Literature Collection

Magnifying Glass
Collection Insights

11K+

References

9K+

Articles

1500+

Grey Literature

4600+

Opioids & SU

The Literature Collection contains over 11,000 references for published and grey literature on the integration of behavioral health and primary care. Learn More

Use the Search feature below to find references for your terms across the entire Literature Collection, or limit your searches by Authors, Keywords, or Titles and by Year, Type, or Topic. View your search results as displayed, or use the options to: Show more references per page; Sort references by Title or Date; and Refine your search criteria. Expand an individual reference to View Details. Full-text access to the literature may be available through a link to PubMed, a DOI, or a URL. References may also be exported for use in bibliographic software (e.g., EndNote, RefWorks, Zotero).

Enter Search Term(s)
Year
Sort by
Order
Show
12255 Results
2481
Collaborative care model to improve outcomes in major depression
Type: Journal Article
Authors: D. M. Boudreau, K. L. Capoccia, S. D. Sullivan, D. K. Blough, A. J. Ellsworth, D. L. Clark, W. J. Katon, E. A. Walker, N. G. Stevens
Year: 2002
Topic(s):
General Literature See topic collection
2483
Collaborative Care Models to Improve Pain and Reduce Opioid Use in Primary Care: a Systematic Review
Type: Journal Article
Authors: S. C. Heavey, J. Bleasdale, E. A. Rosenfeld, G. P. Beehler
Year: 2023
Topic(s):
Opioids & Substance Use See topic collection
,
Measures See topic collection
2484
Collaborative care needs a more active policy voice
Type: Journal Article
Authors: B. F. Miller
Year: 2010
Publication Place: United States
Abstract: If you are reading this, there is a high likelihood you think collaborative care, or, the integration of mental health and physical health systems, is important to healthcare delivery and healthcare policy. Despite over 30 years of work, broad federal and state policy has been slow to adopt specific integration strategies that allow for more tightly coordinated, comprehensive whole-person care (Butler et al., 2008; Collins, Hewson, Munger, & Wade, 2010; Institute of Medicine, 2001; Institute of Medicine 2006). In the last year, policy shifts have brought integrated or collaborative care into the spotlight, but there is very little history of formal policy discussion in this area to guide progress. If FSH is to impact healthcare policy, enhance the quality of care, and move the healthcare system toward team-based collaborative care, we need more policy statements and discussions grounded in the research. By publishing these types of articles, FSH can help the collaborative care community be more influential in healthcare policy.
Topic(s):
Healthcare Policy See topic collection
2486
Collaborative care outcomes for pediatric behavioral health problems: a cluster randomized trial
Type: Journal Article
Authors: D. J. Kolko, J. Campo, A. M. Kilbourne, J. Hart, D. Sakolsky, S. Wisniewski
Year: 2014
Publication Place: United States
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of collaborative care for behavior problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and anxiety in pediatric primary care (Doctor Office Collaborative Care; DOCC). METHODS: Children and their caregivers participated from 8 pediatric practices that were cluster randomized to DOCC (n = 160) or enhanced usual care (EUC; n = 161). In DOCC, a care manager delivered a personalized, evidence-based intervention. EUC patients received psychoeducation and a facilitated specialty care referral. Care processes measures were collected after the 6-month intervention period. Family outcome measures included the Vanderbilt ADHD Diagnostic Parent Rating Scale, Parenting Stress Index-Short Form, Individualized Goal Attainment Ratings, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement Scale. Most measures were collected at baseline, and 6-, 12-, and 18-month assessments. Provider outcome measures examined perceived treatment change, efficacy, and obstacles, and practice climate. RESULTS: DOCC (versus EUC) was associated with higher rates of treatment initiation (99.4% vs 54.2%; P < .001) and completion (76.6% vs 11.6%, P < .001), improvement in behavior problems, hyperactivity, and internalizing problems (P < .05 to .01), and parental stress (P < .05-.001), remission in behavior and internalizing problems (P < .01, .05), goal improvement (P < .05 to .001), treatment response (P < .05), and consumer satisfaction (P < .05). DOCC pediatricians reported greater perceived practice change, efficacy, and skill use to treat ADHD (P < .05 to .01). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a collaborative care intervention for behavior problems in community pediatric practices is feasible and broadly effective, supporting the utility of integrated behavioral health care services.
Topic(s):
Healthcare Disparities See topic collection
2487
Collaborative care programs for pregnant and postpartum individuals with opioid use disorder: Organizational characteristics of sites participating in the NIDA CTN0080 MOMs study
Type: Journal Article
Authors: F. B. Kropp, M. C. Smid, M. R. Lofwall, E. M. Wachman, P. R. Martin, S. M. Murphy, C. M. Wilder, T. J. Winhusen
Year: 2023
2489
Collaborative Care to Improve Access and Quality in School‐Based Behavioral Health
Type: Journal Article
Authors: Aaron R. Lyon, Kelly Whitaker, Laura P. Richardson, William P. French, Elizabeth McCauley
Year: 2019
Publication Place: Kent
Topic(s):
Healthcare Disparities See topic collection
2490
Collaborative Care to Improve Quality of Life for Anxiety and Depression in Posttraumatic Epilepsy (CoCarePTE): Protocol for a Randomized Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trial
Type: Journal Article
Authors: H. M. Munger Clary, B. M. Snively, C. Cagle, R. Kennerly, J. N. Kimball, H. B. Alexander, G. A. Brenes, J. B. Moore, R. A. Hurley
Year: 2024
Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and depression in people with epilepsy are common and associated with poor outcomes; yet, they often go untreated due to poor mental health specialist access. Collaborative care is an integrated care model with a strong evidence base in primary care and medical settings, but it has not been evaluated in neurology clinics. Evaluating implementation outcomes when translating evidence-based interventions to new clinical settings to inform future scaling and incorporation into real-world practice is important. OBJECTIVE: The Collaborative Care for Posttraumatic Epilepsy (CoCarePTE) trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness (improvement in emotional quality of life) and implementation of a collaborative care intervention for people with anxiety or depressive symptoms and posttraumatic epilepsy. METHODS: CoCarePTE is a 2-site, randomized, single-blind, hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial that will randomize 60 adults to receive either neurology-based collaborative care or usual care. Adults receiving neurological care at participating centers with anxiety or depressive symptoms and a history of at least mild traumatic brain injury before epilepsy onset will be enrolled. The collaborative care intervention is a 24-week stepped-care model with video or telephone calls every 2 weeks by a care manager for measurement-based anxiety and depression care, seizure care monitoring, and brief therapy intervention delivery. This is supplemented by antidepressant prescribing recommendations by psychiatrists for neurologists via case conferences and care manager-facilitated team communication. In step 2 of the intervention, individuals with <50% symptom reduction by 10 weeks will receive an added 8-session remote cognitive behavioral therapy program. The study is powered to detect a moderate improvement in emotional quality of life. As a hybrid type 1 trial, effectiveness is the primary focus, with the primary outcome being a change in emotional quality of life at 6 months in the intervention group compared to control. Secondary effectiveness outcomes are 6-month changes in depression, anxiety, and overall quality of life. Implementation outcomes, including fidelity, acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness, are evaluated before implementation and at 3 months. The primary effectiveness analysis will compare changes in emotional quality of life scores from baseline to 6 months between the intervention and control arms using multiple linear regression modeling, adjusting for study site and using an intent-to-treat approach. RESULTS: Enrollment commenced in 2023, with modifications in the inclusion and exclusion made after the first 6 enrollees due to slow recruitment. Enrollment is expected to continue at least into early 2025. CONCLUSIONS: The CoCarePTE trial is novel in its use of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation design to evaluate an evidence-based mental health intervention in epilepsy, and by incorporating seizure care into a collaborative care model. If a significant improvement in emotional quality of life is found in the intervention group compared to usual care, this would support next step scaling or clinical implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05353452; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05353452. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/59329.

Topic(s):
Healthcare Disparities See topic collection
,
Education & Workforce See topic collection
2491
Collaborative care to improve the management of depressive disorders: a community guide systematic review and meta-analysis
Type: Journal Article
Authors: A. B. Thota, T. A. Sipe, G. J. Byard, C. S. Zometa, R. A. Hahn, L. R. McKnight-Eily, D. P. Chapman, A. F. Abraido-Lanza, J. L. Pearson, C. W. Anderson, A. J. Gelenberg, K. D. Hennessy, F. F. Duffy, M. E. Vernon-Smiley, D. E. Nease Jr, S. P. Williams, Community Preventive Services Task Force
Year: 2012
Publication Place: Netherlands
Abstract: CONTEXT: To improve the quality of depression management, collaborative care models have been developed from the Chronic Care Model over the past 20 years. Collaborative care is a multicomponent, healthcare system-level intervention that uses case managers to link primary care providers, patients, and mental health specialists. In addition to case management support, primary care providers receive consultation and decision support from mental health specialists (i.e., psychiatrists and psychologists). This collaboration is designed to (1) improve routine screening and diagnosis of depressive disorders; (2) increase provider use of evidence-based protocols for the proactive management of diagnosed depressive disorders; and (3) improve clinical and community support for active client/patient engagement in treatment goal-setting and self-management. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A team of subject matter experts in mental health, representing various agencies and institutions, conceptualized and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on collaborative care for improving the management of depressive disorders. This team worked under the guidance of the Community Preventive Services Task Force, a nonfederal, independent, volunteer body of public health and prevention experts. Community Guide systematic review methods were used to identify, evaluate, and analyze available evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: An earlier systematic review with 37 RCTs of collaborative care studies published through 2004 found evidence of effectiveness of these models in improving depression outcomes. An additional 32 studies of collaborative care models conducted between 2004 and 2009 were found for this current review and analyzed. The results from the meta-analyses suggest robust evidence of effectiveness of collaborative care in improving depression symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.34); adherence to treatment (OR=2.22); response to treatment (OR=1.78); remission of symptoms (OR=1.74); recovery from symptoms (OR=1.75); quality of life/functional status (SMD=0.12); and satisfaction with care (SMD=0.39) for patients diagnosed with depression (all effect estimates were significant). CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care models are effective in achieving clinically meaningful improvements in depression outcomes and public health benefits in a wide range of populations, settings, and organizations. Collaborative care interventions provide a supportive network of professionals and peers for patients with depression, especially at the primary care level.
Topic(s):
Education & Workforce See topic collection
2493
Collaborative care vs consultation liaison for depression and anxiety disorders in general practice: study protocol for two randomized controlled trials (the Danish Collabri Flex trials)
Type: Journal Article
Authors: N. K. Curth, U. Brinck-Claussen, K. B. Jorgensen, S. Rosendal, C. Hjorthoj, M. Nordentoft, L. F. Eplov
Year: 2019
Publication Place: England
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Models of collaborative care and consultation liaison propose organizational changes to improve the quality of care for people with common mental disorders, such as anxiety and depression. Some literature suggests only short-term positive effects of consultation liaison on patient-related outcomes, whereas collaborative care demonstrates both short-term and long-term positive effects. To our knowledge, only one randomized trial has compared the effects of these models. Collaborative care was superior to consultation liaison in reducing symptoms of depression for up to 3 months, but the authors found no difference at 9-months' follow-up. The Collabri Flex Trial for Depression and the Collabri Flex Trial for Anxiety aim to compare the effects of collaborative care with those of a form of consultation liaison that contains potential contaminating elements from collaborative care. The trials build on knowledge from the previous cluster-randomized Collabri trials. METHODS: Two randomized, investigator-initiated, parallel-group, superiority trials have been established: one investigating the effects of collaborative care vs consultation liaison for depression and one investigating the effects of collaborative care vs consultation liaison for generalized anxiety, panic disorder and social anxiety disorder at 6-months' follow-up. Participants are recruited from general practices in the Capital Region of Denmark: 240 in the depression trial and 284 in the anxiety trial. The primary outcome is self-reported depression symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II)) in the depression trial and self-reported anxiety symptoms (Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI)) in the anxiety trial. In both trials, the self-reported secondary outcomes are general psychological problems and symptoms (Symptom Checklist 90-Revised), functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) and general well-being (World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index). In the depression trial, BAI is an additional secondary outcome, and BDI-II is an additional secondary outcome in the anxiety trial. Explorative outcomes will also be collected. DISCUSSION: The results will supplement those of the cluster-randomized Collabri trials and provide pivotal information about the effects of collaborative care in Denmark. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03113175 and NCT03113201 . Registered on 13 April 2017.
Topic(s):
General Literature See topic collection
2494
Collaborative care vs consultation liaison for depression and anxiety disorders in general practice: study protocol for two randomized controlled trials (the Danish Collabri Flex trials)
Type: Journal Article
Authors: N. K. Curth, U. Brinck-Claussen, K. B. Jorgensen, S. Rosendal, C. Hjorthoj, M. Nordentoft, L. F. Eplov
Year: 2019
Publication Place: England
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Models of collaborative care and consultation liaison propose organizational changes to improve the quality of care for people with common mental disorders, such as anxiety and depression. Some literature suggests only short-term positive effects of consultation liaison on patient-related outcomes, whereas collaborative care demonstrates both short-term and long-term positive effects. To our knowledge, only one randomized trial has compared the effects of these models. Collaborative care was superior to consultation liaison in reducing symptoms of depression for up to 3 months, but the authors found no difference at 9-months' follow-up. The Collabri Flex Trial for Depression and the Collabri Flex Trial for Anxiety aim to compare the effects of collaborative care with those of a form of consultation liaison that contains potential contaminating elements from collaborative care. The trials build on knowledge from the previous cluster-randomized Collabri trials. METHODS: Two randomized, investigator-initiated, parallel-group, superiority trials have been established: one investigating the effects of collaborative care vs consultation liaison for depression and one investigating the effects of collaborative care vs consultation liaison for generalized anxiety, panic disorder and social anxiety disorder at 6-months' follow-up. Participants are recruited from general practices in the Capital Region of Denmark: 240 in the depression trial and 284 in the anxiety trial. The primary outcome is self-reported depression symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II)) in the depression trial and self-reported anxiety symptoms (Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI)) in the anxiety trial. In both trials, the self-reported secondary outcomes are general psychological problems and symptoms (Symptom Checklist 90-Revised), functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) and general well-being (World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index). In the depression trial, BAI is an additional secondary outcome, and BDI-II is an additional secondary outcome in the anxiety trial. Explorative outcomes will also be collected. DISCUSSION: The results will supplement those of the cluster-randomized Collabri trials and provide pivotal information about the effects of collaborative care in Denmark. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03113175 and NCT03113201 . Registered on 13 April 2017.
Topic(s):
General Literature See topic collection
2495
Collaborative Care Well Suited to New Medicaid Health Home Option
Type: Web Resource
Authors: M. Moran
Year: 2013
Topic(s):
Financing & Sustainability See topic collection
,
Healthcare Policy See topic collection
,
Grey Literature See topic collection
Disclaimer:

This grey literature reference is included in the Academy's Literature Collection in keeping with our mission to gather all sources of information on integration. Grey literature is comprised of materials that are not made available through traditional publishing avenues. Often, the information from unpublished resources can be limited and the risk of bias cannot be determined.

2496
Collaborative care: A pilot study of a child psychiatry outpatient consultation model for primary care providers
Type: Journal Article
Authors: Elise M. Fallucco, Emma Robertson Blackmore, Carolina M. Bejarano, Chelsea B. Kozikowksi, Steven Cuffe, Robin Landy, Anne Glowinski
Year: 2016
Topic(s):
Education & Workforce See topic collection
,
Healthcare Disparities See topic collection
2497
Collaborative care: enough of the why; what about the how?
Type: Journal Article
Authors: Pravin Ramanuj Parashar, Harold Alan Pincus
Year: 2019
Publication Place: London
Topic(s):
General Literature See topic collection
2498
Collaborative Care: Integrating Behavioral Health Into the Primary Care Setting
Type: Journal Article
Authors: V. Reising, L. Diegel-Vacek, Dadabo Msw, S. Corbridge
Year: 2021
Abstract:

INTRODUCTION: Integrated behavioral health is a model of health care that aims to meet the complex health care needs of patients in primary care settings. Collaborative Care (CC) is an evidence-based model incorporating an interdisciplinary team to improve outcomes for behavioral health disorders commonly seen by primary care providers. OBJECTIVE: CC was implemented in a nurse-managed health center in a medically underserved community of Chicago with a team of family nurse practitioners, psychiatric mental health nurse practitioners, and a licensed clinical social worker. METHOD: Integration of the CC model required restructuring of the patient visit, the care team, and financial operations. Weekly team meetings were held for interdisciplinary case consultation and training for the primary care team by the psychiatric nurse practitioner. The model includes suggested goals of reducing patient scores of validated depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) and anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7) screening tools to a score less than 5 points or to less than 50% of original score. RESULTS: During the initial year of implementation, 166 patients received care under the CC model, with 64 patients currently receiving active care. In this cohort, 22% reached suggested goals for depression and 47% for anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: CC has benefits for both patients and providers. Patients receive holistic treatment of both mental and physical health needs and access to psychiatric services for medication initiation and behavioral health modalities when necessary. We observed that the CC model improved collaboration with behavioral health specialists and the competence and confidence of family nurse practitioners.

Topic(s):
Measures See topic collection
2499
Collaborative Care: Integrating Behavioral Health Into the Primary Care Setting
Type: Journal Article
Authors: V. Reising, L. Diegel-Vacek, L. Dadabo, S. Corbridge
Year: 2023
Abstract:

INTRODUCTION: Integrated behavioral health is a model of health care that aims to meet the complex health care needs of patients in primary care settings. Collaborative Care (CC) is an evidence-based model incorporating an interdisciplinary team to improve outcomes for behavioral health disorders commonly seen by primary care providers. AIM: CC was implemented in a nurse-managed health center in a medically underserved community of Chicago with a team of family nurse practitioners, psychiatric mental health nurse practitioners, and a licensed clinical social worker. METHODS: Integration of the CC model required restructuring of the patient visit, the care team, and financial operations. Weekly team meetings were held for interdisciplinary case consultation and training for the primary care team by the psychiatric nurse practitioner. The model includes suggested goals of reducing patient scores of validated depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) and anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7) screening tools to a score less than 5 points or to less than 50% of original score. RESULTS: During the initial year of implementation, 166 patients received care under the CC model, with 64 patients currently receiving active care. In this cohort, 22% reached suggested goals for depression and 47% for anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: CC has benefits for both patients and providers. Patients receive holistic treatment of both mental and physical health needs and access to psychiatric services for medication initiation and behavioral health modalities when necessary. We observed that the CC model improved collaboration with behavioral health specialists and the competence and confidence of family nurse practitioners.

Topic(s):
Education & Workforce See topic collection
,
Measures See topic collection
,
Healthcare Disparities See topic collection
2500
Collaborative care: models for treatment of patients with complex medical-psychiatric conditions
Type: Journal Article
Authors: G. O. Ivbijaro, Y. Enum, A. A. Khan, S. S. Lam, A. Gabzdyl
Year: 2014
Publication Place: United States
Abstract: Patients with co-morbidity and multi-morbidity have worse outcomes and greater healthcare needs. Co-morbid depression and other long-term conditions present health services with challenges in delivering effective care for patients. We provide some recent evidence from the literature to support the need for collaborative care, illustrated by practical examples of how to deliver a collaborative/integrated care continuum by presenting data collected between 2011 and 2012 from a London Borough clinical improvement programme that compared co-morbid diagnosis of depression and other long-term conditions and Accident and Emergency use. We have provided some practical steps for developing collaborative care within primary care and suggest that primary care family practices should adopt closer collaboration with other services in order to improve clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
Topic(s):
General Literature See topic collection