ArticleClinical practice in pediatric psychology2020
Exploring Predictors of Treatment Engagement in Urban Integrated Primary Care.
Article in Clinical practice in pediatric psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disparities in accessing specialty behavioral health services during the COVID-19 pandemic and why we need pediatric integrated primary care.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Strategic Implementation Planning for Integrated Behavioral Health Services in Pediatric Primary Care.Implementation research and practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIntegrated primary care (IPC) is intended to address the gap in access to behavioral health care. This may be particularly true in urban settings; however, there is a paucity of research on treatment engagement in urban IPC. This study explored factors associated with treatment engagement.
methodData were collected via retrospective chart review for 410 patients of diverse backgrounds who received an IPC referral in an urban primary care site. Patient-related factors included having multiple types of referral concerns, patient primary care show rate, and number of visits with referring clinician. Service-related factors included referral type (warm handoff/ electronic), number of days between referral and intake, and average number of days between IPC treatment sessions. Engagement outcomes included attendance at IPC intake, total IPC sessions attended, overall IPC show rate, and IPC treatment attrition.
resultsOf referred patients, 348 (84.9%) were encouraged to or scheduled an intake. Of those, 289 (83.1%) scheduled and 57.2% attended; the average number of sessions attended was 1.73. Patients who had more primary care office visits and higher primary care show rates were more likely to attend an IPC intake. Shorter average duration between follow-up sessions was associated with higher overall IPC show rates for those who initiated IPC follow-up care.
conclusionsSupporting engagement in primary care broadly and building scheduling capacity for IPC treatment may increase IPC service engagement in an urban primary care context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.