Literature Collection

Magnifying Glass
Collection Insights

12K+

References

11K+

Articles

1600+

Grey Literature

4800+

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
12780 Results
2601
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
2602
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
2603
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
2605
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
2606
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
2607
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.

2608
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
2609
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
2610
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
2611
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
2612
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
2613
Collaborative centre for cardiometabolic health in psychosis - integrating traditional healthcare to meet the needs of the mental health population
Type: Journal Article
Authors: Nicholas Brisbane, Kathleen Smith
Year: 2019
Topic(s):
Education & Workforce See topic collection
,
Healthcare Disparities See topic collection
2614
Collaborative chronic care models for mental health conditions: Cumulative meta-analysis and metaregression to guide future research and implementation.
Type: Journal Article
Authors: Christopher J. Miller, Andrew Grogan-Kaylor, Brian E. Perron, Amy M. Kilbourne, Emily Woltmann, Mark S. Bauer
Year: 2013
Topic(s):
General Literature See topic collection
2615
Collaborative communication between psychologists and primary care providers
Type: Journal Article
Authors: P. Knowles
Year: 2009
Publication Place: United States
Abstract: Psychologists frequently collaborate in the care of patients managed in primary care. Communication with a patient's primary care team is important to ensure coordination and continuity of care. The communication is far from seamless. Although The Health Information Privacy and Portability Act (HIPPA) is designed to promote sharing of clinical information while protecting patient confidentiality, unique problems arise when mental health records are included. Mental health records are subject to different regulations to protect the patient's confidentiality. Thus, what is communicated and how it will be accomplished are challenges. Further, psychologists and primary care providers often view documentation differently, resulting in different styles of documenting that may also impede coordinated care. Increasingly, health care systems are moving toward electronic medical records, creating greater opportunities for an integrated record. Improved communication through the record can keep other providers abreast of the mental health care being provided as well as suggestions they can use to reinforce the mental health care treatment plan.
Topic(s):
Education & Workforce See topic collection
,
HIT & Telehealth See topic collection
,
Healthcare Policy See topic collection
2616
Collaborative Depression Care in a Safety Net Medical Home: Facilitators and Barriers to Quality Improvement
Type: Journal Article
Authors: E. G. Price-Haywood, D. Dunn-Lombard, J. Harden-Barrios, J. J. Lefante
Year: 2016
Publication Place: United States
Abstract: Little is known about how to integrate primary care with mental/behavioral services outside of clinical trials. The authors implemented a collaborative care model (CCM) for depression in a safety net patient-centered medical home. The model focused on universal screening for symptoms, risk stratification based on symptom severity, care management for intensive follow-up, and psychiatry consultation. CCM increased rates of primary care physician encounters, timely follow-up for monitoring symptoms of depression, and documentation of treatment response. Contextual factors that facilitated or hindered practice redesign included clinic leadership, quality improvement culture, staffing, technology infrastructure, and external incentives/disincentives for organizational change.
Topic(s):
Education & Workforce See topic collection
,
Medical Home See topic collection
2617
Collaborative depression care management and disparities in depression treatment and outcomes
Type: Journal Article
Authors: Y. Bao, G. S. Alexopoulos, L. P. Casalino, TR Ten Have, J. M. Donohue, E. P. Post, B. R. Schackman, M. L. Bruce
Year: 2011
Publication Place: United States
Abstract: CONTEXT: Collaborative depression care management (DCM), by addressing barriers disproportionately affecting patients of racial/ethnic minority and low education, may reduce disparities in depression treatment and outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of DCM on treatment disparities by education and race/ethnicity in older depressed primary care patients. DESIGN: Analysis of data from the randomized controlled trial Prevention of Suicide in Primary Care Elderly: Collaborative Trial (PROSPECT). SETTING: Twenty primary care practices. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 396 individuals 60 years or older with major depression. We conducted model-based analysis to estimate potentially differential intervention effects by education, independent of those by race/ethnicity (and vice versa). INTERVENTION: Algorithm-based recommendations to physicians and care management by care managers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Antidepressant use, depressive symptoms, and intensity of DCM over 2 years. RESULTS: The PROSPECT intervention had a larger and more lasting effect in less-educated patients. At month 12, the intervention increased the rate of adequate antidepressant use by 14.2 percentage points (pps) (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 26.4 pps) in the no-college group compared with a null effect in the college-educated group (-9.2 pps [95% CI, -25.0 to 2.7 pps]); at month 24, the intervention reduced depressive symptoms by 2.6 pps on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (95% CI, -4.6 to -0.4 pps) in no-college patients, 3.8 pps (95% CI, -6.8 to -0.4) more than in the college group. The intervention benefitted non-Hispanic white patients more than minority patients. Intensity of DCM received by minorities was 60% to 70% of that received by white patients after the initial phase but did not differ by education. CONCLUSIONS: The PROSPECT intervention substantially reduced disparities by patient education but did not mitigate racial/ethnic disparities in depression treatment and outcomes. Incorporation of culturally tailored strategies in DCM models may be needed to extend their benefits to minorities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier for PROSPECT: NCT00279682.
Topic(s):
Healthcare Disparities See topic collection
2620
Collaborative Family Healthcare Association (CFHA)
Type: Web Resource
Authors: Collaborative Family Healthcare Association
Year: 2013
Publication Place: Rochester, NY
Topic(s):
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.