Outcomes of a Statewide Learning Collaborative to Implement Mental Health Services in Pediatric Primary Care
Abstract
Objective:
Mental health concerns are common in pediatric primary care, but practitioners report low levels of comfort managing them. A primary care intervention addressing organizational and individual factors was developed to improve the management of common mental health conditions.
Methods:
Twenty-nine practices participated in a statewide learning collaborative over 18 months. On-site training was used to teach communication and brief intervention skills and develop an organizational context supportive of mental health. Clinician confidence was measured pre- and postintervention. Medicaid claims data were used to estimate the intervention’s effects on identification of mental health conditions and prescribing practices.
Results:
Mean clinician confidence scores increased by 20% (95% confidence interval [CI]=15% to 25%), from 2.92 at baseline to 3.55 postintervention. In the first month of the preintervention year, 6.65% of patients with an office visit had at least one visit for a mental health condition, rising to 9% postintervention; this trend was driven by detection and treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Rates of prescribing ADHD medication to patients with visits for ADHD increased by 0.12 percentage points per month (CI=0.02 to 0.22, p=0.022). Rates of prescribing second-generation antipsychotics to all patients with office visits decreased by 0.014 percentage points per month (CI=–.03 to –.00, p=0.028), relative to preintervention trends.
Conclusions:
This study suggests that a multicomponent intervention addressing individual staff and organizational factors together can promote identification and treatment of child mental health conditions in primary care. Future research is required to better understand the core components, impact on health outcomes, and sustainability.
HIGHLIGHTS
•
A statewide learning collaborative designed to promote identification and treatment of child mental health conditions in primary care led to increases in clinician confidence and higher rates of mental health office visits, largely driven by increases in ADHD care.
•
Prescribing patterns also improved, with a greater proportion of children with ADHD receiving an indicated medication and a lower proportion of children overall receiving an antipsychotic medication.
Pediatric primary care clinicians (PPCCs) are in a unique position to address common mental health conditions but feel unprepared to do so (1, 2). Despite increased emphasis on primary care and mental health integration, a recent survey of American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) members found limited improvement in the care of common mental health conditions over the past decade (3). Even when PPCCs wish to provide mental health care, they can be limited by varying organizational readiness levels (4), implementation challenges (5), and financial disincentives (6). National and regional shortages in pediatric mental health providers further compound this issue (7).
Several efforts to improve mental health services in pediatric primary care have been developed, yet not fully disseminated, and vary both in modality and complexity. Some interventions, including communication skills training (8, 9) and telephone consultation models (10, 11), primarily target individual practitioners. Technology has been used to obtain parent and teacher feedback and to better standardize attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) care (10). Specialty mental health providers have been successfully colocated in pediatric practices, increasing access to and effectiveness of care (12). However, evaluations of some of these programs, and evidence from child welfare and child mental health service settings, have suggested that sustainable changes in clinicians’ behavior require changes in the organizational context in which they practice (13–16).
The Ohio Building Mental Wellness (BMW) learning collaborative was implemented as a statewide intervention to improve the quality of mental health care delivered by PPCCs. A primary goal of the initial program was to reduce unnecessary second-generation antipsychotic medication prescribing after observed increases in Ohio Medicaid and other pediatric populations (17). Pediatric practices involved in BMW’s first learning collaborative (referred to here as waves 1 and 2) received clinician-focused didactic training and showed modest improvements in mental health screening but no changes in second-generation antipsychotic prescribing, as assessed by using a pre-post comparison (18). BMW wave 3 used concepts from organizational-behavior theory to target improvements in care at both the individual practitioner and whole practice levels. This theory suggests that organizational context—the workplace environments and interorganizational networks in which primary care staff operate—can affect the ability of individuals in the organization to change their behavior (19–22). We previously found that practices with more positive organizational contexts for mental health at baseline achieved greater uptake of program activities (16). In this study, we evaluated intervention effects on PPCCs’ confidence with mental health communication and brief intervention skills, case identification, and prescribing practices for common mental health conditions. We aimed to increase mental health-related office visits and PPCC prescribing for anxiety, depression, and ADHD and reduce PPCC prescribing of second-generation antipsychotic medications.
Methods
BMW Wave 3 Intervention
BMW wave 3 was administered by the AAP Ohio chapter from October 2013 through May 2015. Although components of its evaluation were approved as human subjects research (Nationwide Children’s Hospital Institutional Review Board [IRB] 13–00397), the project was designed as a quality improvement program in which all practices participated in the intervention. Program activities were based upon AAP core competencies (23) and communication and brief intervention skills that can be delivered in primary care (24). The implementation team included physician leaders, AAP chapter staff, and research staff. Ohio AAP recruited practices by circulating information at meetings and through mailings. Interested practices participated in an informational call to learn more about BMW prior to enrollment. Participating practices, required to have at least 20% of their patients covered by Medicaid, enrolled in one of three groups over an 18-month period, with group start times staggered to allow the implementation team to dedicate adequate time to each practice.
The collaborative was based on the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s modified Breakthrough Series (25) and began with a regional, daylong learning session, followed by three Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles and monthly action period calls. BMW team members conducted four interactive trainings on-site at each practice. Staff in all roles attended the first training session, which addressed the motivation for addressing mental health, the collaborative care model, and core communication skills related to engaging families (8). Three clinically oriented trainings addressed additional skills to support effective communication and management of depression, focusing also on brief interventions that could be used in primary care. PPCCs participated with a BMW staff member in informal role-playing, providing an opportunity for skills practice. Participants had access to 11 online mental health learning modules; completion of the psychotropic medication module was recommended. Additional content was reinforced and reviewed during monthly action period calls.
Staff completed a survey on organizational context and attitudes relating to mental health before the first learning session and after BMW. Results were provided in aggregate and benchmarked with other practices. Practices submitted monthly reports on program uptake, operationalized as a score representing activity completion in five categories: resources, referral tracking, mental health promotion and screening, practice-based interventions, and mental health integration. Each activity was rated on a 4-point scale, with 1 indicating no changes begun; 2, changes being tested; 3, improvements implemented; and 4, fully implemented/sustained. Activity ratings were summed, and practices were assigned a continuous score based upon their degree of implementation. When all activities in a category were completed, a practice received a “star” on the BMW star recognition system. [A description of the BMW star recognition program is available as an online supplement to this article.]
Clinician Confidence
Clinician confidence was assessed by using a survey developed by the implementation team and revised by nonparticipating PPCCs to establish face validity. Confidence was measured on a scale of 1, very confident, to 4, not at all confident, obtained by averaging ratings across 21 Likert-type, self-rated survey items. Scores were reverse-coded so that higher scores represent greater confidence. At the first site visit (baseline), PPCCs rated their confidence using communication strategies for engaging children and families and their ability to deliver brief interventions for symptoms of anxiety, disruptive behavior, or depression. Clinicians rated the same items in a separate survey one year later at postintervention.
We modeled clinician confidence as a function of time, where baseline is the reference to which postintervention is compared. The log of the total confidence score was regressed on time by using a linear (mixed-effects) model with random intercepts for practices and clinicians and random slopes for clinicians. This model addresses violation of the assumption that variation in baseline and follow-up measures are the same. We also measured the correlation between change in clinician confidence and program uptake. The relationship was expected to be positive if the intervention itself enhanced confidence. A Pearson correlation coefficient was computed to assess this relationship.
Mental Health Office Visits and Prescribing Practices
We obtained deidentified Medicaid office visit (ICD-9) and pharmacy claims data from the Ohio Colleges of Medicine Government Resource Center for each BMW clinician for the 12 months before, 18 months during, and 12 months after participation in the learning collaborative. For all children and youths having at least one visit with a BMW clinician in a given month, we assessed the proportion whose office visit was for any mental health condition and the proportion whose office visit was specifically for ADHD, anxiety or depression, or disruptive behavior disorder. Mental health visits were defined by the presence of any related ICD-9 code, not limited to primary diagnosis [see online supplement ]. Eligible office visits included those for patients who met any Medicaid eligibility criteria and who were younger than 18 at the start of the reporting month. We analyzed Medicaid claims data to assess monthly prescribing practices. For all children and youths having at least one visit with a BMW clinician in a given month, we analyzed the proportion prescribed one of the following classes of medications by a BMW clinician during the month of or following their visit (to capture prescriptions not filled immediately): second-generation antipsychotic medications; stimulants, atomoxetine, and alpha agonists, which are commonly prescribed for ADHD; and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which are commonly prescribed for anxiety or depression.
To assess changes in rates of mental health office visits and prescribing over time, we conducted interrupted time-series analyses for single group comparison. This quasi-experimental method of analysis has been recommended for quality improvement research where randomization is not feasible and where there are multiple observations of an outcome reported at an aggregate level (26, 27). Analyses were conducted using the statistical analysis software Stata (28), and we employed the itsa command for time series (29).
Results
BMW Wave 3 Participation and Uptake
Twenty-nine hospital-, school-, and other community-based pediatric primary care practices participated in the learning collaborative. Three additional practices dropped out, two prior to the start and one after the start of the collaborative, as described in greater detail by King and colleagues (16). Practices cited workload and IRB issues as reasons for dropout. Characteristics of participating practices are presented in Table 1. All but three practices reported accepting uninsured patients, and all practices accepted publicly insured patients (on average, 57% of patients were enrolled in Medicaid; range 25%−98%). Eleven of the 29 practices were school-based health centers (SBHCs) from one metropolitan area. The remaining practices were in urban (N=6), suburban (N=8), and rural (N=4) areas. Each of the 18 non-SBHCs served on average 314 patients per week (range 75–775) and had, on average, 15 staff members (range 6– 45), six of whom were pediatricians or nurse practitioners (range 2–30). Half (N=9) reported having one or more mental health specialists (psychiatrist, psychologist, counselor, or social worker) colocated at least part time. SBHCs in schools with the same range of grades pooled their data, yielding three groups. This had implications for analysis, which was conducted on 21 practice clusters.
| Characteristic | N | % |
|---|---|---|
| Site | ||
| School-based health center | 11 | 40 |
| Urban | 6 | 21 |
| Suburban | 8 | 28 |
| Rural | 4 | 14 |
| Accepts uninsured patients | 26 | 90 |
| Accepts publicly insured patients | 29 | 100 |
| Affiliated with a health system | 22 | 76 |
| Accountable care organization member | 3 | 10 |
| NCQA-certified patient-centered medical homea | 3 | 10 |
| Past quality improvement experience | 22 | 76 |
| Past mental health–related quality improvement experience | 4 | 14 |
| Electronic health record | 3 | 10 |
a
NCQA, National Committee for Quality Assurance.
Uptake was, on average, high but variable across practices, with an average continuous star score of 62 (range 53– 68) and an average of three stars per practice (range 1– 5). The BMW team conducted 71 site visits, and 44 of 72 clinicians at BMW-participating practices completed at least one of the 11 online modules, with a total of 122 completed modules and an average of three completed modules per participant.
Clinician Confidence
Clinician confidence surveys were completed by 52 of 72 clinicians at BMW-participating practices at baseline and again postintervention. Based on the linear mixed-effects model of total confidence scores with no covariates and a random intercept for practice, average total confidence score at the first site visit across practices was 2.92 out of 4.00 points (CI=2.8 to 3.1). Clinician confidence increased over the course of the on-site trainings by an average of 20% (CI=15% to 25%) to 3.55 postintervention. This corresponds to an average increase of 0.63 points (CI=0.47 to 0.79), moving from a mean response of “somewhat” to “very” confident in addressing mental health communication and brief intervention skills. As hypothesized, there was also a positive correlation between BMW uptake and change in practice-mean clinician confidence from baseline to postintervention (N=17; r=0.66, p=0.004).
Rates of Mental Health–Related Visits
Figure 1 displays the actual rates and trends of mental health–related visits among patients seen by BMW clinicians before, during, and after the intervention. Among unique Medicaid patients who visited a BMW clinician in the first month of the year prior to the start of the intervention, 6.65% (N=316 of 4,752 patients) did so for a mental health condition, a percentage that increased significantly every month thereafter by 0.14 points (CI=0.05 to 0.23; p=0.003). There was no significant change in this trend after the start of BMW, but there was a significant (p=0.011) leveling out at 9% that coincided with the conclusion of the four on-site training sessions. In the months following the conclusion of BMW, the proportion of patients with mental health–related visits leveled out at about 9%.
FIGURE 1. Proportion of patients with at least one mental health–related visit before, during, and after Building Mental Wellness (BMW), by montha
aSingle-group interrupted time-series analysis with Newey-West standard errors and one lag. The intervention began at month 0. Proportions are based on all patients with an office visit to a BMW clinician in the same month.
The positive trend in rates of mental health–related visits among patients seen by BMW clinicians was largely driven by growth in visits with a diagnosis of ADHD. Among patients with office visits in the first month of observation (a year prior to the start of BMW), 5.11% were seen for ADHD (N=243 of 4,752 patients). This rate increased significantly every month prior to BMW by 0.08 points (CI=0.02 to 0.14; p=.011). Increases in rates of patients with ADHD-related visits after the start of BMW were not significantly different from what would be expected given the preintervention trend. The increase continued during and postintervention, with the proportion of patients who were seen for ADHD in a month approaching 7% for 2 years following the start of BMW (Figure 2). Office visits for anxiety and depression and disruptive behavior pertained to a smaller number of children and youths (average of 60 and 45 patients per month, respectively) compared with ADHD (266 patients per month) or any mental health diagnosis (348 patients per month). While the per-month proportion of patients having office visits for anxiety/depression or disruptive behavior disorder also trended upward, from less than 1% one year prior to the start of BMW to between 1% and 2% after BMW, we found no evidence of an intervention effect.
FIGURE 2. Proportion of patients with at least one ADHD-related visit before and after Building Mental Wellness (BMW), by montha
aSingle-group interrupted time-series analysis with Newey-West standard errors and five lags. The intervention began at month 0. Proportions are based on all patients with an office visit to a BMW clinician in the same month.
Prescribing Practices
Rates of SSRI and ADHD medication prescribing for all patients did not change significantly over time. However, trends in ADHD medication prescribing did change following the start of BMW for those patients diagnosed as having ADHD. The proportion of patients with an ADHD office visit who were prescribed a stimulant, atomoxetine, or alpha agonist by a BMW-participating clinician was just under 60% at the start of BMW. Prescribing rates for ADHD medications to patients with ADHD visits increased significantly by 0.12 percentage points per month (CI=0.02 to 0.22; p=0.022), relative to the preintervention trend, rising to 62% in month 24—2 years following the start of BMW (Figure 3).
FIGURE 3. Proportion of patients with ADHD-related visits who were prescribed a stimulant, atomoxetine, or alpha agonist before and after Building Mental Wellness (BMW), by montha
aSingle-group interrupted time-series analysis with Newey-West standard errors and zero lag. The intervention began at month 0. Proportions are based on all patients with an ADHD-related office visit to a BMW clinician in the same month.
Trends in second-generation antipsychotic prescribing also changed significantly following the start of BMW. Among patients with an office visit in the first month of the year prior to the start of BMW, 0.40% were prescribed a second-generation antipsychotic by a BMW-participating clinician. This rate approached 0.50% in the month just prior to the start of BMW. Following the start of the intervention, there was a significant decrease in the monthly trend of second-generation antipsychotic prescribing of 0.014 percentage points per month (CI=–0.03 to –0.00; p=0.028), relative to the preintervention trend (Figure 4). In addition, there was a shift in the diagnoses associated with second-generation antipsychotic prescribing. Among patients with visits for a mental health condition in the 12 months prior to BMW, 74.1% of second-generation antipsychotic prescribing followed an office visit for ADHD and anxiety or depression. In the 12 months postintervention, this proportion decreased significantly to 61.6% (p=0.001).
FIGURE 4. Proportion of patients who were prescribed a second-generation antipsychotic before and after Building Mental Wellness (BMW), by montha
aSingle-group interrupted time-series analysis with Newey-West standard errors and five lags. The intervention began at month 0. Proportions are based on all patients with an office visit to a BMW clinician in the same month.
Discussion
This study suggests that an intervention addressing individual staff and organizational factors in tandem may be effective in improving the implementation and quality of mental health services in pediatric primary care. PPCCs reported increased confidence in addressing mental health and conducted higher rates of mental health office visits, largely driven by increases in ADHD-related office visits. Prescribing patterns also improved: a greater proportion of children with ADHD received an indicated medication, the overall proportion of children receiving an antipsychotic decreased, and a greater proportion of these prescriptions were for potentially indicated conditions such as autism and bipolar disorder. A decrease of 0.014 percentage points per month is small but significant when one considers national data: The percentage of children and youths in the United States using antipsychotics is estimated to be between 0.14% and 0.11% for young children, 0.85% and 0.80% for older children, and 1.10% and 1.19% for adolescents (30).
Several authors have developed interventions to support identification of mental health conditions and to improve the practices of prescribing psychotropic medication in pediatric primary care. These interventions have included second opinions for ADHD prescribing outside of safety parameters (31) and telephone consultation, more generally (32). The Ohio Department of Medicaid established a collaborative targeting high prescribers (pediatricians and psychiatrists) to reduce pediatric antipsychotic prescribing (33). Participating pediatricians demonstrated improvement in prescribing two or more concomitant antipsychotics, which decreased significantly over time. Both pediatricians and psychiatrists cited difficulties linking patients with timely psychosocial services and identifying community resources as important barriers to reducing antipsychotic prescribing. BMW wave 3 differed from other interventions and from earlier waves because of its focus on effecting changes in the skills of clinical and nonclinical staff and practices’ organizational contexts (workplace environments and interorganizational networks) for mental health care. In earlier waves, a lecture format was used to teach clinician skills, and reductions in second-generation antipsychotic prescribing were not observed. Previous wave 3 qualitative analysis suggests that all-staff participation was important in facilitating uptake of the BMW intervention and enhancing the organizational context in which services are rendered (34). These findings are consistent with the adult collaborative care literature, which has demonstrated that change in organizational climate and culture is required before collaborative care can be implemented (35).
There were several important limitations to this study. It was likely that these practices represent early adopters and results may not be generalizable. The quasi-experimental design was another limitation, given that we could not control for regression to the mean or the potential existence of larger system-level influences occurring at the same time as the intervention (36), although the “leveling out” of the positive trend in mental health visits after the intervention provides some support of an intervention effect. Only data for Medicaid-enrolled patients who visited BMW practices could be used because of the study design, and patients from nonparticipating practices (a potential comparison group) could not be included in our analyses. Although our measures are clinically appropriate, we were unable to validate the accuracy of diagnoses or quality of prescribing practices.
Conclusions
The findings suggest that a complex intervention addressing individual and organizational factors in tandem may be effective in improving the quality of mental health services offered in pediatric primary care. Research is needed to identify core intervention components and how organizational context may mediate or moderate intermediate outcomes (e.g., staff attitudes toward mental health). Additional areas of exploration include clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and scalability of learning collaborative models and complex interventions for primary care and mental health integration more generally.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the project’s participants; John Duby, M.D. for leadership and innovation; and Dushka Crane, Ph.D., and Lorin Ranbom of the Ohio Colleges of Medicine Government Resource Center for assistance.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ps.201800163.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 101.02 KB
References
1.
Boreman CD, Thomasgard MC, Fernandez SA, et al: Resident training in developmental/behavioral pediatrics: where do we stand? Clin Pediatr 2007; 46:135–145
2.
Green C, Hampton E, Ward MJ, et al: The current and ideal state of mental health training: pediatric program director perspectives. Acad Pediatr 2014; 14:526–532
3.
Stein REK, Storfer-Isser A, Kerker BD, et al: Beyond ADHD: how well are we doing? Acad Pediatr 2016; 16:115–121
4.
Chang ET, Rose DE, Yano EM, et al: Determinants of readiness for primary care–mental health integration (PC-MHI) in the VA health care system. J Gen Intern Med 2013; 28:353–362
5.
Nembhard IM, Alexander JA, Hoff TJ, et al: Why does the quality of health care continue to lag? Insights from management research. Acad Manag Perspect 2009; 23:24–42
6.
Meadows T, Valleley R, Haack MK, et al: Physician “costs” in providing behavioral health in primary care. Clin Pediatr 2011; 50:447–455
7.
Thomas CR, Holzer CE III: The continuing shortage of child and adolescent psychiatrists. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2006; 45:1023–1031
8.
Wissow L, Gadomski A, Roter D, et al: Aspects of mental health communication skills training that predict parent and child outcomes in pediatric primary care. Patient Educ Couns 2011; 82:226–232
9.
Wissow LS, Gadomski A, Roter D, et al: Improving child and parent mental health in primary care: a cluster-randomized trial of communication skills training. Pediatrics 2008; 121:266–275
10.
Epstein JN, Rabiner D, Johnson DE, et al: Improving attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder treatment outcomes through use of a collaborative consultation treatment service by community-based pediatricians: a cluster randomized trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2007; 161:835–840
11.
Sarvet B, Gold J, Bostic JQ, et al: Improving access to mental health care for children: the Massachusetts Child Psychiatry Access Project. Pediatrics 2010; 126:1191–1200
12.
Kolko DJ, Campo J, Kilbourne AM, et al: Collaborative care outcomes for pediatric behavioral health problems: a cluster randomized trial. Pediatrics 2014; 133:e981–e992
13.
Gadomski AM, Wissow LS, Palinkas L, et al: Encouraging and sustaining integration of child mental health into primary care: interviews with primary care providers participating in Project TEACH (CAPES and CAP PC) in NY. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2014; 36:555–562
14.
Richardson L, McCauley E, Katon W: Collaborative care for adolescent depression: a pilot study. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2009; 31:36–45
15.
Glisson C, Hemmelgarn A, Green P, et al: Randomized trial of the Availability, Responsiveness and Continuity (ARC) organizational intervention for improving youth outcomes in community mental health programs. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2013; 52:493–500
16.
King MA, Wissow LS, Baum RA: The role of organizational context in the implementation of a statewide initiative to integrate mental health services into pediatric primary care. Health Care Manage Rev, 2018; 43:206–217
17.
Fontanella CA, Warner LA, Phillips GS, et al: Trends in psychotropic polypharmacy among youths enrolled in Ohio Medicaid, 2002–2008. Psychiatric Serv 2014; 65:1332–1340
18.
Baum RA, Manda D, Anzeljc SA, et al: A learning collaborative to improve mental health service delivery in pediatric primary care. Pediatr Qual Saf 2018 (doi 10.1097/pq9.0000000000000119)
19.
Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM: Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Ment Health 2011; 38:4–23
20.
Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, et al: Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009; 4:50
21.
Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, et al: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004; 82:581–629
22.
Kadu MK, Stolee P: Facilitators and barriers of implementing the chronic care model in primary care: a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract 2015; 16:12
23.
Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health and Task Force on Mental Health: Policy statement–the future of pediatrics: mental health competencies for pediatric primary care. Pediatrics 2009; 124:410–421
24.
Brown JD, Wissow LS: Rethinking the mental health treatment skills of primary care staff: a framework for training and research. Adm Policy Ment Health 2012; 39:489–502
25.
The Breakthrough Series: IHI’s Collaborative Model for Achieving Breakthrough Improvement. Boston, Institute for Healthcare Improvement, 2003
26.
Kontopantelis E, Doran T, Springate DA, et al: Regression based quasi-experimental approach when randomisation is not an option: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ 2015; 350:h2750
27.
Penfold RB, Zhang F: Use of interrupted time series analysis in evaluating health care quality improvements. Acad Pediatr 2013; 13(suppl):S38–S44
28.
StataCorp: Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station, TX, StataCorp LP, 2011
29.
Linden A: Conducting interrupted time-series analysis for single- and multiple-group comparisons. Stata J 2015; 15:480–500
30.
Olfson M, King M, Schoenbaum M: Treatment of young people with antipsychotic medications in the United States. JAMA Psychiatry 2015; 72:867–874
31.
Thompson JN, Varley CK, McClellan J, et al: Second opinions improve ADHD prescribing in a Medicaid-insured community population. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2009; 48:740–748
32.
Straus JH, Sarvet B: Behavioral health care for children: the Massachusetts Child Psychiatry Access Project. Health Aff 2014; 33:2153–2161
33.
Thackeray J, Crane D, Sorter M, et al: A Medicaid quality improvement collaborative on psychotropic medication prescribing for children. Psychiatr Serv 2018; 69:501–504
34.
King MA: The Role of Organizational Context in the Implementation of Mental Health Services in Pediatric Primary Care: Concepts, Mechanisms, and Intervention. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University, 2016
35.
Kilbourne AM, Goodrich DE, Nord KM, et al: Long-term clinical outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of two implementation strategies to promote collaborative care attendance in community practices. Adm Policy Ment Health 2015; 42:642–653
36.
Harris AD, McGregor JC, Perencevich EN, et al: The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in medical informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13:16–23
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Cover: XXXX
History
Received: 1 April 2018
Revision received: 1 September 2018
Accepted: 4 October 2018
Published online: 10 December 2018
Published in print: February 01, 2019
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Funding Information
Ohio Medicaid Technical Assistance and Policy Program:
National Institute of Mental Health: P20MH086048
This project was supported by the Ohio Colleges of Medicine Government Resource Center with funding from the Ohio Department of Health and the Ohio Department of Medicaid. This research was additionally supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant P20MH086048 (Center for Mental Health Services in Pediatric Primary Care).Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).