Associations Between Patient Comfort with a Primary Care Provider and Three Measures of Behavioral Health Services Utilization.

IF 2 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Brenda Robles, Hannah Kwak, Tony Kuo
{"title":"Associations Between Patient Comfort with a Primary Care Provider and Three Measures of Behavioral Health Services Utilization.","authors":"Brenda Robles, Hannah Kwak, Tony Kuo","doi":"10.1007/s12529-024-10259-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Behavioral health services (BHS) can help improve and treat mental and emotional health problems. Yet, attitudinal and/or structural barriers often prevent individuals from accessing and benefiting from these services. Positive provider-patient interactions in healthcare, encompassing patient comfort with a primary care provider (PCP), which is often enhanced by shared decision-making, may mitigate the stigma associated with seeing a mental health professional; this may improve BHS utilization among patients who need these services. However, few studies have examined how patient comfort with a PCP, often through shared decision-making, may influence patients' BHS utilization in the real world. This study sought to address this gap in practice.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Multivariable regression analyses, using weighted data from an internet panel survey of Los Angeles County adults (n = 749), were carried out to examine the associations between patient comfort with a PCP and three measures of BHS utilization. Subsequent analyses were conducted to explore the extent to which shared decision-making moderated these associations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants who reported an intermediate or high comfort level with a provider had higher odds of reporting that they were likely to see (aOR = 2.10 and 3.84, respectively) and get advice (aOR = 2.75 and 4.76, respectively) from a mental health professional compared to participants who reported a low comfort level. Although shared decision-making influenced participants' likelihood of seeing and getting advice from a mental health professional, it was not a statistically significant moderator in these associations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Building stronger relationships with patients may improve BHS utilization, a provider practice that is likely underutilized.</p>","PeriodicalId":54208,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Behavioral Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-024-10259-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Behavioral health services (BHS) can help improve and treat mental and emotional health problems. Yet, attitudinal and/or structural barriers often prevent individuals from accessing and benefiting from these services. Positive provider-patient interactions in healthcare, encompassing patient comfort with a primary care provider (PCP), which is often enhanced by shared decision-making, may mitigate the stigma associated with seeing a mental health professional; this may improve BHS utilization among patients who need these services. However, few studies have examined how patient comfort with a PCP, often through shared decision-making, may influence patients' BHS utilization in the real world. This study sought to address this gap in practice.

Method: Multivariable regression analyses, using weighted data from an internet panel survey of Los Angeles County adults (n = 749), were carried out to examine the associations between patient comfort with a PCP and three measures of BHS utilization. Subsequent analyses were conducted to explore the extent to which shared decision-making moderated these associations.

Results: Participants who reported an intermediate or high comfort level with a provider had higher odds of reporting that they were likely to see (aOR = 2.10 and 3.84, respectively) and get advice (aOR = 2.75 and 4.76, respectively) from a mental health professional compared to participants who reported a low comfort level. Although shared decision-making influenced participants' likelihood of seeing and getting advice from a mental health professional, it was not a statistically significant moderator in these associations.

Conclusion: Building stronger relationships with patients may improve BHS utilization, a provider practice that is likely underutilized.

患者与初级保健提供者之间的舒适度与行为健康服务利用率的三个衡量指标之间的关系。
背景:行为健康服务(BHS)有助于改善和治疗心理和情绪健康问题。然而,态度上和/或结构上的障碍往往会阻碍个人获得这些服务并从中受益。医疗保健中提供者与患者之间的积极互动,包括患者与初级保健提供者(PCP)之间的舒适感(通常通过共同决策得到加强),可以减轻与看心理健康专家有关的耻辱感;这可能会提高需要这些服务的患者对行为健康服务的利用率。然而,很少有研究探讨在现实世界中,患者与初级保健提供者之间的舒适度(通常是通过共同决策)会如何影响患者对心理健康服务的利用。本研究试图解决实践中的这一空白:利用对洛杉矶县成年人(n = 749)进行的互联网面板调查的加权数据进行了多变量回归分析,以研究患者与初级保健医生之间的舒适度与使用基本保健服务的三个指标之间的关系。随后进行了分析,以探讨共同决策在多大程度上调节了这些关联:结果:与报告舒适度较低的参与者相比,报告与医疗服务提供者的舒适度为中等或较高的参与者有更高的几率报告他们可能会去看心理健康专家(aOR = 2.10 和 3.84,分别为 2.10 和 3.84)并从心理健康专家那里获得建议(aOR = 2.75 和 4.76,分别为 2.75 和 4.76)。虽然共同决策影响了参与者看心理健康专家和从心理健康专家那里获得建议的可能性,但在统计学上并不是这些关联的显著调节因素:与患者建立更牢固的关系可能会提高心理健康服务的利用率,而这种服务提供者的做法很可能未得到充分利用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Behavioral Medicine (IJBM) is the official scientific journal of the International Society for Behavioral Medicine (ISBM). IJBM seeks to present the best theoretically-driven, evidence-based work in the field of behavioral medicine from around the globe. IJBM embraces multiple theoretical perspectives, research methodologies, groups of interest, and levels of analysis. The journal is interested in research across the broad spectrum of behavioral medicine, including health-behavior relationships, the prevention of illness and the promotion of health, the effects of illness on the self and others, the effectiveness of novel interventions, identification of biobehavioral mechanisms, and the influence of social factors on health. We welcome experimental, non-experimental, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies as well as implementation and dissemination research, integrative reviews, and meta-analyses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信