ArticleBMC primary care2025
Barriers and facilitators to implementing a technology-enhanced psychiatric collaborative care model among rural primary care sites: a mixed-methods implementation case study.
Article in BMC primary care, 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.
- Scaling the collaborative care model in obstetrics: Multilevel determinants to guide implementation.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPsychiatric collaborative care management (CoCM) has potential to mitigate the challenges rural communities face accessing behavioral health (BH) services. However, implementation of CoCM in rural clinics has proved difficult and may benefit from a tailored approach. This study examines implementation of a telehealth-enabled CoCM program in four rural South Carolina clinics guided by the Dynamic Adaptation Process (DAP), with particular focus on identifying barriers, facilitators, and strategies to support implementation.
methodsThis study used a mixed-methods, embedded, chronological case study approach, integrating several data sources collected longitudinally during implementation. Data included surveys, focus groups, key informant interviews, and administrative data. Data were integrated using a weaving approach to develop summaries of each of the DAP phases of program implementation (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment).
resultsInitial Exploration implementation activities included workflow development, telehealth platform configuration, building the CoCM provider team, and conducting an assessment among implementation clinics. Scarcity of BH resources was the primary barrier to rural BH treatment, leading to strong anticipated fit of the CoCM pilot among providers. These data informed activities and adaptations in subsequent phases. During the Preparation phase, the CoCM team was trained and site visits were conducted by the remote care manager to build rapport with clinic staff. In Implementation, the pilot launched, receiving 296 referrals and 99 patient enrollments in the first eight months. Post-implementation feedback showed strong provider satisfaction. Patient need, patient interest, and provider engagement with the care manager were identified as the primary facilitators for referral. During the Sustainment phase, workflow, technology, and auditing process improvements took place alongside planning for future program expansion. CONCLUSIONL: The DAP shows great utility for tailoring implementation of CoCM to specific rural settings by providing a roadmap for identifying contextual barriers and facilitators that can be addressed through adaptation and other implementation strategies.
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.