Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief (Plain Language Summaries)
    • Call for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief (Plain Language Summaries)
    • Call for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Study What You Do: Developing a Psychotherapy Tracking Database in a Large-Scale Integrated Behavioral Health Service

Anne I. Roche, Samuel T. Savitz, Sydney S. Kelpin, Jocelyn Lebow, Nathaniel Lombardi, Olivia E. Bogucki, Aaron A. Kurtzhals, Maureen S. Drews, Sarah T. Trane, Jay-Sheree Allen, Mark D. Williams and Craig N. Sawchuk
The Annals of Family Medicine February 2023, 21 (Suppl 2) S49-S55; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2927
Anne I. Roche
1Division of Integrated Behavioral Health, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: roche.anne@mayo.edu
Samuel T. Savitz
2Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
3Division of Health Care Delivery Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sydney S. Kelpin
1Division of Integrated Behavioral Health, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jocelyn Lebow
1Division of Integrated Behavioral Health, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
4Department of Pediatrics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nathaniel Lombardi
5Division of Integrated Behavioral Health, Mayo Clinic Health System, Albert Lea, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Olivia E. Bogucki
1Division of Integrated Behavioral Health, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
6Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aaron A. Kurtzhals
7Research Application Solutions, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maureen S. Drews
7Research Application Solutions, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah T. Trane
8Division of Integrated Behavioral Health, Mayo Clinic Health System, La Crosse, Wisconsin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jay-Sheree Allen
9Department of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark D. Williams
1Division of Integrated Behavioral Health, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Craig N. Sawchuk
1Division of Integrated Behavioral Health, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

PURPOSE Many individuals with behavioral health challenges receive services in primary care, and integrated behavioral health (IBH) programs can help increase access to evidence-based interventions. IBH programs can benefit substantially from integrating standardized tracking databases that allow for the implementation of measurement-based care to evaluate patient-, clinician-, and practice-level outcomes. We describe the development and integration of Mayo Clinic’s pediatric and adult primary care psychotherapy tracking database.

METHODS IBH practice leaders directed the development of a large psychotherapy tracking database that continuously populates from Mayo Clinic’s electronic health record system. The database captures numerous patient variables including demographics, behavioral health and substance use issues, psychotherapy principles used, and self-reported symptoms. We retrieved current data for patients empaneled in Mayo Clinic’s pediatric and adult primary care psychotherapy programs from June 2014 to June 2022.

RESULTS The tracking database contained data for 16,923 adult patients and 6,298 pediatric patients. The mean age of adult patients was 43.2 years (SD 18.3), 88.1% were non-Latine White, and 66.7% identified as female. The mean age of pediatric patients was 11.6 years (SD 4.2), 82.5% were non-Latine White, and 56.9% identified as female. We provide examples of practical applications of the database across clinical, educational, research, and administrative domains.

CONCLUSIONS The development and integration of a psychotherapy tracking database supports clinician communication, examination of patient outcomes, practice quality improvement efforts, and clinically relevant research. Our description of Mayo Clinic’s IBH database may serve as a model for other IBH practices.

Key words:
  • integrated behavioral health
  • measurement-based care
  • electronic health records
  • health informatics
  • quality improvement
  • health metrics
  • mental health
  • psychotherapy
  • primary care
  • multidisciplinary research
  • patient care team
  • population health

INTRODUCTION

Behavioral health disorders in both children and adults are prevalent1-4 and burdensome, resulting in a marked degree of functional impairment.5,6 Although evidence-based interventions exist, many individuals needing treatment do not receive services.1,2,4,7-9 For example, data from the 2020 US National Survey on Drug Use and Health indicated that although 21% of adults experienced mental illness in the past year, less than one-half of these individuals received services.1 Similarly, data from the 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health reported a 16.5% prevalence of at least 1 mental health disorder among US children and estimated that nearly one-half of those affected did not receive needed care.4 Compounding inequities in access to behavioral health treatment have been observed for marginalized racial and ethnic groups.10-12 The adverse behavioral health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the need for increasing access to evidence-based services.13,14

For a variety of potential reasons, including mental health stigma and barriers to accessing referrals, many people struggling with behavioral health concerns seek support and receive services in a primary care setting.15-19 Consequently, primary care, family medicine, and pediatric clinics are ideal settings for identifying patients in need and providing evidence-based behavioral health services. Even so, formal screening for behavioral health concerns is not always routine practice in these settings.18,20,21 The adoption of integrated behavioral health (IBH) programs within these settings may help enhance screening consistency22 and increase access to services.23-27 Models integrating behavioral health services into primary care have been shown to be associated with important patient-, clinician-, and system-level outcomes such as patient engagement and satisfaction,28 improvements in emotional health,29-32 clinician ability to deliver patient care,33 and cost-effectiveness,34-36 although the literature examining direct links between specific psychotherapy services provided in primary care settings and various clinical outcomes is limited.30,37

Standardized approaches to screening and tracking a patient’s behavioral health progress and outcomes over time are critical to providing the highest quality of integrated services. Systems of measurement-based care (MBC) use standardized patient-reported outcomes to evaluate patient symptoms, inform treatment decisions, and monitor potential unwanted or disadvantageous effects over the course of care.38,39 Providing this type of feedback to patients and clinicians has been found to improve care quality and therapeutic outcomes.40-44

Although MBC has widely stated benefits, a recent review reported that less than 20% of behavioral health professionals use MBC in practice.39 Barriers to implementing MBC may include limited education for clinicians about the utility of these activities,45 time burdens for patients and clinicians,39 and limited organizational or system-level support.39 One important strategy to overcoming barriers to MBC implementation is the use of measurement-based feedback systems, health care technologies that aid in collecting and organizing data.39,46 Patients, clinicians, and health care practices likely receive the most benefit from the implementation of universal screening and MBC methods within integrated care settings when data are easily tracked and organized into registries linked to electronic health records (EHRs) that allow for efficient and routinized examination of service use, processes, and outcomes.39,46-48 This further underscores the importance of building infrastructure to effectively identify and manage behavioral health concerns at the point of primary care, aided by the implementation of MBC using a formal data-tracking infrastructure.

In this article, we describe the development and implementation of an adult and pediatric psychotherapy tracking database used by Mayo Clinic’s multistate, multisite IBH program in primary care. A tracking database specific to the psychotherapy program is an innovative approach to promoting continuous quality improvement in the delivery of evidence-based behavioral interventions at both the individual and population levels. Mayo Clinic IBH programs are embedded within several primary care clinics in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Arizona, and Florida. Early publications from the practice have described Mayo Clinic’s IBH psychotherapy program, outlined initial efforts in the development and implementation of a psychotherapy tracking database, and reported on previous clinical practice outcomes.49-52 We provide an overview of the EHR process used to build an expansive and continuously populating psychotherapy tracking database, review the types of data available in the database, present descriptive statistics, and discuss specific ways in which the database functions to inform and improve the practice. We also offer examples of the practical utility of the database as applied across clinical, educational, research, and administrative domains.

METHODS

Population

We drew data from medical records for all patients who participated in either the adult or pediatric IBH psychotherapy program from June 2014 through June 2022. IBH programs are embedded within 22 total clinics across Minnesota (12 clinics), Wisconsin (7 clinics), Iowa (1 clinic), Arizona (1 clinic), and Florida (1 clinic), with each clinic serving as a hub for several other primary care practices in its respective catchment areas.

To be eligible for participation in the adult psychotherapy program, patients had to be aged 18 years or older and empaneled in primary care at one of the Mayo Clinic sites. To be eligible for the pediatric psychotherapy program, patients had to be aged younger than 18 years and empaneled to primary care at 1 of the Mayo Clinic sites. Patients who turned 18 during their course of care in pediatric IBH remained included in the pediatric division of the database.

Given that the IBH program is a real-world clinical service, there are no patient-level characteristics that act as exclusionary criteria for entry into the database. Minnesota patients who do not provide Minnesota Research Authorization for research participation are excluded from research. We included all medical records before and after referral to the psychotherapy program.

Data Source

The main data file includes 1 record for each period in which the patient was enrolled in the psychotherapy program. The data source was the Mayo Clinic EHR system. In July 2017, Mayo Clinic transitioned from multiple EHR systems to one (Epic). This transition was an essential development in the evolution of efficiently tracking outcomes within primary care. Before having a unified model, 3 different medical records existed that were partially linked to an external data-tracking system. Furthermore, patient self-reported and parent-reported measures were completed on paper. This required manual entry into the tracking database, thereby increasing risk for data variability, entry error, and incompleteness.

Approximately 18 months before the launch of the new EHR, practice leaders prioritized leveraging the database functionality within Epic and redesigned documentation templates to automatically capture relevant outcomes and populate the database. Likewise, a new, fully automated system of obtaining patient self-reported and parent-reported measures using tablets and patient access to the EHR online allowed for a dramatic increase in the completeness and fidelity of data collection efforts. Using this method, self- and parent-reported measures, such as the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), are then available for IBH clinicians to access and view before the start of a psychotherapy visit. Considerable efforts were then made over the last 2 years to merge the psychotherapy data between the original legacy system and the new EHR, thereby creating a unified data platform.

The current data structure is continuously populating, with data extraction into the registry occurring after a visit is documented and billed and the visit encounter is closed. This process allows for real-time evaluation of program outcomes.

Measures Included

The main data set captures the key domains of demographics; behavioral health and substance use categories; other medical categories using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Clinical Classifications Software Refined53; summary information about the patient’s interaction with the psychotherapy program (including psychotherapy principles used); and questionnaire results (Table 1). Self- and parent-reported questionnaires selected for inclusion in the database consist of measures that are frequently used in primary care settings and are an existing part of the program’s clinical workflow, allowing for easy communication between interdisciplinary clinicians. For example, the PHQ-954 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7)55 are brief measures originally developed and validated in primary care settings. Importantly, these measures are also commonly used in other primary care practices, allowing for comparisons across different outcome studies. Psychotherapy program variables selected for inclusion in the database include important practice metrics such as number of individuals who received a consultation only, duration of an episode of care in the psychotherapy program, and referrals made to external professionals. The database also tracks evidence-based psychotherapy principles commonly delivered in primary care (eg, behavioral activation, situational exposure) that are consistent with the practice’s cognitive behavioral therapy training model.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Overview of Data Fields in the Psychotherapy Tracking Database

Table 1 details the specific measures included in the database. Depending on specific questions of interest, supplementary data sets outside of the primary working database can be built to include detailed information on encounters, medication use, social determinants of health, and questionnaire results that could not be included in the main data file because of file size restrictions.

RESULTS

Patient Characteristics

The database included 18,148 unique adult patients and 6,813 unique pediatric patients across sites. Out of the total population, we had research authorization for 16,923 (93.2%) of the adults and 6,298 (92.4%) of the children. Among these adult patients, the mean age was 43.2 years (SD 18.3), 88.1% were non-Latine White, and 66.7% identified as female. Among these pediatric patients, the mean age was 11.6 years (SD 4.2), 82.5% were non-Latine White, and 56.9% identified as female.

Practical Applications

The development and implementation of the large and continuously populating psychotherapy database creates major opportunities for practice improvement across multiple domains. Table 2 provides the rationale for and examples of practical applications of the database in clinical, educational, research, and administrative domains.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Practical Applications of a Psychotherapy Tracking Database Across Domains

DISCUSSION

The prevalence and impact of behavioral health problems in primary care highlight the importance of exploring flexible methods to increase access to evidence-based behavioral health services.16 Concurrently, it is crucial to evaluate patient- and practice-level data to understand the demographic and clinical makeup of the patient population served, track fidelity to evidence-based practice, gain insight into the link between specific psychotherapy principles and patient outcomes, identify potential targets for program development, and leverage resources to improve population-based care.

The development and implementation of Mayo Clinic’s IBH psychotherapy tracking database allows us to better understand the types of patients we serve (eg, base rates of certain conditions)56 and to study what we do, giving us the opportunity to conduct continuous quality improvement efforts to increase access and improve outcomes. Evaluations of data collected using previous iterations of the database have been promising as they have provided information about the effectiveness of primary care–based adapted cognitive behavioral interventions for anxiety, depression, and adjustment disorders.49,50,57 For a psychotherapy program integrated within primary care, these data are especially useful given that these practices are accustomed to using MBC in the management of other chronic medical conditions such as asthma58,59 and diabetes.60 Having broad-scale data, such as those housed in Mayo Clinic’s database, allows us to more effectively communicate with primary care administration about the role of IBH and our impact on their patient population, helps our service advocate for continued support and resources, and aids us in targeting resources toward areas of high potential impact.

Practical Applications

Implementing a formal data-tracking system based on the principles of MBC offers benefits to both patients and clinicians. It facilitates patient communication of symptoms to the treatment team and serves as a roadmap of treatment progress. Research has demonstrated improved psychotherapy outcomes with MBC compared with usual care,40,41,44 and specifically among patients at risk of not responding to treatment.42,43 The availability of a range of variables within the data set enables us to evaluate patients who are responders and nonresponders to the psychotherapy program. It is important to understand these predictors because they may offer opportunities to modify the program to improve outcomes for those at risk for nonresponse, or identify areas of need, for which the development of additional models of population-based care would especially have an impact. Summary data from the tracking database can also facilitate communications among interdisciplinary team members (eg, primary care physicians, nurse care coordinators, social workers), providing efficient indicators of patient progress to help support ongoing clinical decision making across disciplines. The unified EHR also affords the opportunity to characterize similarities and differences in the primary care population in terms of service use (eg, patients who follow through on IBH referrals vs those who do not), treatment engagement (eg, those who complete a course of care vs those lost to follow-up), and referral patterns (eg, psychotherapy in IBH vs in the community). The databases may also allow for exploration of longitudinal outcomes of patients who have received psychotherapy services in primary care during childhood, adulthood, or both.

The psychotherapy tracking database has direct implications for the practice as well. For example, evaluation of outcomes allows for the identification of high-yield clinician trainings. Through examination of clinician-level data, we can determine whether clinicians are using specific evidence-based psychotherapy principles when indicated by a particular mental health issue (eg, exposure therapy for patients with anxiety disorders),49 which may suggest additional training needs in specific approaches. Importantly, the database may ultimately allow us to explore whether patients with diverse personal identities or cultural backgrounds (eg, transgender patients), those with specific presenting concerns (eg, trauma), or those carrying a substantial burden of social determinants of health (eg, housing instability) are consistently experiencing worse outcomes or higher dropout rates across the practice. This information could then inform appropriate trainings to help clinicians improve their ability to deliver care to underserved and disadvantaged patient populations. Finally, practice-level data allow us to examine clinician adherence to the brief course of care model in IBH, which is critical in the practice’s population health mission of maintaining access in a timely manner.

Examination of practice-level data can aid in identifying additional service needs and developing program efforts for quality improvement. For example, given the frequency of depression, anxiety, and sleep problems in primary care,61 we developed a series of group therapy programs to help improve access to services.62 Over the course of the pandemic, both individual therapy and group therapy programs were adapted for a virtual format.63 The database can support direct comparisons between in-person and virtual treatment approaches, including both treatment outcomes and frequency of service use. Reporting on patient and practice outcomes to leadership is of critical importance when advocating for program-level change such as the need for additional clinicians or organization of clinician schedules (eg, to include unscheduled time blocks for curbside consultations). With many competing interests in a primary care setting, programs that use metrics and data to demonstrate improvements in patient outcomes are best positioned to receive institutional support.

Finally, a psychotherapy tracking database helps to support and enhance a program’s collaborative research mission. A large, rich, and continuously populating database enables teams to ask and answer important clinical research questions that are most relevant to understanding population health and patient care. It also supports interdisciplinary clinical research, bringing together a variety of professional perspectives such as psychology, psychiatry, family medicine, social work, nursing, and public health, to collaboratively present, publish, and improve the overall quality of research produced.

Limitations

Although the processes for design and implementation of the Mayo Clinic psychotherapy tracking database are promising, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, we describe the development of the database within a highly resourced system that provides strong institutional support for research and quality improvement; thus, these implementation processes may not generalize to other clinics or health systems. Additionally, we have not yet formally examined database user acceptability with either IBH or primary care team members, nor have we examined whether specific practical applications of the database have resulted in benefit to clinicians, supervisors, or specific patient populations. We have also not yet examined longitudinal outcome data. These explorations are beyond the scope of this article but will be important areas for future research.

Regarding limitations of the database itself, our patient population is mostly non-Latine White, which will limit future opportunities to explore racial and ethnic inequities and subgroup analyses of marginalized groups. Research outcomes may therefore not generalize well to more diverse patient populations. Furthermore, the database captures only health care use recorded in the Mayo Clinic EHR. Patients may receive care elsewhere that would not be captured. As these patients are empaneled in primary care at Mayo Clinic, however, it is likely that they receive most of their care within this practice. To compensate for this limitation, we plan to link the database to the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which has medical records for patients living in 27 counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin since 2010. The project includes data from institutions other than Mayo Clinic and covers a large proportion of the care received in these areas.64,65 Additionally, the current data capture is largely based on assessing symptoms and service use, and lacks measures of quality of life and functional outcomes. Finally, evolutions in psychometric measures for adults and children will need to be evaluated and assessed for inclusion in future iterations of the psychotherapy tracking database.

Conclusions

The development, implementation, and dissemination of a large-scale psychotherapy tracking database in Mayo Clinic’s adult and pediatric IBH program has been both a major undertaking and a worthy initiative for the practice. The ability to report on behavioral health outcomes in real-world settings is extremely limited at present. The psychotherapy tracking database built within the infrastructure of the IBH program serves as an innovative blueprint for other practices to follow to improve quality outcomes.

Footnotes

  • Conflicts of interest: authors report none.

  • Read or post commentaries in response to this article.

  • Funding support: This work was funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) under cooperative agreement UH133881. Dr Savitz’s contribution to this research was made possible in part by the Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery.

  • Disclaimer: The contents are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement, by HRSA, HHS or the US Government.

  • Received for publication May 27, 2022.
  • Revision received September 12, 2022.
  • Accepted for publication October 27, 2022.
  • © 2023 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
    . Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. PEP21-07-01-003, NSDUH Series H-56). Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2021.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Kessler RC,
    2. Demler O,
    3. Frank RG, et al.
    Prevalence and treatment of mental disorders, 1990 to 2003. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(24):2515-2523. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa043266
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.
    1. Polanczyk GV,
    2. Salum GA,
    3. Sugaya LS,
    4. Caye A,
    5. Rohde LA
    . Annual research review: a meta-analysis of the worldwide prevalence of mental disorders in children and adolescents. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2015;56(3):345-365. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12381
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Whitney DG,
    2. Peterson MD
    . US national and state-level prevalence of mental health disorders and disparities of mental health care use in children. [Letter]. JAMA Pediatr. 2019;173(4):389-391. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.5399
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Kessler RC,
    2. Akiskal HS,
    3. Ames M, et al.
    Prevalence and effects of mood disorders on work performance in a nationally representative sample of U.S. workers. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(9):1561-1568. doi:10.1176/ajp.2006.163.9.1561
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Kessler RC,
    2. Aguilar-Gaxiola S,
    3. Alonso J, et al.
    The global burden of mental disorders: an update from the WHO World Mental Health (WMH) surveys. Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc. 2009;18(1):23-33. doi:10.1017/s1121189x00001421
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Kazdin AE
    . Addressing the treatment gap: a key challenge for extending evidence-based psychosocial interventions. Behav Res Ther. 2017;88:7-18. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2016.06.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.
    1. Kazdin AE
    . Annual research review: Expanding mental health services through novel models of intervention delivery. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2019;60(4):455-472. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12937
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    1. Kohn R,
    2. Saxena S,
    3. Levav I,
    4. Saraceno B
    . The treatment gap in mental health care. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82(11):858-866.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Cook BL,
    2. Trinh N-H,
    3. Li Z,
    4. Hou SS-Y,
    5. Progovac AM
    . Trends in racial-ethnic disparities in access to mental health care, 2004–2012. Psychiatr Serv. 2017;68(1):9-16. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201500453
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.
    1. Marrast L,
    2. Himmelstein DU,
    3. Woolhandler S
    . Racial and ethnic disparities in mental health care for children and young adults: a national study. Int J Health Serv. 2016;46(4):810-824. doi:10.1177/0020731416662736
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. McGuire TG,
    2. Miranda J
    . New evidence regarding racial and ethnic disparities in mental health: policy implications. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(2):393-403. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.27.2.393
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Elharake JA,
    2. Akbar F,
    3. Malik AA,
    4. Gilliam W,
    5. Omer SB
    . Mental health impact of COVID-19 among children and college students: a systematic review. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2022:1-13. doi:10.1007/s10578-021-01297-1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.↵
    1. Santomauro DF,
    2. Herrera AMM,
    3. Shadid J, et al; COVID-19 Mental Disorders Collaborators
    . Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet. 2021;398(10312):1700-1712. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02143-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Ferenchick EK,
    2. Ramanuj P,
    3. Pincus HA
    . Depression in primary care: part 1-screening and diagnosis. BMJ. 2019;365:1794. doi:10.1136/bmj.l794
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    1. Petterson S,
    2. Miller BF,
    3. Payne-Murphy JC,
    4. Phillips RL Jr.
    . Mental health treatment in the primary care setting: patterns and pathways. Fam Syst Health. 2014;32(2):157-166. doi:10.1037/fsh0000036
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.
    1. Ramanuj P,
    2. Ferenchik E,
    3. Docherty M,
    4. Spaeth-Rublee B,
    5. Pincus HA
    . Evolving models of integrated behavioral health and primary care. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2019;21(1):4. doi:10.1007/s11920-019-0985-4
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    1. Chang Y-P,
    2. Casucci S,
    3. Roma N,
    4. Dermen K,
    5. Barrick C
    . Engaging patients in integrated behavioral health and primary care: a technology-based system to facilitate behavioral health screening for patients in rural and underserved areas. Comput Inform Nurs. 2021;39(4):215-220. doi:10.1097/CIN.0000000000000686
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    1. Wang PS,
    2. Demler O,
    3. Olfson M,
    4. Pincus HA,
    5. Wells KB,
    6. Kessler RC
    . Changing profiles of service sectors used for mental health care in the United States. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(7):1187-1198. doi:10.1176/ajp.2006.163.7.1187
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Akincigil A,
    2. Matthews EB
    . National rates and patterns of depression screening in primary care: results from 2012 and 2013. Psychiatr Serv. 2017;68(7):660-666. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201600096
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Mulvaney-Day N,
    2. Marshall T,
    3. Downey Piscopo K, et al.
    Screening for behavioral health conditions in primary care settings: a systematic review of the literature. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(3):335-346. doi:10.1007/s11606-017-4181-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Blasi PR,
    2. Cromp D,
    3. McDonald S, et al.
    Approaches to behavioral health integration at high performing primary care practices. J Am Board Fam Med. 2018;31(5):691-701. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2018.05.170468
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Asarnow JR,
    2. Rozenman M,
    3. Wiblin J,
    4. Zeltzer L
    . Integrated medical-behavioral care compared with usual primary care for child and adolescent behavioral health: a meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(10):929-937. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1141
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.
    1. Hunter CL,
    2. Funderburk JS,
    3. Polaha J,
    4. Bauman D,
    5. Goodie JL,
    6. Hunter CM
    . Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH) model research: current state of the science and a call to action. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2018;25(2):127-156. doi:10.1007/s10880-017-9512-0
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.
    1. Reiter JT,
    2. Dobmeyer AC,
    3. Hunter CL
    . The primary care behavioral health (PCBH) model: an overview and operational definition. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2018;25(2):109-126. doi:10.1007/s10880-017-9531-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.
    1. Pomerantz A,
    2. Cole BH,
    3. Watts BV,
    4. Weeks WB
    . Improving efficiency and access to mental health care: combining integrated care and advanced access. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2008;30(6):546-551. doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2008.09.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Hodgkinson S,
    2. Godoy L,
    3. Beers LS,
    4. Lewin A
    . Improving mental health access for low-income children and families in the primary care setting. Pediatrics. 2017;139(1):e20151175. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-1175
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Ogbeide SA,
    2. Landoll RR,
    3. Nielsen MK,
    4. Kanzler KE
    . To go or not go: patient preference in seeking specialty mental health versus behavioral consultation within the primary care behavioral health consultation model. Fam Syst Health. 2018;36(4):513-517. doi:10.1037/fsh0000374
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Cigrang JA,
    2. Dobmeyer AC,
    3. Becknell ME,
    4. Roa-Navarrete RA,
    5. Yerian SR
    . Evaluation of a collaborative mental health program in primary care: effects on patient distress and health care utilization. Prim Care Community Psychiatry. 2006;11(3):121. doi:10.1185/135525706X121192
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. 30.↵
    1. Bridges AJ,
    2. Gregus SJ,
    3. Rodriguez JH, et al.
    Diagnoses, intervention strategies, and rates of functional improvement in integrated behavioral health care patients. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2015;83(3):590-601. doi:10.1037/a0038941
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.
    1. Gomez D,
    2. Bridges AJ,
    3. Andrews AR , III, et al.
    Delivering parent management training in an integrated primary care setting: description and preliminary outcome data. Cognit Behav Pract. 2014;21(3):296-309. doi:10.1016/j.cbpra.2014.04.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. 32.↵
    1. McFeature B,
    2. Pierce TW
    . Primary care behavioral health consultation reduces depression levels among mood-disordered patients. J Health Dispar Res Pract. 2012;5(2):4.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    1. Torrence ND,
    2. Mueller AE,
    3. Ilem AA,
    4. Renn BN,
    5. DeSantis B,
    6. Segal DL
    . Medical provider attitudes about behavioral health consultants in integrated primary care: a preliminary study. Fam Syst Health. 2014;32(4):426-432. doi:10.1037/fsh0000078
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. 34.↵
    1. Dopp AR,
    2. Smith AB,
    3. Dueweke AR,
    4. Bridges AJ
    . Cost-savings analysis of primary care behavioral health in a pediatric setting: implications for provider agencies and training programs. Clin Pract Pediatr Psychol. 2018;6(2):129. doi:10.1037/cpp0000231
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. 35.
    1. Gouge N,
    2. Polaha J,
    3. Rogers R,
    4. Harden A
    . Integrating behavioral health into pediatric primary care: implications for provider time and cost. South Med J. 2016;109(12):774-778. doi:10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000564
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. 36.↵
    1. Yu H,
    2. Kolko DJ,
    3. Torres E
    . Collaborative mental health care for pediatric behavior disorders in primary care: does it reduce mental health care costs? Fam Syst Health. 2017;35(1):46-57. doi:10.1037/fsh0000251
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Possemato K,
    2. Johnson EM,
    3. Beehler GP, et al.
    Patient outcomes associated with primary care behavioral health services: a systematic review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2018;53:1-11. doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2018.04.002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. 38.↵
    1. Romba C,
    2. Lavigne J,
    3. Walkup J,
    4. Ballard R
    . Measurement-based care in the treatment of anxiety. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2020;29(4):645-661. doi:10.1016/j.chc.2020.06.004
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    1. Lewis CC,
    2. Boyd M,
    3. Puspitasari A, et al.
    Implementing measurement-based care in behavioral health: a review. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(3):324-335. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.3329
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. 40.↵
    1. Gondek D,
    2. Edbrooke-Childs J,
    3. Fink E,
    4. Deighton J,
    5. Wolpert M
    . Feedback from outcome measures and treatment effectiveness, treatment efficiency, and collaborative practice: a systematic review. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2016;43(3):325-343. doi:10.1007/s10488-015-0710-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. 41.↵
    1. Krägeloh CU,
    2. Czuba KJ,
    3. Billington DR,
    4. Kersten P,
    5. Siegert RJ
    . Using feedback from patient-reported outcome measures in mental health services: a scoping study and typology. Psychiatr Serv. 2015;66(3):224-241. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201400141
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Lambert MJ,
    2. Whipple JL,
    3. Hawkins EJ,
    4. Vermeersch DA,
    5. Nielsen SL,
    6. Smart DW
    . Is it time for clinicians to routinely track patient outcome? A meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2003;10(3):288. doi:10.1093/clipsy.bpg025
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. 43.↵
    1. Shimokawa K,
    2. Lambert MJ,
    3. Smart DW
    . Enhancing treatment outcome of patients at risk of treatment failure: meta-analytic and mega-analytic review of a psychotherapy quality assurance system. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2010;78(3):298-311. doi:10.1037/a0019247
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Tam HE,
    2. Ronan K
    . The application of a feedback-informed approach in psychological service with youth: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2017;55:41-55. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2017.04.005
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.↵
    1. Freedman DE,
    2. Waddell AE,
    3. Lam H,
    4. Bourdon A,
    5. Wang K
    . Measurement-based care educational programmes for clinical trainees in mental healthcare: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2021;11(10):e054751. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054751
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Lyon AR,
    2. Pullmann MD,
    3. Whitaker K,
    4. Ludwig K,
    5. Wasse JK,
    6. McCauley E
    . A digital feedback system to support implementation of measurement-based care by school-based mental health clinicians. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2019;48(suppl 1):S168-S179. doi:10.1080/15374416.2017.1280808
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  47. 47.
    1. McGough PM,
    2. Bauer AM,
    3. Collins L,
    4. Dugdale DC
    . Integrating behavioral health into primary care. Popul Health Manag. 2016;19(2):81-87. doi:10.1089/pop.2015.0039
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Steinfeld B,
    2. Franklin A,
    3. Mercer B,
    4. Fraynt R,
    5. Simon G
    . Progress monitoring in an integrated health care system: tracking behavioral health vital signs. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2016;43(3):369-378. doi:10.1007/s10488-015-0648-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. 49.↵
    1. Bogucki OE,
    2. Craner JR,
    3. Berg SL, et al.
    Cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders: outcomes from a multi-state, multi-site primary care practice. J Anxiety Disord. 2021;78:102345. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102345
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. 50.↵
    1. Bogucki OE,
    2. Craner JR,
    3. Berg SL, et al.
    Cognitive behavioral therapy for depressive disorders: outcomes from a multi-state, multi-site primary care practice. J Affect Disord. 2021;294:745-752. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2021.07.061
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. 51.
    1. Craner JR,
    2. Sawchuk CN,
    3. Mack JD,
    4. LeRoy MA
    . Development and implementation of a psychotherapy tracking database in primary care. Fam Syst Health. 2017;35(2):207-216. doi:10.1037/fsh0000265
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. 52.↵
    1. Sawchuk CN,
    2. Mulholland H,
    3. Trane S,
    4. Lebow JR,
    5. Puspitasari A,
    6. Lombardi N
    . What to do when evidence-based treatment manuals are not enough? Adapting evidence-based psychological interventions for primary care. Cognit Behav Pract. 2020;27(4):377-391. doi:10.1016/j.cbpra.2020.05.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. 53.↵
    1. Clinical Classifications Software Refined (CCSR)
    . Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Published Oct 2021. Accessed Oct 2022. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/toolssoftware/ccsr/ccs_refined.jsp
  54. 54.↵
    1. Kroenke K,
    2. Spitzer RL,
    3. Williams JB
    . The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606-613. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Spitzer RL,
    2. Kroenke K,
    3. Williams JB,
    4. Löwe B
    . A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092-1097. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Meehl PE
    . Why I do not attend case conferences. In: Psychodiagnosis: Selected Papers. University of Minnesota Press; 1973:225-302.
  57. 57.↵
    1. Sawchuk CN,
    2. Craner JR,
    3. Berg SL, et al.
    Initial outcomes of a real-world multisite primary care psychotherapy program. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2018;54:5-11. doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2018.06.005
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. 58.↵
    1. Nathan RA,
    2. Sorkness CA,
    3. Kosinski M, et al.
    Development of the asthma control test: a survey for assessing asthma control. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;113(1):59-65. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2003.09.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. van Dijk BCP,
    2. Svedsater H,
    3. Heddini A,
    4. Nelsen L,
    5. Balradj JS,
    6. Alleman C
    . Relationship between the Asthma Control Test (ACT) and other outcomes: a targeted literature review. BMC Pulm Med. 2020;20(1):79. doi:10.1186/s12890-020-1090-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. 60.↵
    1. Sherwani SI,
    2. Khan HA,
    3. Ekhzaimy A,
    4. Masood A,
    5. Sakharkar MK
    . Significance of HbA1c test in diagnosis and prognosis of diabetic patients. Biomark Insights. 2016;11:95-104. doi:10.4137/BMI.S38440
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Sawchuk CN,
    2. Craner JR
    . Evidence-based psychotherapy in primary care. Focus (Am Psychiatr Publ). 2017;15(3):264-270. doi:10.1176/appi.focus.20170010
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. 62.↵
    1. Craner JR,
    2. Sawchuk CN,
    3. Smyth KT
    . Outcomes of a 6-week cognitive-behavioral and mindfulness group intervention in primary care. Fam Syst Health. 2016;34(3):250-259. doi:10.1037/fsh0000202
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  63. 63.↵
    1. Bogucki OE,
    2. Mattson AB,
    3. Leasure WB,
    4. Berg SL,
    5. Mulholland HL,
    6. Sawchuk CN
    . Adaptations of an integrated behavioral health program during COVID-19. Cogn Behav Pract. 2021;28(4):481-491. doi:10.1016/j.cbpra.2021.01.006
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. 64.↵
    1. Rocca WA,
    2. Grossardt BR,
    3. Brue SM, et al.
    Data Resource Profile: Expansion of the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical records-linkage system (E-REP). Int J Epidemiol. 2018;47(2):368-368j. doi:10.1093/ije/dyx268
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. St Sauver JL,
    2. Grossardt BR,
    3. Yawn BP, et al.
    Data resource profile: the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) medical records-linkage system. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(6):1614-1624. doi:10.1093/ije/dys195
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 21 (Suppl 2)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 21 (Suppl 2)
Vol. 21, Issue Suppl 2
February 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • PLAIN LANGUAGE ARTICLE SUMMARIES
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Study What You Do: Developing a Psychotherapy Tracking Database in a Large-Scale Integrated Behavioral Health Service
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
11 + 2 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Study What You Do: Developing a Psychotherapy Tracking Database in a Large-Scale Integrated Behavioral Health Service
Anne I. Roche, Samuel T. Savitz, Sydney S. Kelpin, Jocelyn Lebow, Nathaniel Lombardi, Olivia E. Bogucki, Aaron A. Kurtzhals, Maureen S. Drews, Sarah T. Trane, Jay-Sheree Allen, Mark D. Williams, Craig N. Sawchuk
The Annals of Family Medicine Feb 2023, 21 (Suppl 2) S49-S55; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2927

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Study What You Do: Developing a Psychotherapy Tracking Database in a Large-Scale Integrated Behavioral Health Service
Anne I. Roche, Samuel T. Savitz, Sydney S. Kelpin, Jocelyn Lebow, Nathaniel Lombardi, Olivia E. Bogucki, Aaron A. Kurtzhals, Maureen S. Drews, Sarah T. Trane, Jay-Sheree Allen, Mark D. Williams, Craig N. Sawchuk
The Annals of Family Medicine Feb 2023, 21 (Suppl 2) S49-S55; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2927
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Investigating Patient Experience, Satisfaction, and Trust in an Integrated Virtual Care (IVC) Model: A Cross-Sectional Survey
  • Patient and Health Care Professional Perspectives on Stigma in Integrated Behavioral Health: Barriers and Recommendations
  • Evaluation of the Oral Health Knowledge Network’s Impact on Pediatric Clinicians and Patient Care
Show more ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Domains of illness & health:
    • Mental health
  • Person groups:
    • Community / population health
  • Other research types:
    • Health services
  • Core values of primary care:
    • Coordination / integration of care
  • Other topics:
    • Health informatics
    • Quality improvement

Keywords

  • integrated behavioral health
  • measurement-based care
  • electronic health records
  • health informatics
  • quality improvement
  • health metrics
  • mental health
  • psychotherapy
  • primary care
  • multidisciplinary research
  • patient care team
  • population health

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Past Issues in Brief
  • Multimedia
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Multimedia
  • Supplements
  • Online First
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Media
  • Job Seekers

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2023 Annals of Family Medicine