Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39511571›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2024

Implementation outcomes from a randomized, controlled trial of a strategy to improve integration of behavioral health and primary care services.

Constance van Eeghen, Jeni Soucie, Jessica Clifton, Juvena Hitt, Brenda Mollis, Gail L Rose, Sarah Hudson Scholle, Kari A Stephens, Xiaofei Zhou, Laura-Mae Baldwin

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02868983 (Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care for Comorbid Behavioral and Medical Problems), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

NCT02868983 naunknown statusnot on this map

Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care for Comorbid Behavioral and Medical Problems

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of VermontRan2016 to 2021Enrolled4,025ConditionsArthritis, Asthma, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease, DiabetesArmsIntegration
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Constance van EeghenDepartment of Medicine, LCOM, UVM, 89 Beaumont Ave S357, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA. cvaneegh@med.uvm.edu.
Jeni SoucieNational Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), 1100 13Th Street NW, Washington, DC, 20005, USA.
Jessica CliftonParhelia Wellness; Department of Medicine, LCOM, UVM, 89 Beaumont Ave, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA.
Juvena HittDepartment of Medicine, LCOM, UVM, 89 Beaumont Ave, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA.
Brenda MollisDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Gail L RoseDepartment of Psychiatry, 1 S. Prospect St, Mail Stop 482 OH4, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA.
Sarah Hudson ScholleNational Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), 1100 13Th Street NW, Washington, DC, 20005, USA.
Kari A StephensDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Box 354696, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Xiaofei ZhouNational Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), 1100 13Th Street NW, Washington, DC, 20005, USA.
Laura-Mae BaldwinDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Box 354696, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundIntegrating behavioral health services in primary care is challenging; a toolkit approach to practice implementation can help. A recent comparative effectiveness randomized clinical trial examined the impact of a toolkit for improving integration on outcomes for patients with multiple chronic conditions. Some aspects of behavioral health integration improved; patient-reported outcomes did not. This report evaluates the implementation strategy (Toolkit) using Proctor's (2011) implementation outcomes model.

methodsUsing data from the 20 practices randomized to the active (toolkit strategy) arm (education, redesign workbooks, online learning community, remote coaching), we identified 23 measures from practice member surveys, coach interviews, reports, and field logs to assess Toolkit acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and fidelity. A practice survey score was high (met expectations) if its average was ≥ 4 on a scale 1-5; all other data were coded dichotomously, with high = 1.

resultsRegarding acceptability, 74% (14) of practices had high scores for willingness of providers and staff to use the Toolkit and 68% (13) for quality improvement teams liking the Toolkit. For appropriateness, 95% (19) of practices had high scores for the structured process being a good match and 63% (12) for the Toolkit being a good match. Feasibility, measured by Toolkit prerequisites, was scored lower by site members at project end (e.g., provider leader available as champion: 53% of practices) compared to remote coaches observing practice teams (74%). For "do-ability," coaches rated feasibility lower for practices (e.g., completion of workbook activities: 32%) than the practice teams (68%). Fidelity was low as assessed across seven measures, with 50% to 78% of practices having high scores across the seven measures.

conclusionsExisting data from large trials can be used to describe implementation outcomes. The Toolkit was not implemented with fidelity in at least one quarter of the sites, despite being acceptable and appropriate, possibly due to low feasibility in the form of unmet prerequisites and Toolkit complexity. Variability in fidelity reflects the importance of implementation strategies that fit each organization, suggesting that further study on contextual factors and use of the Toolkit, as well as the relationship of Toolkit use and study outcomes, is needed.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02868983; date of registration: 08/15/2016.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health Care, IntegratedPrimary Health CareHumansMental Health ServicesQuality ImprovementBehavioral healthFidelityImplementation outcomesImplementation strategyMultiple chronic conditionsPragmatic trialsPrimary careRandomized control trial

Identifiers

PMID39511571
PMCPMC11545095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.