INTRODUCTION: We developed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) to measure the degree of behavioral health integration in clinical practices with a focus on primary care (PC). Its 30 items, completed by providers, managers, and staff, provide an overall score and 6 domain scores derived from the Lexicon of Collaborative Care. We describe its history and psychometric properties. METHOD: The PIP was tested in a convenience sample of practices. Linear regression compared scores across integration exemplars, PC with behavioral services, PC without behavioral services, and community mental health centers without PC. An additional sample rated 4 scenarios describing practices with varying degrees of integration. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-nine surveys were returned. Mean domain scores ran from 49 to 65. The mean total score was 55 (median 58; range 0-100) with high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .95). The lowest total scores were for PC without behavioral health (27), followed by community mental health centers (44), PC with behavioral health (60), and the exemplars (86; p < .001). Eleven respondents rerated their practices 37 to 194 days later. The mean change was + 1.5 (standard deviation = 11.1). Scenario scores were highly correlated with the degree of integration each scenario was designed to represent (Spearman's ρ = -0.71; P = 0.0005). DISCUSSION: These data suggest that the PIP is useful, has face, content, and internal validity, and distinguishes among types of practices with known variations in integration. We discuss how the PIP may support practices and policymakers in their integration efforts and researchers assessing the degree to which integration affects patient health outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
INTRODUCTION: We developed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) to measure the degree of behavioral health integration in clinical practices with a focus on primary care (PC). Its 30 items, completed by providers, managers, and staff, provide an overall score and 6 domain scores derived from the Lexicon of Collaborative Care. We describe its history and psychometric properties. METHOD: The PIP was tested in a convenience sample of practices. Linear regression compared scores across integration exemplars, PC with behavioral services, PC without behavioral services, and community mental health centers without PC. An additional sample rated 4 scenarios describing practices with varying degrees of integration. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-nine surveys were returned. Mean domain scores ran from 49 to 65. The mean total score was 55 (median 58; range 0-100) with high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .95). The lowest total scores were for PC without behavioral health (27), followed by community mental health centers (44), PC with behavioral health (60), and the exemplars (86; p < .001). Eleven respondents rerated their practices 37 to 194 days later. The mean change was + 1.5 (standard deviation = 11.1). Scenario scores were highly correlated with the degree of integration each scenario was designed to represent (Spearman's ρ = -0.71; P = 0.0005). DISCUSSION: These data suggest that the PIP is useful, has face, content, and internal validity, and distinguishes among types of practices with known variations in integration. We discuss how the PIP may support practices and policymakers in their integration efforts and researchers assessing the degree to which integration affects patient health outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Daniel J Mullin; Lee Hargreaves; Andrea Auxier; Stephanie A Brennhofer; Juvena R Hitt; Rodger S Kessler; Benjamin Littenberg; C R Macchi; Matthew Martin; Gail Rose; Felicia Trembath; Constance van Eeghen Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Kris Pui Kwan Ma; Brenda L Mollis; Jennifer Rolfes; Margaret Au; Abigail Crocker; Sarah H Scholle; Rodger Kessler; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Kari A Stephens Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 3.626
Authors: Kari A Stephens; Constance van Eeghen; Brenda Mollis; Margaret Au; Stephanie A Brennhofer; Matthew Martin; Jessica Clifton; Elizabeth Witwer; Audrey Hansen; Jeyn Monkman; Gretchen Buchanan; Rodger Kessler Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Abigail M Crocker; Rodger Kessler; Constance van Eeghen; Levi N Bonnell; Ryan E Breshears; Peter Callas; Jessica Clifton; William Elder; Chet Fox; Sylvie Frisbie; Juvena Hitt; Jennifer Jewiss; Roger Kathol; Kelly Clark/Keefe; Jennifer O'Rourke-Lavoie; George S Leibowitz; C R Macchi; Mark McGovern; Brenda Mollis; Daniel J Mullin; Zsolt Nagykaldi; Lisa Watts Natkin; Wilson Pace; Richard G Pinckney; Douglas Pomeroy; Alexander Pond; Rachel Postupack; Paula Reynolds; Gail L Rose; Sarah Hudson Scholle; William J Sieber; Terry Stancin; Kurt C Stange; Kari A Stephens; Kathryn Teng; Elizabeth Needham Waddell; Benjamin Littenberg Journal: Trials Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 2.279