Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Integrated Behavioral Health Implementation and Training in Primary Care: A Practice-Based Research Network Study

Melissa K. Filippi, Jeanette A. Waxmonsky, Mark D. Williams, Elise Robertson, Chyke Doubeni, Christina M. Hester and Andrea Nederveld
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine November 2023, 36 (6) 1008-1019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2023.230067R2
Melissa K. Filippi
From the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network, American Academy of Family Physicians, Leawood, KS (MKF, ER, CMH); Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care, Washington, DC (MKF); Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (JAW); Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (MDW); Department of Family and Community Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH (CD); University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO (AN).
PhD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeanette A. Waxmonsky
From the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network, American Academy of Family Physicians, Leawood, KS (MKF, ER, CMH); Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care, Washington, DC (MKF); Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (JAW); Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (MDW); Department of Family and Community Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH (CD); University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO (AN).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark D. Williams
From the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network, American Academy of Family Physicians, Leawood, KS (MKF, ER, CMH); Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care, Washington, DC (MKF); Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (JAW); Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (MDW); Department of Family and Community Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH (CD); University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO (AN).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elise Robertson
From the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network, American Academy of Family Physicians, Leawood, KS (MKF, ER, CMH); Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care, Washington, DC (MKF); Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (JAW); Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (MDW); Department of Family and Community Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH (CD); University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO (AN).
MA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chyke Doubeni
From the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network, American Academy of Family Physicians, Leawood, KS (MKF, ER, CMH); Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care, Washington, DC (MKF); Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (JAW); Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (MDW); Department of Family and Community Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH (CD); University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO (AN).
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christina M. Hester
From the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network, American Academy of Family Physicians, Leawood, KS (MKF, ER, CMH); Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care, Washington, DC (MKF); Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (JAW); Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (MDW); Department of Family and Community Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH (CD); University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO (AN).
PhD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrea Nederveld
From the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network, American Academy of Family Physicians, Leawood, KS (MKF, ER, CMH); Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care, Washington, DC (MKF); Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (JAW); Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (MDW); Department of Family and Community Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH (CD); University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO (AN).
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Introduction: Integrating behavioral health services into primary care has a strong evidence base, but how primary care training programs incorporate integrated behavioral health (IBH) into care delivery and training has not been well described. The goal of this study was to evaluate factors related to successful IBH implementation in family medicine (FM) residency programs and assess perspectives and attitudes on IBH among program leaders.

Methods: FM residency programs, all which are required to provide IBH training, were recruited from the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network. After completing eligibility screening that included the Integrated Practice Assessment Tool (IPAT) questionnaire, 14 training programs were included. Selected practices identified 3 staff in key roles to be interviewed: medical director or similar, behavioral health professional (BHP), and chief medical officer or similar.

Results: Forty-one individuals from 14 FM training programs were interviewed. IPAT scores ranged from 4 (Close Collaboration Onsite) to 6 (Full Collaboration). Screening, outcome tracking, and treatment differed among and within practices. Use of curricula and trainee experience also varied with little standardization. Most participants described similar approaches to communication and collaboration between primary care clinicians and BHPs and believed that IBH should be standard practice. Participants reported space, staff, and billing support as critical for sustainability.

Conclusions: Delivery and training experiences in IBH varied widely despite recognition of the value and benefits to patients and care delivery processes. Standardizing resources and training and simplifying and assuring reimbursement for services may promote sustainable and high quality IBH implementation.

  • Family Medicine
  • Integrated Behavioral Health
  • Integrated Delivery Systems
  • Patient Care Team
  • Residency
  • Practice-Based Research
  • Primary Health Care
  • Qualitative Research

Introduction

Nearly 70% of primary care visits involve discussion or treatment of at least 1 behavioral health concern,1,2 but there are difficulties in connecting patients to behavioral health services in a timely manner.3 Logistic and insurance coverage challenges4,5 as well as stigma and unfamiliarity limit access to behavioral health services.6 These barriers can be reduced through evidence-based integrated behavioral health (IBH) in primary care, in which medical and behavioral health care are delivered in a single setting.7 IBH increases access to evidence-based care and improves patient outcomes,8 yielding benefits to patients and practices alike.9,10

IBH implementation requires specific skills and specialized training for medical and behavioral health clinicians.11⇓–13 Family medicine residency training programs are required to have behavioral health faculty and provide training in IBH14 and typically serve learners from a variety of professional programs (medical, social work, nursing, psychology, etc.). For trainees in family medicine residencies to effectively meet the demand of addressing patient behavioral health needs, training programs must have a curriculum that includes effective models of IBH delivery.15,16 Apprenticeship is an important element of IBH training, and the formal and informal experience of IBH in family medicine training programs influences and informs future practice of trainees from those programs. However, approaches to IBH delivery and skill development may vary across training programs and have not been well-studied.17 Thus, we examined delivery of IBH and perspectives about facilitators for and challenges to IBH implementation and training in family medicine residency programs.

Methods

Design and Setting

We conducted a qualitative study with in-depth semistructured interviews of clinicians and administrators in family medicine training programs. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) Institutional Review Board approved this study, and we followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ).18

Participant Recruitment

We used purposive sampling to identify family medicine training programs from the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific Northwest of the US from 2 sources: AAFP National Research Network member practices that were known to have interest in behavioral health studies and practices known to have IBH based on the knowledge of the study team. Designated contacts at the selected practices were sent a survey via Qualtrics (Provo, Utah) to assess for type of IBH training and collect information on the number and types of trainees and behavioral health professionals [BHPs: psychotherapists (psychologists, licensed clinical social workers) and prescribers (psychiatrists, nurse practitioners)]. Of the 20 practices that indicated interest, 6 were determined to be ineligible because they did not have a family medicine residency program.

Data Collection

Designated contacts at each practice were invited to participate and asked to provide the following information about their practice: the IBH model used, for example, Primary Care Behavioral Health Model (PCBH),19 colocated,20,21 blended, and Collaborative Care Model (CoCM)22,23 and the level of behavioral health integration assessed using the Integrated Practice Assessment Tool (IPAT).24 The IPAT is a brief assessment tool based on a decision tree model designed to place practices on the level of collaboration/integration defined by A Standard Framework for Levels of Integrated Health care.25 Eligible practices identified 3 people to participate in interviews: the medical director (or similar role), a BHP (who was part of the residency training faculty), and the chief medical officer or other leader. Each practice that completed the research survey and interviews received a $500 stipend.

The research team, comprised of a psychologist, a psychiatrist, a family physician, and advanced degree primary care researchers, developed the interview guide. Two team members (JW and MF) conducted the interviews virtually in English between March 24, 2021, and July 13, 2021. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim and averaged 50 minutes in length. In addition to the practice stipend, each interviewee received $150 for their time.

Data Analysis

An inductive analytic approach was used to analyze the qualitative text.26,27 The codebook was developed iteratively, and 2 team members (JW and MF) made an initial list of codes. A revised codebook was adopted after 2 iterations based on feedback from MW, CH, and CD. MF and ER coded individual transcripts using Atlas.ti.9. We used ongoing quality assurance where coding was monitored to ensure coders coded similarly. We pilot tested 1, compared results, and discussed discrepancies. Next, we tested 2 more, compared results, then continued coding manuscripts. Then we went back and recoded the original ones we piloted. Thus, we performed calibration exercises to show coders interpreted text in a similar fashion. Once completed, the 2 coders then assessed 25% of manuscripts to ensure that codes and their definitions were applied accurately; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Four team members (MF, JW, ER, AN) discussed categories. Development of themes surfaced through multiple readings of the data and comparison across transcripts was undertaken to ensure applicability and inclusiveness. This content was finalized by consensus.

Results

We engaged 14 practices and interviewed 41 participants (Table 1). All practices trained resident physicians; 12 had trainees other than residents (ie, medical students and pharmacy students); and 12 had 15 or more primary care physicians (PCPs) and advanced practice medical providers combined. Across the practices, there were 1 to 9 BHPs (mean = 3.50) and 0 to 34 accessible psychiatric prescribers (mean = 13.5). Respondents identified their IBH model as PCBH, colocated, blended, CoCM, multiple models, or none. We found that respondents may have used different classifications for BHPs (ie, including psychiatrists) and/or may have counted clinicians (psychiatrists and others) who were in their network but outside their practice, while others only counted those practicing onsite. In addition, some respondents may have included residents in clinician counts where others did not. IPAT scores ranged from 4 (Close Collaboration Onsite) to 6 (Full Collaboration) (Table 1).

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

Practice Characteristics

This report focuses on 5 emergent themes arising from the interviews: IBH delivery, benefits and essential elements, training and learner integration, and structural and policy barriers. For exemplary quotes, refer to Table 2.

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

Exemplary Quotations

Delivery of IBH

Screening

Participants reported screening for depression and/or anxiety at annual wellness visits, behavioral health visits, new patient visits, or other visits based on recent or historic diagnoses or stressors. Other conditions were screened for at some practices including intimate partner violence, alcohol and substance use disorders, and concerns specific to pediatric patients. Positive screens (such as reported psychological distress) triggered a conversation with or referral to a BHP or care manager.

Tracking of Individual and Population Metrics

Participants reported individual-level tracking, population-level tracking, or both. Most participants reported that they tracked quality metrics or screening completion for individual patients, but multiple challenges hampered tracking from being routine, practice-wide, or at the population level: manual entry of data from outside the EHR was time-consuming; inability to search data not captured in the EHR; referrals were not automatic if depression score worsened; and lack of dedicated staff to review the data. A few participants mentioned using registries (eg, for depression or opioid use) to document and track behavioral and mental health services and indicated that this type of monitoring focused on population-level management rather than the individual-level.

Treatment Decision-Making Algorithms

The majority of participants stated either that their practice did not use treatment decision making algorithms to guide behavioral health treatment (9 practices) or that they were not aware of algorithms (2 practices), despite indicating interest in their use. Practices had protocols or EHR recommendations based on screening results, but these were applied with clinician discretion. Algorithms were not used due to both clinical and patient related factors. Clinicians cited perceived disruption to workflow, prior training that emphasized decisions based on clinical interviews, and professional discretion as reasons for not using algorithms. Algorithms were seen as rigid, not allowing for patient buy-in, and/or not recognizing lack of access to suggested treatment.

Communication and Information Sharing

Most stated that BHPs were available to aid in diagnosis, triage, and therapies for specific concerns (eg, eating, developmental disorders). Teams communicated through the EHR, designated internal digital communication platforms, and curbside consults. PCPs had access to social services support via other members of the behavioral health team, such as social workers or care coordinators, either onsite or via telehealth. PCPs also received indirect support from BHPs through informal consults, huddles, case reviews, or warm handoffs.

Providing Therapy in Clinic

All practices provided short-term therapy emphasizing behavior change, self-management, and skill development. Practices often did not have capacity for longer term psychotherapy but occasionally provided it due to lack of referral options.

Perspectives on IBH Benefits and Essential Elements for Successful Delivery

Participants shared that IBH should be standard practice in primary care and that BHP presence is indispensable. They reported that collaboration with members of the behavioral health team made PCPs’ roles easier and improved patient outcomes, and that onsite behavioral health services were convenient for patients and improved follow-up. Participants indicated ideal IBH implementation required adequate BHP staffing, protected time for screening and warm handoffs, and onsite psychiatry services. Dedicated space where team members could gather for warm handoffs or conduct therapy or support groups was also recommended. Support with screening, tracking, and billing was reported as necessary to ensure compensation and improve population health. Participants highlighted the need to offer long-term behavioral health services or better connection to external BHPs and psychiatrists to better meet patients’ needs, as IBH is most appropriate for finite, short-term treatment. Lastly, some participants stressed the importance of better practice-wide education about IBH workflows to clarify roles and service availability to encourage use.

Destigmatizing Behavioral Health and Providing Holistic Care

Participants reported that stigma associated with receiving behavioral health care was decreased by the opportunity to receive care within their practice. Patients were more likely to seek and receive IBH services in the primary care practice because of established rapport with staff and comfort with the environment and processes. Participants noted that patients were more likely to follow through with a BHP or care manager if a warm handoff was facilitated by the trusted PCP.

Participants also reported that integration normalized behavioral health as part of health care, enabling a holistic approach. Interdisciplinary teams identified and treated issues early before they became more serious. In addition, BHPs could assist with a breadth of care needs, including depression, anxiety, and chronic diseases. IBH facilitated care coordination with specialists (psychiatrist, dietician, etc.) and ensured that patients’ needs were met, addressing whole person care through a team approach.

Benefits of Behavioral Health Services to the Practice

Keeps Behavioral Health Services in Clinic

Participants reported that providing behavioral health services in primary care settings improved behavioral health access and outcomes because of better coordination and retention in care. While some BHPs did not have access to psychiatric prescribers or psychiatrists, BHPs specifically were viewed as an added benefit to patient care, contributing to a more holistic and effective approach to care by multidisciplinary teams.

Managing Serious Mental Illness and Crisis

Participants stressed that having a psychiatrist or other psychiatric provider on staff expanded practice capacity for treatment of more complex mental health diagnoses and appreciated even limited psychiatric contributions: performing chart reviews, offering treatment guidance, and in some cases, providing feedback to learners’ case presentations, conducting didactic sessions, or precepting.

Potential Cost Reduction

Some asserted that integration decreased costs of health care due to decreases in emergency department visits and specialty psychiatric care, as well as alleviating time and access barriers. In some cases, psychiatrists were housed in a Department of Psychiatry, so they were available for referrals and not truly integrated, reinforcing fragmentation of behavioral health care. Participants reported that physical and organizational barriers to connecting with psychiatric providers made it difficult to both access and integrate services into practices, likely increasing cost for both patients and the health care system.

Learning to Collaborate and Instilling an IBH Culture

The engagement of learners in IBH occurred in a variety of forms in these residency programs (Table 3). In most models, all learners shadowed behavioral health team members and gained experience working within an IBH model. Hands-on training for residents and other learners occurred in the form of apprenticeship (learning by doing while immersed in an IBH setting). Participants also described didactic IBH curricula but did not provide details. The approach to didactics appeared to vary across programs and was based on clinical context and IBH model.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Training Different Learner Types Together

Participants reported that learners practice IBH from the beginning of their respective training programs by being immersed in all aspects of patient care, including behavioral health. Residents have their own patient panels under attending physician supervision. Participants described different ways that residents interact with other team members, such as initiating warm handoffs, counseling patients, prescribing medication for less complex cases, referring to BHPs for short-term therapy or other resources for long-term therapy or psychiatrists for those requiring complex medication management.

Structural and Policy Barriers to Successful Delivery

According to participants, structural and policy barriers hindered true behavioral health integration in their residency programs (Figure 1). Barriers included lack of organizational buy-in, inadequate funding, heavy workload, limited space, challenges related to copays, and inadequate reimbursement. Participants described having to justify hiring needed staff and often being supported by grants or other programs rather than through reimbursement or organizational core support. They also reported not having adequate space to conduct patient visits or consult with team members. Participants were able to describe workarounds to most of these structural and policy constraints, except for challenges related to patient insurance coverage and cost. On the patient access side of barriers, participants thought insurers should be required to reimburse behavioral and mental health services similarly to preventive health services, as inadequate coverage often leaves gaps in access to behavioral and mental health services for those who need it most.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 1.

Structural and policy barriers to IBH in residency programs and potential ways to serve needs. Abbreviations: IBH, integrated behavioral health; FTE, full-time equivalent; QI, quality Improvement; CMS, centers for medicare & medicaid services; ED, emergency department; PCP, primary care physicians.

Discussion

This study describes factors reported as important for successful delivery of IBH in family medicine training programs as well as perspectives regarding IBH training. Though these results are based on our sample of family medicine residency training programs, they are not necessarily unique to training programs. Participants reported the value in IBH models as applied and described strategies they used in care delivery and training. Trainees from multiple disciplines learned from the collaborative processes used to coordinate behavioral health within primary care and their experiences of practicing IBH will influence and inform their future practice. Adequate and appropriate clinic space,28⇓–30 personnel,29,31⇓–33 and referral services (eg, seamless access to psychiatry and long-term psychotherapy) were highlighted as key factors for optimizing IBH. For patients, participants highlighted the benefit of IBH to counter the negative effects of stigma of receiving behavioral health services and to increase access to holistic care. Even though participants discussed structural and policy barriers to behavioral health integration, some stated that certain challenges could be addressed within their organization. The exception was insurance coverage which limited patient access and constrained care teams.

Trainees who are exposed to IBH in residency are likely to be well equipped and prepared to address behavioral health concerns, manage complex care scenarios, and navigate care coordination efforts when entering practice after completing training.34 Furthermore, while some similarities existed among residency programs, there are currently no standardized approaches for teaching IBH, and core competencies that ensure learners have the needed tools to deliver care within IBH practices were not discernible.35,36 Research is needed to identify best practices and inform approaches to standardize IBH training.

Our study provides important insights about IBH implementation and training in family medicine residency programs for the next generation of primary care clinicians. Our findings support prior reports that IBH may improve patient and clinician satisfaction, outcomes, access, and timely treatment for behavioral health concerns.22,37⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–43 Likewise, the results reinforce documentation of barriers found in prior studies such as inadequate staffing (BHPs and care managers), limited access to psychiatric consultation, organizational and financial barriers, patient insurance challenges, and stigma.30,44⇓⇓⇓–48

Our findings have important implications for gaining organizational buy-in and support, which may require increased preparedness with data to justify upfront expenses (like office space or salary) when seeking to hire a BHP or invest in a psychiatrist. Our findings suggest that showing better patient outcomes37,49 and cost savings50⇓–52 may influence decisions favorably. Increased communication around IBH models may also build or enrich relationships across teams.53 In addition, having an IBH structure is a start, but programs need to infuse an IBH working culture through connections and communications that are truly interdisciplinary.28,54 Clinicians, administrators, and staff may know the intent of IBH, but greater learning and support across organizations may be necessary to accomplish goals.35 Developing protocols and structures that allow organic interactions between team members is an approach that may improve the implementation of IBH.

There are some limitations to our study. This qualitative study with a small sample size within select geographical areas has limits regarding the generalizability of the results. In addition, purposeful sampling is prone to selection bias due to investigator judgment. Challenges of newly established programs may be different from challenges reported here. Next, our findings are based on participants’ perceptions. We did not provide standardized definitions for participants to minimize information bias, which may have skewed survey responses. In addition, key elements for robust IBH implementation depend on the model deployed. In some cases, onsite access to a behavioral health resource, tracking of outcomes, and addressing financial barriers may be important, while in other contexts adapting to differing needs of patients, embedded psychiatric prescribers, and diversification of the behavioral health team (ie, social workers, psychologists, and care managers) may be more important. We did not collect information from learners, which may have enhanced our findings.17 Therefore, future studies incorporating learners’ perspectives on team-based, interdisciplinary training in IBH is important to inform IBH implementation.17,55⇓–57 However, the detailed information gained here from clinical teams on the frontline of care can inform the development of IBH playbooks and curricula to support the design and implementation of effective IBH in clinical practice and training environments.

This study examined perspectives on the implementation of IBH in family medicine training environments with implications for developing, maintaining, standardizing, and strengthening IBH programs. As the need for behavioral and mental health services increases, multipronged approaches and policy changes are needed to support cost-effective implementation and impactful IBH training in primary care. Including behavioral and mental health as part of comprehensive care could increase access for patients and improve insurance coverage and payment. In turn, advocacy efforts could emphasize that high levels of integration drive improved population health, patient experience, clinician well-being, and reduced costs.

Acknowledgments

This study was made possible by the participation of the AAFP National Research Network practices and individual care team members. We thank them for their essential contributions to this work. The authors would also like to thank Elizabeth Staton, MSTC, for her thorough review of the manuscript.

Notes

  • This article was externally peer reviewed.

  • Funding: Supported by funding from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number UH1HP33881 (PI: Doubeni), titled Academic Units for Primary Care Training and Enhancement. This report and the conclusions are those of the authors and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the U.S. Government. The funder had no role in the decision to submit the manuscript for submission.

  • Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

  • To see this article online, please go to: http://jabfm.org/content/36/6/1008.full.

  • Received for publication February 24, 2023.
  • Revision received April 26, 2023.
  • Accepted for publication June 21, 2023.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Hunter C,
    2. Goodie J,
    3. Oordt M,
    4. Dobmeyer A
    . Integrated behavioral health in primary care: Step-by-step guidance for assessment and intervention. Second ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2017.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Vohs JL,
    2. Shi M,
    3. Holmes EG,
    4. et al
    . Novel approach to integrating mental health care into a primary care setting: development, implementation, and outcomes. J Clin Psychol Med Settings 2023;30:3–16.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Bishop TF,
    2. Press MJ,
    3. Keyhani S,
    4. Pincus HA
    . Acceptance of insurance by psychiatrists and the implications for access to mental health care. JAMA Psychiatry 2014;71:176–81.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Stewart MT,
    2. Horgan CM,
    3. Quinn AE,
    4. et al
    . The role of health plans in supporting behavioral health integration. Adm Policy Ment Health 2017;44:967–77.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Patel K,
    2. Apple RW,
    3. Campbell J
    . Funding and billing for integrated behavioral health care. Pediatr Clin North Am 2021;68:573–81.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Phelan SM,
    2. Salinas M,
    3. Pankey T,
    4. et al
    . Patient and health care professional perspectives on stigma in integrated behavioral health: barriers and recommendations. Ann Fam Med 2023;21:S56–S60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. What is integrated behavioral health? Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available at: https://integrationacademy.ahrq.gov/about/integrated-behavioral-health. Accessed August 31, 2022.
  8. 8.↵
    1. Schmit M,
    2. Watson J,
    3. Fernandez M
    . Examining the effectiveness of integrated behavioral and primary health care treatment. Journal of Counseling & Development 2018;96:3–14.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Miller-Matero LR,
    2. Dykuis KE,
    3. Albujoq K,
    4. et al
    . Benefits of integrated behavioral health services: the physician perspective. Fam Syst Health 2016;34:51–5.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Possemato K,
    2. Johnson EM,
    3. Beehler GP,
    4. et al
    . Patient outcomes associated with primary care behavioral health services: a systematic review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2018;53:1–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    1. Serrano N,
    2. Cordes C,
    3. Cubic B,
    4. Daub S
    . The State and future of the primary care behavioral health model of service delivery workforce. J Clin Psychol Med Settings 2018;25:157–68.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Agaskar V,
    2. Yung-Wei D,
    3. Wambu G
    . Outcomes of “integrated behavioral health” training: A pilot study. Int J Adv Counselling 2021;43:386–405.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Kelsay K,
    2. Bunik M,
    3. Buchholz M,
    4. Burnett B,
    5. Talmi A
    . Incorporating trainees' development into a multidisciplinary training model for integrated behavioral health within a pediatric continuity clinic. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am 2017;26:703–15.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Family Medicine. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Available at: https://www.acgme.org/globalassets/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/120_FamilyMedicine_2020.pdf. Published 2020. Accessed May 5, 2022.
  15. 15.↵
    1. Waxmonsky JA,
    2. Williams MD
    . Training primary care practitioners about integrated behavioral health: how integrated is the training? J Health Care Poor Underserved 2020;31:144–53.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Kroenke K,
    2. Unutzer J
    . Closing the false divide: sustainable approaches to integrating mental health services into primary care. J Gen Intern Med 2017;32:404–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Martin MP
    . Integrated behavioral health training for primary care clinicians: five lessons learned from a negative study. Fam Syst Health 2017;35:352–9.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Tong A,
    2. Sainsbury P,
    3. Craig J
    . Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19:349–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    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;25:109–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Platt RE,
    2. Spencer AE,
    3. Burkey MD,
    4. et al
    . What's known about implementing co-located paediatric integrated care: a scoping review. Int Rev Psychiatry 2018;30:242–71.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Aggarwal M,
    2. Knifed E,
    3. Howell NA,
    4. et al
    . A qualitative study on the barriers to learning in a primary care-behavioral health integration program in an academic hospital: the family medicine perspective. Acad Psychiatry 2020;44:46–52.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    1. Unützer J,
    2. Katon W,
    3. Callahan CM
    , IMPACT Investigators. Improving Mood-Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatmentet al. Collaborative care management of late-life depression in the primary care setting: a randomized controlled trial. Jama 2002;288:2836–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    AIMS Center. Collaborative Care. University of Washington. Available at: https://aims.uw.edu/collaborative-care. Published 2021. Accessed June 22, 2022.
  24. 24.↵
    1. Waxmonsky J,
    2. Auxier A,
    3. Wise-Romero P,
    4. Heath B
    . Integrated practice tool assessment (IPAT). Available at: https://www.integratedcareconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/D4_Handout.pdf. Published 2014. Accessed May 5, 2022.
  25. 25.↵
    1. Samhsa H
    . A standard framework for levels of integrated healthcare. SAMHSA-HRSA Center for Integrated Health Solutions. Available at: https://www.pcpcc.org/sites/default/files/resources/SAMHSA-HRSA%202013%20Framework%20for%20Levels%20of%20Integrated%20Healthcare.pdf. Published 2013. Accessed February 2023, 2023.
  26. 26.↵
    1. Singer M,
    2. Baer H
    . Introducing medical anthropology: a discipline in action. 2nd ed. Lanham: AltaMira Press; 2011.
  27. 27.↵
    1. Patton M
    . Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 1990.
  28. 28.↵
    1. Hall J,
    2. Cohen DJ,
    3. Davis M,
    4. et al
    . Preparing the workforce for behavioral health and primary care integration. J Am Board Fam Med 2015;28 Suppl 1:S41–51.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    1. Blasi PR,
    2. Cromp D,
    3. McDonald S,
    4. et al
    . Approaches to behavioral health integration at high performing primary care practices. J Am Board Fam Med 2018;31:691–701.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Shmerling AC,
    2. Gold SB,
    3. Gilchrist EC,
    4. Miller BF
    . Integrating behavioral health and primary care: a qualitative analysis of financial barriers and solutions. Transl Behav Med 2020;10:648–56.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    1. Jacobs C,
    2. Brieler JA,
    3. Salas J,
    4. Betancourt RM,
    5. Cronholm PF
    . Integrated behavioral health care in family medicine residencies: a CERA survey. Fam Med 2018;50:380–4.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    1. Raney L,
    2. Williams M,
    3. Gibson P,
    4. Salter T
    . Consultative approaches to leveraging the psychiatric workforce for larger populations in need of psychiatric expertise. Psychiatr Serv 2020;71:1084–7.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    1. Yin I,
    2. Staab EM,
    3. Beckman N,
    4. et al
    . Improving primary care behavioral health integration in an academic internal medicine practice: 2-year follow-up. Am J Med Qual 2021;36:379–86.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    1. Hill JM
    . Behavioral health integration: transforming patient care, medical resident education, and physician effectiveness. Int J Psychiatry Med 2015;50:36–49.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Landoll RR,
    2. Maggio LA,
    3. Cervero RM,
    4. Quinlan JD
    . Training the doctors: a scoping review of interprofessional education in primary care behavioral health (PCBH). J Clin Psychol Med Settings 2019;26:243–58.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    1. Landoll RR,
    2. Cervero RM,
    3. Quinlan JD,
    4. Maggio LA
    . Primary care behavioral health training in family medicine residencies: a qualitative study from a large health care system. Fam Med 2020;52:174–81.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    1. Balasubramanian BA,
    2. Cohen DJ,
    3. Jetelina KK,
    4. et al
    . Outcomes of integrated behavioral health with primary care. J Am Board Fam Med 2017;30:130–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Hine JF,
    2. Grennan AQ,
    3. Menousek KM,
    4. Robertson G,
    5. Valleley RJ,
    6. Evans JH
    . Physician satisfaction with integrated behavioral health in pediatric primary care. J Prim Care Community Health 2017;8:89–93.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Wray JM,
    2. Coulon S,
    3. Wong N,
    4. Szafranski D,
    5. Gros DF
    . A single integrated behavioral health appointment improves patients' perceptions of behavioral health treatment. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord 2019;21:
  40. 40.↵
    1. Nutting R,
    2. Ofei-Dodoo S,
    3. Wipperman J,
    4. Allen AD
    . Assessing family medicine physicians' perceptions of integrated behavioral health in a primary care residency. Fam Med 2022;54:389–94.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    1. Archer J,
    2. Bower P,
    3. Gilbody S,
    4. et al
    . Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;10:Cd006525.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Davis MM,
    2. Gunn R,
    3. Gowen LK,
    4. Miller BF,
    5. Green LA,
    6. Cohen DJ
    . A qualitative study of patient experiences of care in integrated behavioral health and primary care settings: more similar than different. Transl Behav Med 2018;8:649–59.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Levine S,
    2. Unützer J,
    3. Yip JY,
    4. et al
    . Physicians' satisfaction with a collaborative disease management program for late-life depression in primary care. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2005;27:383–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Prom MC,
    2. Canelos V,
    3. Fernandez PJ,
    4. et al
    . Implementation of integrated behavioral health care in a large medical center: benefits, challenges, and recommendations. J Behav Health Serv Res 2021;48:346–62.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    1. Grazier KL,
    2. Smith JE,
    3. Song J,
    4. Smiley ML
    . Integration of depression and primary care: barriers to adoption. J Prim Care Community Health 2014;5:67–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Muse AR,
    2. Lamson AL,
    3. Didericksen KW,
    4. Hodgson JL,
    5. Schoemann AM
    . Clinical, operational, and financial evaluation practices in integrated behavioral health care. Fam Syst Health 2022;40:312–21.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    1. Blount A,
    2. James F,
    3. Nordstrom A,
    4. Pearson P
    . Who will provide integrated care? Assessing the workforce for the integration of behavioral health and primary care in New Hampshire. Antioch University New England, Center for Behavioral Health Innovation, Endowment for Health.
  48. 48.↵
    1. Cunningham PJ
    . Beyond parity: primary care physicians' perspectives on access to mental health care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009;28:w490–501.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Unützer J,
    2. Chan YF,
    3. Hafer E,
    4. et al
    . Quality improvement with pay-for-performance incentives in integrated behavioral health care. Am J Public Health 2012;102:e41-45–e45.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    1. Monson SP,
    2. Sheldon JC,
    3. Ivey LC,
    4. Kinman CR,
    5. Beacham AO
    . Working toward financial sustainability of integrated behavioral health services in a public health care system. Fam Syst Health 2012;30:181–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Muse AR,
    2. Lamson AL,
    3. Didericksen KW,
    4. Hodgson JL
    . A systematic review of evaluation research in integrated behavioral health care: operational and financial characteristics. Fam Syst Health 2017;35:136–54.
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.↵
    1. Miller BF,
    2. Ross KM,
    3. Davis MM,
    4. Melek SP,
    5. Kathol R,
    6. Gordon P
    . Payment reform in the patient-centered medical home: enabling and sustaining integrated behavioral health care. Am Psychol 2017;72:55–68.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. 53.↵
    1. Funderburk JS,
    2. Fielder RL,
    3. DeMartini KS,
    4. Flynn CA
    . Integrating behavioral health services into a university health center: patient and provider satisfaction. Fam Syst Health 2012;30:130–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Eaves ER,
    2. Williamson HJ,
    3. Sanderson KC,
    4. Elwell K,
    5. Trotter RT,
    6. Baldwin JA
    . Integrating behavioral and primary health care in rural clinics: what does culture have to do with it? J Health Care Poor Underserved 2020;31:201–17.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    1. Hemming P,
    2. Hewitt A,
    3. Gallo JJ,
    4. Kessler R,
    5. Levine RB
    . Residents' confidence providing primary care with behavioral health integration. Fam Med 2017;49:361–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Hemming P,
    2. Levine RB,
    3. Gallo JJ
    . “Conversational advice”: a mixed-methods analysis of medical residents' experiences co-managing primary care patients with behavioral health providers. Patient Educ Couns 2018;101:85–91.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    1. Zubatsky M,
    2. Brieler J,
    3. Jacobs C
    . Training experiences of family medicine residents on behavioral health rotations. Fam Med 2017;49:635–9.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 36 (6)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 36, Issue 6
November-December 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
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 American Board 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.
Integrated Behavioral Health Implementation and Training in Primary Care: A Practice-Based Research Network Study
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board 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.
14 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Integrated Behavioral Health Implementation and Training in Primary Care: A Practice-Based Research Network Study
Melissa K. Filippi, Jeanette A. Waxmonsky, Mark D. Williams, Elise Robertson, Chyke Doubeni, Christina M. Hester, Andrea Nederveld
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Nov 2023, 36 (6) 1008-1019; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2023.230067R2

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Integrated Behavioral Health Implementation and Training in Primary Care: A Practice-Based Research Network Study
Melissa K. Filippi, Jeanette A. Waxmonsky, Mark D. Williams, Elise Robertson, Chyke Doubeni, Christina M. Hester, Andrea Nederveld
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Nov 2023, 36 (6) 1008-1019; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2023.230067R2
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Successful Implementation of Integrated Behavioral Health
  • Identifying and Addressing Social Determinants of Health with an Electronic Health Record
  • Integrating Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Risks Screening in Adult Primary Care
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Family Medicine
  • Integrated Behavioral Health
  • Integrated Delivery Systems
  • Patient Care Team
  • Residency
  • Practice-based Research
  • Primary Health Care
  • Qualitative Research

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire