Paediatric integrated care in the primary care setting: A scoping review of populations served, models used and outcomes measured. (28th March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: McLeigh, Jill D.; Malthaner, Lauren; Winebrenner, Caitlin; Stone, Kimberly E.
• Is Part Of: Child care health and development. Volume 48:Number 5(2022)
• Page Start: 869
• Page End: 879
• Publication Date: 2022-03-28
• Subjects: behavioural health -- collaborative care -- co‐located care -- integrated care -- paediatrics -- primary care; Child development -- Periodicals; Child care -- Periodicals; Children -- Health and hygiene -- Periodicals; Children with disabilities -- Periodicals; 155.405
• DOI: 10.1111/cch.13000
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0305-1862

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Paediatric integrated care (PIC), which involves primary care and behavioural health clinicians working together with patients and families, has been promoted as a best practice in the provision of care. In this context, behavioural health includes behavioural elements in the care of mental health and substance abuse conditions, chronic illness and physical symptoms associated with stress, and addressing health behaviours. Models of and contexts in which PIC has been applied vary, as do the outcomes and measures used to determine its value. Thus, this study seeks to better understand (1) what paediatric subpopulations are receiving integrated care, (2) which models of PIC are being studied, (3) what PIC outcomes are being explored and what measures and strategies are being used to assess those outcomes, and (4) whether the various models are resulting in positive outcomes. These questions have significant policy and clinical implications, given current national‐ and state‐level efforts aimed at promoting integrated health care. Methods: This study utilized Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews to identify relevant articles published between January 1994 and 30 June 2020. The search utilized three databases: PubMed, PsycInfo and CINAHL. A total of 28 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Results: Overall, acceptability of PIC appears to be high for patients and providers, with access, screening and engagement generally increasing. However, several gaps in the knowledge base on PIC were uncovered, and for some studies, ascertaining which models of integrated care were being implemented proved difficult. Conclusion: PIC has the potential to improve access to and quality of behavioural health care, but more research is needed to understand what models of PIC prove most beneficial and which policies and conditions promote cost efficiency. Rigorous evaluation of patient outcomes, provider training, institutional buy‐in and system‐level changes are needed.