ArticleImplementation science communications2025
Integrating behavioral health care into a low-barrier HIV clinic using the Collaborative Care Model: a mixed methods evaluation of patient care cascade outcomes and determinants.
Article in Implementation science communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrating substance use services into HIV care: an underused implementation science opportunity.Current opinion in HIV and AIDS · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLow-barrier HIV care is an evidence-based intervention to improve HIV outcomes among those who have complex barriers to care, but the walk-in model poses challenges to integrating behavioral health services. We evaluated the acceptability and feasibility of a Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) for treatment of depression and opioid use disorder in a low-barrier clinic.
methodsIn a sequential explanatory mixed methods pilot study, we accessed data from patient records to generate a care cascade for the number of patients enrolled in the first six months of the program and conducted individual interviews with patients and staff to interpret the care cascade findings.
resultsAmong 175 patients who visited the clinic, 36% were screened for, 24% were referred to, 15% completed an intake for, and 9% engaged in CoCM. The interviews revealed that screening was limited by a lack of clarity among staff about services offered in CoCM, staff forgetting the screening process, and limited time during patent visits. Referrals were limited by low buy-in among staff and patient complexity. Intakes were limited by time and space constraints in the care setting and competing acute patient needs. The care manager's ability to embody the clinic's culture facilitated engagement among patients who completed intakes.
conclusionsStaff perceived CoCM to be acceptable and feasible to implement, but only in the context of multiple barriers to implementation and challenges to systematic screening and measurement-based care.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.