Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKessler, Rodger S.
dc.contributor.authorAuxier, Andrea
dc.contributor.authorHitt, Juvena R.
dc.contributor.authorMacchi, C. R.
dc.contributor.authorMullin, Daniel J
dc.contributor.authorvan Eeghen, Constance
dc.contributor.authorLittenberg, Benjamin
dc.date2022-08-11T08:08:05.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T15:42:14Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T15:42:14Z
dc.date.issued2016-12-01
dc.date.submitted2019-02-15
dc.identifier.citation<p>Fam Syst Health. 2016 Dec;34(4):342-356. doi: 10.1037/fsh0000227. Epub 2016 Oct 13. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/fsh0000227">Link to article on publisher's site</a></p>
dc.identifier.issn1091-7527 (Linking)
dc.identifier.doi10.1037/fsh0000227
dc.identifier.pmid27736110
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/26797
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION: We developed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) to measure the degree of behavioral health integration in clinical practices with a focus on primary care (PC). Its 30 items, completed by providers, managers, and staff, provide an overall score and 6 domain scores derived from the Lexicon of Collaborative Care. We describe its history and psychometric properties. METHOD: The PIP was tested in a convenience sample of practices. Linear regression compared scores across integration exemplars, PC with behavioral services, PC without behavioral services, and community mental health centers without PC. An additional sample rated 4 scenarios describing practices with varying degrees of integration. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-nine surveys were returned. Mean domain scores ran from 49 to 65. The mean total score was 55 (median 58; range 0-100) with high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .95). The lowest total scores were for PC without behavioral health (27), followed by community mental health centers (44), PC with behavioral health (60), and the exemplars (86; p < .001). Eleven respondents rerated their practices 37 to 194 days later. The mean change was + 1.5 (standard deviation = 11.1). Scenario scores were highly correlated with the degree of integration each scenario was designed to represent (Spearman's rho = -0.71; P = 0.0005). DISCUSSION: These data suggest that the PIP is useful, has face, content, and internal validity, and distinguishes among types of practices with known variations in integration. We discuss how the PIP may support practices and policymakers in their integration efforts and researchers assessing the degree to which integration affects patient health outcomes.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=27736110&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a></p>
dc.relation.urlhttps://insights.ovid.com/famse/201603440/00124787-201603440-00006
dc.subjectintegrated care
dc.subjectmeasurement
dc.subjectmethods
dc.subjectprimary care
dc.subjectBehavioral Medicine
dc.subjectHealth Psychology
dc.subjectHealth Services Administration
dc.subjectIntegrative Medicine
dc.subjectMental and Social Health
dc.subjectPrimary Care
dc.subjectPsychiatry and Psychology
dc.titleDevelopment and validation of a measure of primary care behavioral health integration
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleFamilies, systems and health : the journal of collaborative family healthcare
dc.source.volume34
dc.source.issue4
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/cipc/34
dc.identifier.contextkey13830820
html.description.abstract<p>INTRODUCTION: We developed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) to measure the degree of behavioral health integration in clinical practices with a focus on primary care (PC). Its 30 items, completed by providers, managers, and staff, provide an overall score and 6 domain scores derived from the Lexicon of Collaborative Care. We describe its history and psychometric properties.</p> <p>METHOD: The PIP was tested in a convenience sample of practices. Linear regression compared scores across integration exemplars, PC with behavioral services, PC without behavioral services, and community mental health centers without PC. An additional sample rated 4 scenarios describing practices with varying degrees of integration.</p> <p>RESULTS: One hundred sixty-nine surveys were returned. Mean domain scores ran from 49 to 65. The mean total score was 55 (median 58; range 0-100) with high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .95). The lowest total scores were for PC without behavioral health (27), followed by community mental health centers (44), PC with behavioral health (60), and the exemplars (86; p < .001). Eleven respondents rerated their practices 37 to 194 days later. The mean change was + 1.5 (standard deviation = 11.1). Scenario scores were highly correlated with the degree of integration each scenario was designed to represent (Spearman's rho = -0.71; P = 0.0005).</p> <p>DISCUSSION: These data suggest that the PIP is useful, has face, content, and internal validity, and distinguishes among types of practices with known variations in integration. We discuss how the PIP may support practices and policymakers in their integration efforts and researchers assessing the degree to which integration affects patient health outcomes.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathcipc/34
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health
dc.contributor.departmentCenter for Integrated Primary Care
dc.source.pages342-356


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record