

Bijal A. Balasubramanian, Douglas Fernald, L. Miriam Dickinson, Melinda Davis, Rose Gunn, Benjamin F. Crabtree, Benjamin F. Miller, Deborah Cohen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study reports REACH (the extent to which an intervention or program was delivered to the identified target population) of interventions integrating primary care and behavioral health implemented by real-world practices.

METHODS: Eleven practices implementing integrated care interventions provided data to calculate REACH as follows: 1) Screening REACH defined as proportion of target patients assessed for integrated care, and 2) Integrated care services REACH-defined as proportion of patients receiving integrated services of those who met specific criteria. Difference in mean REACH between practices was evaluated using t test.

RESULTS: Overall, 26.2% of target patients (n = 24,906) were assessed for integrated care and 41% (n = 836) of eligible patients received integration services. Practices that implemented systematic protocols to identify patients needing integrated care had a significantly higher screening REACH (mean, 70%; 95% CI [confidence interval], 46.6-93.4%) compared with practices that used clinicians' discretion (mean, 7.9%; 95% CI, 0.6-15.1; P = .0014). Integrated care services REACH was higher among practices that used clinicians' discretion compared with those that assessed patients systematically (mean, 95.8 vs 53.8%; P = .03).

CONCLUSION: REACH of integrated care interventions differed by practices' method of assessing patients. Measuring REACH is important to evaluate the extent to which integration efforts affect patient care and can help demonstrate the impact of integrated care to payers and policy makers.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)S73-S85
JournalJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM
Volume28
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2015

Fingerprint

Primary Health Care
Confidence Intervals
Health Services Needs and Demand
Administrative Personnel
Patient Care

Keywords

  • Delivery of Health Care
  • Evaluation Studies
  • Health Plan Implementation
  • Integrated
  • Primary Health Care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Family Practice

Cite this

REACH of Interventions Integrating Primary Care and Behavioral Health. / Balasubramanian, Bijal A.; Fernald, Douglas; Dickinson, L. Miriam; Davis, Melinda; Gunn, Rose; Crabtree, Benjamin F.; Miller, Benjamin F.; Cohen, Deborah.

In: Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM, Vol. 28, 01.09.2015, p. S73-S85.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Balasubramanian, Bijal A. ; Fernald, Douglas ; Dickinson, L. Miriam ; Davis, Melinda ; Gunn, Rose ; Crabtree, Benjamin F. ; Miller, Benjamin F. ; Cohen, Deborah. / REACH of Interventions Integrating Primary Care and Behavioral Health. In: Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM. 2015 ; Vol. 28. pp. S73-S85.
@article{c89534894ac746ef99fa480afcb4d5bb,
title = "REACH of Interventions Integrating Primary Care and Behavioral Health",
abstract = "PURPOSE: This study reports REACH (the extent to which an intervention or program was delivered to the identified target population) of interventions integrating primary care and behavioral health implemented by real-world practices.METHODS: Eleven practices implementing integrated care interventions provided data to calculate REACH as follows: 1) Screening REACH defined as proportion of target patients assessed for integrated care, and 2) Integrated care services REACH-defined as proportion of patients receiving integrated services of those who met specific criteria. Difference in mean REACH between practices was evaluated using t test.RESULTS: Overall, 26.2{\%} of target patients (n = 24,906) were assessed for integrated care and 41{\%} (n = 836) of eligible patients received integration services. Practices that implemented systematic protocols to identify patients needing integrated care had a significantly higher screening REACH (mean, 70{\%}; 95{\%} CI [confidence interval], 46.6-93.4{\%}) compared with practices that used clinicians' discretion (mean, 7.9{\%}; 95{\%} CI, 0.6-15.1; P = .0014). Integrated care services REACH was higher among practices that used clinicians' discretion compared with those that assessed patients systematically (mean, 95.8 vs 53.8{\%}; P = .03).CONCLUSION: REACH of integrated care interventions differed by practices' method of assessing patients. Measuring REACH is important to evaluate the extent to which integration efforts affect patient care and can help demonstrate the impact of integrated care to payers and policy makers.",
keywords = "Delivery of Health Care, Evaluation Studies, Health Plan Implementation, Integrated, Primary Health Care",
author = "Balasubramanian, {Bijal A.} and Douglas Fernald and Dickinson, {L. Miriam} and Melinda Davis and Rose Gunn and Crabtree, {Benjamin F.} and Miller, {Benjamin F.} and Deborah Cohen",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3122/jabfm.2015.S1.150055",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "S73--S85",
journal = "Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine",
issn = "1557-2625",
publisher = "American Board of Family Medicine",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - REACH of Interventions Integrating Primary Care and Behavioral Health

AU - Balasubramanian, Bijal A.

AU - Fernald, Douglas

AU - Dickinson, L. Miriam

AU - Davis, Melinda

AU - Gunn, Rose

AU - Crabtree, Benjamin F.

AU - Miller, Benjamin F.

AU - Cohen, Deborah

PY - 2015/9/1

Y1 - 2015/9/1

N2 - PURPOSE: This study reports REACH (the extent to which an intervention or program was delivered to the identified target population) of interventions integrating primary care and behavioral health implemented by real-world practices.METHODS: Eleven practices implementing integrated care interventions provided data to calculate REACH as follows: 1) Screening REACH defined as proportion of target patients assessed for integrated care, and 2) Integrated care services REACH-defined as proportion of patients receiving integrated services of those who met specific criteria. Difference in mean REACH between practices was evaluated using t test.RESULTS: Overall, 26.2% of target patients (n = 24,906) were assessed for integrated care and 41% (n = 836) of eligible patients received integration services. Practices that implemented systematic protocols to identify patients needing integrated care had a significantly higher screening REACH (mean, 70%; 95% CI [confidence interval], 46.6-93.4%) compared with practices that used clinicians' discretion (mean, 7.9%; 95% CI, 0.6-15.1; P = .0014). Integrated care services REACH was higher among practices that used clinicians' discretion compared with those that assessed patients systematically (mean, 95.8 vs 53.8%; P = .03).CONCLUSION: REACH of integrated care interventions differed by practices' method of assessing patients. Measuring REACH is important to evaluate the extent to which integration efforts affect patient care and can help demonstrate the impact of integrated care to payers and policy makers.

AB - PURPOSE: This study reports REACH (the extent to which an intervention or program was delivered to the identified target population) of interventions integrating primary care and behavioral health implemented by real-world practices.METHODS: Eleven practices implementing integrated care interventions provided data to calculate REACH as follows: 1) Screening REACH defined as proportion of target patients assessed for integrated care, and 2) Integrated care services REACH-defined as proportion of patients receiving integrated services of those who met specific criteria. Difference in mean REACH between practices was evaluated using t test.RESULTS: Overall, 26.2% of target patients (n = 24,906) were assessed for integrated care and 41% (n = 836) of eligible patients received integration services. Practices that implemented systematic protocols to identify patients needing integrated care had a significantly higher screening REACH (mean, 70%; 95% CI [confidence interval], 46.6-93.4%) compared with practices that used clinicians' discretion (mean, 7.9%; 95% CI, 0.6-15.1; P = .0014). Integrated care services REACH was higher among practices that used clinicians' discretion compared with those that assessed patients systematically (mean, 95.8 vs 53.8%; P = .03).CONCLUSION: REACH of integrated care interventions differed by practices' method of assessing patients. Measuring REACH is important to evaluate the extent to which integration efforts affect patient care and can help demonstrate the impact of integrated care to payers and policy makers.

KW - Delivery of Health Care

KW - Evaluation Studies

KW - Health Plan Implementation

KW - Integrated

KW - Primary Health Care

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85011607169&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85011607169&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3122/jabfm.2015.S1.150055

DO - 10.3122/jabfm.2015.S1.150055

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - S73-S85

JO - Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

JF - Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

SN - 1557-2625

ER -