ArticlePsychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)2025
Measures of the Availability and Accessibility of Behavioral Health Services: A Scoping Review.
Article in Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveService availability and accessibility are necessary precursors to scaling up behavioral health services. This review aimed to examine the literature in order to identify and summarize quantitative measurement approaches to assessing the availability and accessibility of behavioral health services.
methodsThe search used in this scoping review included terms for psychiatric diagnoses, behavioral health services, measurement, and availability and accessibility. Databases queried were CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, and Web of Science. Two coders first screened the titles and abstracts and then the full texts of retrieved articles. Articles were included if they discussed a behavioral health service outcome and provided sufficient description of their quantitative measures or measurement approach. Two researchers extracted data from each article that met the inclusion criteria and deductively coded measures by using availability and accessibility domains derived from existing frameworks.
resultsThe search yielded 266 articles containing 250 unique measurement approaches. Articles most frequently used secondary (vs. nonsecondary) data sources. Measures were often developed for a single study; 93% of the unique measures were used only once. Only 12% of the measures had psychometric properties reported. The availability and accessibility domains had uneven coverage across secondary sources and unique measures. One brief, public-facing, psychometrically tested measure was found, but it lacked one of the availability domains.
conclusionsAvailability and accessibility should be treated as constructs distinct from utilization. National surveys provide indispensable information about the availability and accessibility of behavioral health services. The field would benefit from having a brief, client- and public-facing, psychometrically tested measure covering core availability and accessibility domains.
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.