Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32766871›Full record

ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2020

Defining and measuring core processes and structures in integrated behavioral health in primary care: a cross-model framework.

Kari A Stephens, Constance van Eeghen, Brenda Mollis, Margaret Au, Stephanie A Brennhofer, Matthew Martin, Jessica Clifton, Elizabeth Witwer, Audrey Hansen, Jeyn Monkman and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Implementation science in integrated behavioral health: Charting the road ahead.Families, systems & health : the journal of collaborative family healthcare · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Kari A StephensDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Constance van EeghenDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine Research, University of Vermont, Seattle, WA, USA.
Brenda MollisDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Margaret AuPsychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Burlington, VT, USA.
Stephanie A BrennhoferIntegrated Behavioral Health Program, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Matthew MartinIntegrated Behavioral Health Program, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Jessica CliftonDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine Research, University of Vermont, Seattle, WA, USA.
Elizabeth WitwerDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Audrey HansenMN Health Collaborative, ICSI, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Jeyn MonkmanMN Health Collaborative, ICSI, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Gretchen BuchananFamily Social Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Rodger KesslerIntegrated Behavioral Health Program, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA.

Funding

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute PCS-1409-24372
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A movement towards integrated behavioral health (IBH) in primary care continues to grow, among an accumulating evidence base for its effectiveness for improving care. However, healthcare organizations struggle to navigate where to target their limited resources for improving integration. We evaluated a cross-model framework of IBH core processes and structures. We used a mixed-methods approach for evaluation of the framework, which included (a) an evaluation survey of national experts and stakeholders, (b) crosswalks with common IBH measures, and (c) a real-world usability test. Five core IBH principles, mapping to 25 processes, and nine clinic structures were defined. Survey responses from 29 IBH domain and policy experts and stakeholders resulted in uniformly high ratings of importance and variable levels of feasibility for measurement, particularly with respect to electronic health record (EHR) systems. A real-world usability test resulted in good uptake and use of the framework across a state-wide effort. An IBH Cross-Model Framework of core principles, processes, and structures generated good acceptability and showed good real-world utility in a state-wide effort to improve IBH across disparate levels of integration in diverse primary care settings. Findings identify feasible areas of measurement, particularly with EHR systems. Next steps include testing the relationship between the individual framework components and patient outcomes to help guide clinics towards prioritizing efforts focused on improving integration.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesEvidence-based careIntegrated behavioral healthPrimary careQuality careTeam-care

Identifiers

PMID32766871
PMCPMC8128511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.