Does use of primary care-based behavioral health programs differ by race and ethnicity? Evidence from a multi-site collaborative care model

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.hjdsi.2023.100676
Benjamin Kovachy , Trina Chang , Christine Vogeli , Suzanne Tolland , Susan Garrels , Brent P. Forester , Vicki Fung
{"title":"Does use of primary care-based behavioral health programs differ by race and ethnicity? Evidence from a multi-site collaborative care model","authors":"Benjamin Kovachy ,&nbsp;Trina Chang ,&nbsp;Christine Vogeli ,&nbsp;Suzanne Tolland ,&nbsp;Susan Garrels ,&nbsp;Brent P. Forester ,&nbsp;Vicki Fung","doi":"10.1016/j.hjdsi.2023.100676","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Collaborative care models (CoCM) that integrate mental health and primary care<span> improve outcomes and could help address racial and ethnic mental health disparities. We examined whether use of these programs differs by race/ethnicity.</span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This retrospective study examined two CoCM interventions implemented across primary care clinics in a large health system in Massachusetts: 1) a primary care-based behavioral health program for depression or anxiety (IMPACT model) and 2) referral to community-based specialty care services (Resource-finding). Outcomes included enrollment, non-completion, and symptom screening rates, and discharge status for Black, Hispanic and White patients referred for CoCM, 2017–2019.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>Black and Hispanic vs. White patients referred to CoCM (n = 17,280) were more likely to live in high poverty ZIP codes (34% and 40% vs. 9%). Rates of program enrollment, non-completion, and symptom screening were similar across groups (e.g., 76%, 77%, and 75% of Black, Hispanic, and White patients enrolled). Hispanic vs. White patients were more likely to be enrolled in IMPACT (56%) vs. Resource-finding (43%). Among those completing IMPACT, Hispanic vs. White patients were more likely to be stepped to </span>psychiatry vs. discharged to their primary care provider (51% vs. 20%, aOR = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.02–2.35).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Black and Hispanic patients referred to CoCM were similarly likely to use the program as White patients. Hispanic patients completing IMPACT were more frequently referred to psychiatry.</p></div><div><h3>Implications</h3><p>These results highlight the promise of CoCMs for engaging minority populations in mental healthcare. Hispanic patients may benefit from additional intervention or earlier linkage to specialty care.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":29963,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation","volume":"11 2","pages":"Article 100676"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10257753/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213076423000039","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Collaborative care models (CoCM) that integrate mental health and primary care improve outcomes and could help address racial and ethnic mental health disparities. We examined whether use of these programs differs by race/ethnicity.

Methods

This retrospective study examined two CoCM interventions implemented across primary care clinics in a large health system in Massachusetts: 1) a primary care-based behavioral health program for depression or anxiety (IMPACT model) and 2) referral to community-based specialty care services (Resource-finding). Outcomes included enrollment, non-completion, and symptom screening rates, and discharge status for Black, Hispanic and White patients referred for CoCM, 2017–2019.

Results

Black and Hispanic vs. White patients referred to CoCM (n = 17,280) were more likely to live in high poverty ZIP codes (34% and 40% vs. 9%). Rates of program enrollment, non-completion, and symptom screening were similar across groups (e.g., 76%, 77%, and 75% of Black, Hispanic, and White patients enrolled). Hispanic vs. White patients were more likely to be enrolled in IMPACT (56%) vs. Resource-finding (43%). Among those completing IMPACT, Hispanic vs. White patients were more likely to be stepped to psychiatry vs. discharged to their primary care provider (51% vs. 20%, aOR = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.02–2.35).

Conclusions

Black and Hispanic patients referred to CoCM were similarly likely to use the program as White patients. Hispanic patients completing IMPACT were more frequently referred to psychiatry.

Implications

These results highlight the promise of CoCMs for engaging minority populations in mental healthcare. Hispanic patients may benefit from additional intervention or earlier linkage to specialty care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于初级保健的行为健康项目的使用是否因种族和民族而异?来自多地点合作护理模式的证据
背景将心理健康和初级保健相结合的合作护理模式(CoCM)可以改善结果,并有助于解决种族和民族心理健康差异。我们检查了这些项目的使用是否因种族/民族而异。方法本回顾性研究检查了马萨诸塞州一个大型卫生系统的初级保健诊所实施的两种CoCM干预措施:1)基于初级保健的抑郁症或焦虑症行为健康项目(IMPACT模型)和2)转诊到社区专业护理服务(资源发现)。结果包括2017-2019年转诊CoCM的黑人、西班牙裔和白人患者的入组率、未完成率和症状筛查率以及出院状态。结果转诊CoCM的黑人和西班牙籍与白人患者(n=17280)更有可能生活在高贫困邮政编码区(34%和40%对9%)。不同组的项目注册率、未完成率和症状筛查率相似(例如,76%、77%和75%的黑人、西班牙裔和白人患者注册)。西班牙裔患者与白人患者相比,更有可能参加IMPACT(56%),而资源发现(43%)。在完成IMPACT的患者中,西班牙裔和白人患者更有可能进入精神科,而不是出院到他们的初级保健提供者(51%对20%,aOR=1.55,95%CI:1.02–2.35)。完成IMPACT的西班牙裔患者更频繁地被转诊到精神病学。含义这些结果突出了CoCM在让少数民族参与心理健康方面的前景。西班牙裔患者可能受益于额外的干预或早期与专科护理的联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: HealthCare: The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation is a quarterly journal. The journal promotes cutting edge research on innovation in healthcare delivery, including improvements in systems, processes, management, and applied information technology. The journal welcomes submissions of original research articles, case studies capturing "policy to practice" or "implementation of best practices", commentaries, and critical reviews of relevant novel programs and products. The scope of the journal includes topics directly related to delivering healthcare, such as: ● Care redesign ● Applied health IT ● Payment innovation ● Managerial innovation ● Quality improvement (QI) research ● New training and education models ● Comparative delivery innovation
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum to "Reading the crystal ball: Primary care implications while awaiting outcomes for multi-cancer early detection tests" [Healthcare 11 (2023) 100705]. The national ambulatory medical care survey (NAMCS) at fifty: Past and future Implementation and adaptation of clinical quality improvement opioid measures Association between patient-reported financial burden and catastrophic health expenditures in cancer survivors Outpatient remdesivir treatment program for hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019: Patient perceptions, process and economic impact
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1