|
|
||||||||
1 Department of Family Practice and Community Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa
2 Center for Mental Health Policy and Research, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa
3 JSI Research and Training Institute, Boston, Mass
4 Unity Health System, Rochester, NY
5 Unity Health System, Cypress, Tex
6 Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Fla
7 Department of Psychiatry, Brigham and Womens Hospital, Boston, Mass
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Joseph J. Gallo, MD, MPH, Department of Family Practice and Community Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, 2 Gates Building Philadelphia, PA 19104, jjgallo{at}mail.med.upenn.edu
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
METHOD The Primary Care Research in Substance Abuse and Mental Health for the Elderly (PRISM-E) study was a randomized trial comparing integrated behavioral health care with enhanced referral care in primary care settings across the United States. Primary care clinicians at each participating site were asked whether integrated or enhanced referral care was preferred across a variety of components of care. Managers also completed questionnaires related to the process of care at each site.
RESULTS Almost all primary care clinicians (n = 127) stated that integrated care led to better communication between primary care clinicians and mental health specialists (93%), less stigma for patients (93%), and better coordination of mental and physical care (92%). Fewer thought that integrated care led to better management of depression (64%), anxiety (76%), or alcohol problems (66%). At sites in which the clinicians were rated as participating in mental health care, integrated care was highly rated as improving communication between specialists in mental health and primary care.
CONCLUSIONS Among primary care clinicians who cared for patients that received integrated care or enhanced referral care, integrated care was preferred for many aspects of mental health care.
Key Words: Aged depression primary health care health knowledge, attitudes, practice professional practice substance-related disorders/therapy health services for the aged
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Our study differs from previous studies of attitudes of primary care clinicians regarding MH/SA treatment given to patients in primary care. First, most studies have focused on depression,57 whereas we were able to examine several conditions that affect older adults in relation to primary health care. Second, we have focused on the mental health care of older adults, in contrast with other studies that have not considered the specific needs of older persons.57 Most importantly, unlike studies that elicit opinions of primary care clinicians,5,6,810 we specifically asked these clinicians about the effect of the integrated and enhanced referral models on the care of patients for whom the participating clinicians had clinical responsibility. No other study has asked clinicians about the preferences for new models of mental health care for older persons who were actually under their care.
| METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Measurement Strategy
The survey was designed to assess important elements of MH/SA care among clinicians who had actually experienced integrated or enhanced referral care with patients. All clinic primary care clinicians who had at least 1 study patient and who were, at the time of the survey, employed by the participating clinic were approached to complete the survey instrument. Most clinicians had experience with both models of care and hence responded to all survey questions, but clinicians at clinics from 3 Veterans Administration sites (Little Rock, Madison, and Chicago) only had experience with 1 model (integrated or enhanced referral) because of a different randomization scheme; the primary care clinicians from those sites responded only to questions pertaining to the model in use at their clinic. A total of 153 clinicians from the 11 study sites participating in the PRISM-E study were approached with the survey. Of this number, 127 returned completed survey instruments (response rate 83%).
To document any heterogeneity between the integrated and enhanced referral models of care at different sites, a clinic-level process evaluation was developed and implemented at each study site. Office managers at each of the 54 clinics completed a detailed process evaluation that documented clinical care at the study sites. The purpose of the process evaluation was to ascertain which specific clinic features might contribute to the success or failure of the models.
Analytic Strategy
We tested whether the proportions of primary care clinicians preferring the integrated and enhanced referral models were significantly different from 50% by using a chi-square test of proportions (ie, no preference for one model of care to another). We performed bivariate chi-square analyses to examine possible clinician factors related to these preferences (variables were dichotomized to permit the calculation of odds ratios to facilitate interpretation). Because preference for integrated care to enhanced referral care might reflect differing accessibility of MH/SA specialists at each site rather than a preference for integrated care as such, we used accessibility ratings of MH/SA specialists obtained from the process evaluation to control for any differences across clinics (using tests of homogeneity of odds ratios across strata).12 Finally, we examined the relation between clinician participation in counseling and pharmacologic management and the clinicians rating of communication between sectors in integrated care.
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Preferences for Integrated Care or Enhanced Referral Care
Clinicians strongly preferred integrated care to enhanced referral care for all the dimensions assessed (Table 1
). We noted that sex and specialty of the clinician were significantly associated with preferences. Specifically, women clinicians were more likely than men to perceive that integrated care offered more advantages than enhanced referral care for comprehensiveness of services (odds ratio [OR] = 2.9 for women compared with men, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36.7), for management of depression (OR = 3.3, 95% CI, 1.28.9), more convenient services for patients (OR = 9.4, 95% CI, 1.558), and quicker appointments for mental health (OR = 6.4, 95% CI, 1.234). Compared with other clinicians, family physicians were more likely to perceive that integrated care was better than enhanced referral care for comprehensiveness of services (OR = 3.4 for family physicians compared with other clinicians, 95% CI, 1.1, 10.6) and for better management of depression (OR = 6.5 for family physicians compared with other clinicians, 95% CI, 1.824).
|
Shared Care and Improved Communication in the Integrated Model
Less than 50% of primary care clinicians rated communication between themselves and MH/SA specialists in the enhanced referral arm as occurring frequently compared with 80% in the integrated arm. Participation of the primary care clinician in mental health care (counseling and psychopharmacology management) was significantly associated with believing that there was frequent communication in the integrated model between the clinician and the MH/SA specialist (Table 2
).
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Like all surveys, our results are based on the opinions of clinicians in practices that participated in a research project and might not be representative of all primary care practices. Our sample size was relatively small compared with other surveys.4,9,13 Although our response rate for the survey was high, clinicians who returned a survey instrument might have differed from others in important ways.
Despite limitations, our results about the preference of primary care clinicians for integrated rather than enhanced referral care deserve attention because our study of clinician attitudes differs in several important ways from other surveys carried out in primary care settings. First, we were able to focus our attention on 2 specific models of mental health service integration into primary care settings; namely, an integrated model that included a primary care-based mental health specialist and direct referral. Clinicians in our study were asked to comment on models of care they had actually experienced as a component of the PRISM-E study in contrast to hypothetical situations. Second, organizational-level data were available from parallel, standardized process evaluations carried out at each participating site so that we could relate practice characteristics from process evaluations to the survey responses from clinicians. Third, no survey to date has examined the perceptions of primary care clinicians regarding integrated mental health care for older persons under their care who had actually experienced one model of services organization or another.
Overall, responding clinicians preferred integrated care to enhanced referral care. Consistently, the added resources of integrated care were perceived as having enhanced aspects of primary health care, such as communication with the MH/SA specialist, convenience for patients, and less stigma for patients who require mental health care.
Women physicians and family physicians were more likely to prefer integrated care for improving some aspects of the care of older adults with mental disturbances. Previous studies have reported differences in the therapeutic stance of family physicians and internists in the treatment of depression. For example, Gallo and colleagues4 compared responses of family physicians and internists who had participated in an effectiveness trial of depression treatment in primary care settings.14 Family physicians were about twice as likely as internists to report that they would prescribe an antidepressant for a patient with moderate to severe depression, whereas the internists were about twice as likely to report they would refer the patient. Whether because of training or characteristics related to specialty choice, family physicians generally report feeling more comfortable than internists with the responsibility for depression management.4,13,1517 Primary care clinicians who actively provided counseling or pharmacologic management of depression were much more likely to rate communication about several aspects of MH/SA care highly. The association between active participation in care and improved communication suggests that the integrated model affords the clinician the ability to take a more active role in the management of MH/SA conditions.
Preference for integrated rather than enhanced referral care for the management of depression was strongly associated with the accessibility of the MH/SA specialist in the integrated arm but not with that in the enhanced referral arm. This finding suggests that clinicians preferred a care model affording them close access to an MH/SA specialist and possibly the opportunity to take a more active role in treatment.
If we are to deal with depression as a public health problem, we need to address the primary health care setting.18,19 Numerous models for integrating mental health care into primary health care settings have been evaluated in randomized trials13,20,21 or discussed in anecdotal reports.2224 For many aspects of care, clinicians in PRISM-E preferred mental health care to be integrated with primary health care for older patients with psychiatric disturbances. The integrated intervention was feasible in the community practices across the United States in diverse health care environments that participated in PRISM-E. Given the expansion of group practice, we think the intervention could be feasible in many practices beyond those that participated in PRISM-E.
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
PRISM-E Study Investigators (in alphabetical order): Carolyn Aoyama (HRSA), Pat Arean (Co-PI), Stephen Bartels (PI), Hongtu Chen (PI), Henry Chung (Co-PI), Marisue Cody (Co-PI), Giuseppe Costantino (PI), U. Nalla B. Durai (PI), Carroll Estes (PI), Susan Cooley (VA), Jack Fitzpatrick (Co-PI), Brian Goodman (Co-PI), Trevor Hadley (Co-PI), Tim Howell (Co-PI), Ira Katz (Co-PI), Joanne Kirchner (PI), Dean Krahn (PI), Sue Levkoff (PI), Karen Linkins (Co-PI), Maria Llorente (PI), Ann Mahony (SAMHSA), James Maxwell (Co-PI), Keith Miles (Co-PI), Robert Molokie (Co-PI), Jack McIntyre (PI), Elizabeth McDonel Herr (SAMHSA), Mike Nazar (Co-PI), Edwin Olsen (PI), David Oslin (PI), Tom Oxman (Co-PI), Andy Pomerantz (Co-PI), Louise Quijano (Co-PI), Pat Sabry (SAMHSA), William Van Stone (VA), Heidi Syropoulos (Co-PI), Cynthia Zubritsky (PI).
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Funding support: PRISM-E is a collaborative research study funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMH-SA), including its 3 centers: Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), and the Center for Substance Abuse and Prevention (CSAP). The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) provided additional support and funding. Dr. Bogner was supported by an Advanced Research Training Award from the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Received for publication July 7, 2003. Revision received October 15, 2003. Accepted for publication November 24, 2003.
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
J. J. Gallo, H. R. Bogner, K. H. Morales, E. P. Post, J. Y. Lin, and M. L. Bruce The Effect of a Primary Care Practice-Based Depression Intervention on Mortality in Older Adults: A Randomized Trial Ann Intern Med, May 15, 2007; 146(10): 689 - 698. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. C. Stange In This Issue: Practice Change and Patient Safety Ann. Fam. Med, July 1, 2004; 2(4): 290 - 291. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
Read all TRACK Comments
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |