Topic
Integrated care
About: Integrated care is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 7318 publications have been published within this topic receiving 106960 citations. The topic is also known as: Integrated Delivery of Health Care & Delivery of Health Care, Integrated.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: Specific barriers to medication adherence in T2D, especially those that are potentially modifiable, need to be more clearly identified and strategies that target poor adherence should focus on reducing medication burden and addressing negative medication beliefs of patients.
Abstract: At least 45% of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) fail to achieve adequate glycemic control (HbA1c <7%). One of the major contributing factors is poor medication adherence. Poor medication adherence in T2D is well documented to be very common and is associated with inadequate glycemic control; increased morbidity and mortality; and increased costs of outpatient care, emergency room visits, hospitalization, and managing complications of diabetes. Poor medication adherence is linked to key nonpatient factors (eg, lack of integrated care in many health care systems and clinical inertia among health care professionals), patient demographic factors (eg, young age, low education level, and low income level), critical patient beliefs about their medications (eg, perceived treatment inefficacy), and perceived patient burden regarding obtaining and taking their medications (eg, treatment complexity, out-of-pocket costs, and hypoglycemia). Specific barriers to medication adherence in T2D, especially those that are potentially modifiable, need to be more clearly identified; strategies that target poor adherence should focus on reducing medication burden and addressing negative medication beliefs of patients. Solutions to these problems would require behavioral innovations as well as new methods and modes of drug delivery.
428 citations
••
TL;DR: On-site, integrated primary care was associated with improved quality and outcomes of medical care in patients with serious mental disorders.
Abstract: Background This randomized trial evaluated an integrated model of primary medical care for a cohort of patients with serious mental disorders. Methods A total of 120 individuals enrolled in a Veterans Affairs (VA) mental health clinic were randomized to receive primary medical care through an integrated care initiative located in the mental health clinic (n = 59) or through the VA general medicine clinic (n = 61). Veterans who obtained care in the integrated care clinic received on-site primary care and case management that emphasized preventive medical care, patient education, and close collaboration with mental health providers to improve access to and continuity of care. Analyses compared health process (use of medical services, quality of care, and satisfaction) and outcomes (health and mental health status and costs) between the groups in the year after randomization. Results Patients treated in the integrated care clinic were significantly more likely to have made a primary care visit and had a greater mean number of primary care visits than those in the usual care group. They were more likely to have received 15 of the 17 preventive measures outlined in clinical practice guidelines. Patients assigned to the integrated care clinic had a significantly greater improvement in health as measured by the physical component summary score of the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey than patients assigned to the general medicine clinic (4.7 points vs −0.3 points, P Conclusion On-site, integrated primary care was associated with improved quality and outcomes of medical care.
426 citations
01 Nov 2008
TL;DR: There is a reasonably strong body of evidence to encourage integrated care, at least for depression, and there is no discernible effect of integration level, processes of care, or combination on patient outcomes for mental health services in primary care settings.
Abstract: Objectives To describe models of integrated care used in the United States, assess how integration of mental health services into primary care settings or primary health care into specialty outpatient settings impacts patient outcomes and describe barriers to sustainable programs, use of health information technology (IT), and reimbursement structures of integrated care programs within the United States. Data sources MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane databases, and PsychINFO databases, the internet, and expert consultants for relevant trials and other literature that does not traditionally appear in peer reviewed journals. Review methods Randomized controlled trials and high quality quasi-experimental design studies were reviewed for integrated care model design components. For trials of mental health services in primary care settings, levels of integration codes were constructed and assigned for provider integration, integrated processes of care, and their interaction. Forest plots of patient symptom severity, treatment response, and remission were constructed to examine associations between level of integration and outcomes. Results Integrated care programs have been tested for depression, anxiety, at-risk alcohol, and ADHD in primary care settings and for alcohol disorders and persons with severe mental illness in specialty care settings. Although most interventions in either setting are effective, there is no discernible effect of integration level, processes of care, or combination, on patient outcomes for mental health services in primary care settings. Organizational and financial barriers persist to successfully implement sustainable integrated care programs. Health IT remains a mostly undocumented but promising tool. No reimbursement system has been subjected to experiment; no evidence exists as to which reimbursement system may most effectively support integrated care. Case studies will add to our understanding of their implementation and sustainability. Conclusions In general, integrated care achieved positive outcomes. However, it is not possible to distinguish the effects of increased attention to mental health problems from the effects of specific strategies, evidenced by the lack of correlation between measures of integration or a systematic approach to care processes and the various outcomes. Efforts to implement integrated care will have to address financial barriers. There is a reasonably strong body of evidence to encourage integrated care, at least for depression. Encouragement can include removing obstacles, creating incentives, or mandating integrated care. Encouragement will likely differ between fee-for-service care and managed care. However, without evidence for a clearly superior model, there is legitimate reason to worry about premature orthodoxy.
420 citations
••
TL;DR: The results suggest that integrated service arrangements improve access to mental health and substance abuse services for older adults who underuse these services.
Abstract: Objective: The authors sought to determine whether integrated mental health services or enhanced referral to specialty mental health clinics results in greater engagement in mental health/substance abuse services by older primary care patients. Method: This multisite randomized trial included 10 sites consisting of primary care and specialty mental health/substance abuse clinics. Primary care patients 65 years old or older (N=24,930) were screened. The final study group consisted of 2,022 patients (mean age=73.5 years; 26% female; 48% ethnic minority) with depression (N=1,390), anxiety (N= 70), at-risk alcohol use (N=414), or dual diagnosis (N=148) who were randomly assigned to integrated care (mental health and substance abuse providers co-located in primary care; N=999) or enhanced referral to specialty mental health/substance abuse clinics (i.e., facilitated scheduling, transportation, payment; N=1,023). Results: Seventy-one percent of patients engaged in treatment in the integrated model compared with 49% in the enhanced referral model. Integrated care was associated with more mental health and substance abuse visits per patient (mean=3.04) relative to enhanced referral (mean=1.91). Overall, greater engagement was predicted by integrated care and higher mental distress. For depression, greater engagement was predicted by integrated care and more severe depression. For at-risk alcohol users, greater engagement was predicted by integrated care and more severe problem drinking. For all conditions, greater engagement was associated with closer proximity of mental health/substance abuse services to primary care. Conclusions: Older primary care patients are more likely to accept collaborative mental health treatment within primary care than in mental health/substance abuse clinics. These results suggest that integrated service arrangements improve access to mental health and substance abuse services for older adults who underuse these services.
405 citations
••
TL;DR: The benefits of integrated medical-behavioral primary care for improving youth behavioral health outcomes, enhance confidence that the increased incentives for integrated health and behavioral health care in the US health care system will yield improvements in the health of children and adolescents.
Abstract: Importance Recent health care legislation and shifting health care financing strategies are transforming health and behavioral health care in the United States and incentivizing integrated medical-behavioral health care as a strategy for improving access to high-quality care for behavioral health conditions, enhancing patient outcomes, and containing costs. Objective To conduct a systematic meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to evaluate whether integrated medical-behavioral health care for children and adolescents leads to improved behavioral health outcomes compared with usual primary care. Data Sources Search of the PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases from January 1, 1960, through December 31, 2014, yielded 6792 studies, of which 31 studies with 35 intervention-control comparisons and 13 129 participants met the study eligibility criteria. Study Selection We included randomized clinical trials that evaluated integrated behavioral health and primary medical care in children and adolescents compared with usual care in primary care settings that met prespecified methodologic quality criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two independent reviewers screened citations and extracted data, with raw data used when possible. Magnitude and direction of effect sizes were calculated. Main Outcomes and Measures Meta-analysis with a random effects model were conducted to examine an overall effect across all trials, and within intervention and prevention trials. Subsequent moderator analyses for intervention trials explored the relative effects of integrated care type on behavioral health outcomes. Results Meta-analysis with a random-effects model indicated a significant advantage for integrated care interventions relative to usual care on behavioral health outcomes ( d = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21-0.44; P d = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.29-0.55; P d = 0.07; 95% CI, −0.13 to 0.28; P = .49). The probability was 66% that a randomly selected youth would have a better outcome after receiving integrated medical-behavioral treatment than a randomly selected youth after receiving usual care. The strongest effects were seen for treatment interventions that targeted mental health problems and those that used collaborative care models. Conclusions and Relevance Our results, demonstrating the benefits of integrated medical-behavioral primary care for improving youth behavioral health outcomes, enhance confidence that the increased incentives for integrated health and behavioral health care in the US health care system will yield improvements in the health of children and adolescents.
400 citations