Dataset Information

Does Primary Care Fill the Gap in Access to Specialty Mental Health Care? A Mixed Methods Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Broad consensus supports the use of primary care to address unmet need for mental health treatment.

Objective

To better understand whether primary care filled the gap when individuals were unable to access specialty mental health care.

Design

2018 mixed methods study with a national US internet survey (completion rate 66%) and follow-up interviews.

Participants

Privately insured English-speaking adults ages 18-64 reporting serious psychological distress that used an outpatient mental health provider in the last year or attempted to use a mental health provider but did not ultimately use specialty services (N = 428). Follow-up interviews were conducted with 30 survey respondents.

Main measures

Whether survey respondents obtained mental health care from their primary care provider (PCP), and if so, the rating of that care on a 1 to 10 scale, with ratings of 9 or 10 considered highly rated. Interviews explored patient-reported barriers and facilitators to engagement and satisfaction with care provided by PCPs.

Key results

Of the 22% that reported they tried to but did not access specialty mental health care, 53% reported receiving mental health care from a PCP. Respondents receiving care only from their PCP were less likely to rate their PCP care highly (21% versus 48%; p = 0.01). Interviewees reported experiences with PCP-provided mental health care related to three major themes: PCP engagement, relationship with the PCP, and PCP role.

Conclusions

Primary care is partially filling the gap for mental health treatment when specialty care is not available. Patient experiences reinforce the need for screening and follow-up in primary care, clinician training, and referral to a trusted specialty consultant when needed.

SUBMITTER: Kyanko KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8734538 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe how access to primary and specialty care differs for Medicaid patients relative to commercially insured patients, and how these differences vary across rural and urban counties, using comprehensive claims data from Oregon.DesignCross-sectional study of risk-adjusted access rates for two types of primary care providers (physicians; nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs)); four types of mental health providers (psychiatrists, psychologists, advanced practice NPs or PAs specializing in mental health care, behavioral specialists); and four physician specialties (obstetrics and gynecology, general surgery, gastroenterology, dermatology).Participants420,947 Medicaid and 638,980 commercially insured adults in Oregon, October 2014-September 2015.OutcomePresence of any visit with each provider type, risk-adjusted for sex, age, and health conditions.ResultsRelative to commercially insured individuals, Medicaid enrollees had lower rates of access to primary care physicians (- 11.82%; CI - 12.01 to - 11.63%) and to some specialists (e.g., obstetrics and gynecology, dermatology), but had equivalent or higher rates of access to NPs and PAs providing primary care (4.33%; CI 4.15 to 4.52%) and a variety of mental health providers (including psychiatrists, NPs and PAs, and other behavioral specialists). Across all providers, the largest gaps in Medicaid-commercial access rates were observed in rural counties. The Medicaid-commercial patient mix was evenly distributed across primary care physicians, suggesting that access for Medicaid patients was not limited to a small subset of primary care providers.ConclusionsThis cross-sectional study found lower rates of access to primary care physicians for Medicaid enrollees, but Medicaid-commercial differences in access rates were not present across all provider types and displayed substantial variability across counties. Policies that address rural-urban differences as well as Medicaid-commercial differences-such as expansions of telemedicine or changes in the workforce mix-may have the largest impact on improving access to care across a wide range of populations.

Project description:Importance:With the future of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid program unclear, it is critical to examine the geographic availability of specialty mental health treatment resources that serve low-income populations across local communities. Objectives:To examine the geographic availability of community-based specialty mental health treatment resources and how these resources are distributed by community socioeconomic status. Design, Setting, and Participants:Measures of the availability of specialty mental health treatment resources were derived using national data for 31?836 zip code tabulation areas from 2013 to 2015. Analyses examined the association between community socioeconomic status (assessed by median household income quartiles) and resource availability using logistic regressions. Models controlled for zip code tabulation area-level demographic characteristics and state indicators. Main Outcomes and Measures:Dichotomous indicators for whether a zip code tabulation area had any (1) outpatient mental health treatment facility (more than nine-tenths of which offer payment arrangements for low-income populations), (2) office-based practice of mental health specialist physician(s), (3) office-based practice of nonphysician mental health professionals (eg, therapists), and (4) mental health facility or office-based practice (ie, any community-based resource). Results:Of the 31?836 zip code tabulation areas in the study, more than four-tenths (3382 of 7959 [42.5%]) of communities in the highest income quartile (mean income, $81?207) had any community-based mental health treatment resource vs 23.1% of communities (1841 of 7959) in the lowest income quartile (mean income, $30?534) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.50-2.03). When examining the distribution of mental health professionals, 25.3% of the communities (2014 of 7959) in the highest income quartile had a mental health specialist physician practice vs 8.0% (637 of 7959) of those in the lowest income quartile (adjusted odds ratio, 3.04; 95% CI, 2.53-3.66). Similarly, 35.1% of the communities (2792 of 7959) in the highest income quartile had a nonphysician mental health professional practice vs 12.9% (1029 of 7959) of those in the lowest income quartile (adjusted odds ratio, 2.77; 95%, 2.35-3.26). In contrast, outpatient mental health treatment facilities were less likely to be located in the communities in the highest vs lowest income quartiles (12.9% [1025 of 7959] vs 16.5% [1317 of 7959]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.37-0.51). More than seven-tenths of the lowest income communities with any resource (71.5% [1317 of 1841]) had an outpatient mental health treatment facility. Conclusions and Relevance:Mental health treatment facilities are more likely to be located in poorer communities, whereas office-based practices of mental health professionals are more likely to be located in higher-income communities. These findings indicate that mental health treatment facilities constitute the backbone of the specialty mental health treatment infrastructure in low-income communities. Policies are needed to support and expand available resources for this critical infrastructure.

Project description:IntroductionExposure to different types of psychological trauma may lead to a range of adverse effects on trauma survivors, including poor mental and physical health, economic, social and cognitive functioning outcomes. Trauma-informed (TI) approaches to care are defined as a service system grounded in and directed by an understanding of how trauma affects the survivors' neurological, biological, physiological and social development. TI service system involves training of all staff, service improvements and sometimes screening for trauma experiences. The UK started incorporating TI approaches into the National Health Service. While policies recommend it, the evidence base for TI approaches to healthcare is not well established. We aim to conduct a systematic review to synthesise evidence on TI approaches in primary and community mental healthcare globally.Methods and analysisWe will undertake a systematic search for primary studies in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane library, websites of organisations involved in the development and implementation of TI approaches in healthcare, and databases of thesis and dissertation. Included studies will be in English published between 1990 and February 2020. Two reviewers will independently perform study selection with data extraction and quality appraisal undertaken by one reviewer and checked for accuracy by a second reviewer. A results-based convergent synthesis will be conducted where quantitative (narratively) and qualitative (thematically) evidence will be analysed separately and then integrated using another method of synthesis. We set up a trauma survivor group and a professional group to consult throughout this review.Ethics and disseminationThere is no requirement for ethical approval for this systematic review as no empirical data will be collected. The findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, scientific and practitioner conferences, and policy briefings targeted at local and national policy makers.Prospero registration numberCRD42020164752.

Project description:Background:Integrating evidence-based mental health services into primary care has been identified as one strategy for overcoming the treatment gap in low and middle-income countries, yet their uptake into standard practice remains poor. The purpose of this study was to understand stakeholder perspectives regarding barriers and facilitators to integration of mental health services into primary care settings in Northern Iraq. Methods:Using a convergent mixed methods study design, quantitative and qualitative questionnaires assessed respondent perceptions of implementation factors under the domains of Autonomy, Acceptability, Appropriateness, Feasibility, Penetration/Accessibility, Sustainability, and Organizational Climate. We interviewed four types of stakeholders: clients, providers of mental health services, non-mental health (MH) staff working at the centers, and center directors. Interviews were conducted with clients at the completion of services, and with all other stakeholder groups in the latter half of the first year of program implementation, by Kurdish-speaking interviewer pairs. Qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed separately and merged using qualitative data transformation to quantify frequency of theme and integrate with quantitative findings through woven narrative. Results:123 clients, 26 providers, 40 non-MH staff, and 12 directors provided data. Positive perceptions of the program's acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and positive impacts were reported across all stakeholder levels. Providers reported that the program length (8-12 sessions) was a challenge. Clients described logistical challenges (e.g.: transportation, childcare, home duties); support from family and friends appeared to be critical. Lack of private space, insufficient staffing, and need for greater government support were also important issues. Conclusions:This mixed methods study is unique in its inclusion of non-MH staff and director perspectives on integration of mental health services in primary care clinics. Their inclusion proved vital since they included critical human resource barriers to feasibility. Providers reported generally positive integration experiences but that some colleagues (clinic staff not involved in mental health services) were unsupportive. Most non-MH staff were supportive, but some did report negative impacts on their working environment. Future studies of integration of mental health services into other service platforms should include the perspectives of stakeholders not involved in provision of mental health services.

Project description:IntroductionMental disorders such as depression are common, and an estimated 264 million people are affected by them throughout the world. In recent years, studies on digital health interventions to treat mental disorders have shown evidence of their efficacy, and interest in using them has increased as a result. In the primary care setting, depression and anxiety are the two most frequently diagnosed and treated mental disorders. When they do not refer them to specialists, primary care professionals such as general practitioners treat patients with mental disorders themselves but have insufficient time to treat them adequately. Furthermore, there is a shortage of psychotherapists and those that exist have long waiting lists for an appointment. The purpose of this mixed methods systematic review is to explore the attitudes of primary care professionals towards the use of digital health interventions in the treatment of patients with mental disorders. Their attitudes will provide an indication whether digital mental health interventions can effectively complement standard care in the primary care setting.Methods and analysisWe searched for qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies published in English, German, Spanish, Russian, French and Dutch after January 2010 for inclusion in the review. The included studies must involve digital mental health interventions conducted via computer and/or mobile devices in the primary care setting. The search was conducted in July 2020 in the following electronic bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full texts and extract data. We will use the 'Integrated methodology' framework to combine both quantitative and qualitative data.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. We will disseminate the results of the mixed methods systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal and scientific conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42020188879.