Cole Hooley, Danielle R Adams, Carrie L E Wendt, Cory B Dennis
{"title":"Measures of the Availability and Accessibility of Behavioral Health Services: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Cole Hooley, Danielle R Adams, Carrie L E Wendt, Cory B Dennis","doi":"10.1176/appi.ps.20240282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Service availability and accessibility are necessary precursors to scaling up behavioral health services. This review aimed to examine the literature in order to identify and summarize quantitative measurement approaches to assessing the availability and accessibility of behavioral health services.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The search used in this scoping review included terms for psychiatric diagnoses, behavioral health services, measurement, and availability and accessibility. Databases queried were CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, and Web of Science. Two coders first screened the titles and abstracts and then the full texts of retrieved articles. Articles were included if they discussed a behavioral health service outcome and provided sufficient description of their quantitative measures or measurement approach. Two researchers extracted data from each article that met the inclusion criteria and deductively coded measures by using availability and accessibility domains derived from existing frameworks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search yielded 266 articles containing 250 unique measurement approaches. Articles most frequently used secondary (vs. nonsecondary) data sources. Measures were often developed for a single study; 93% of the unique measures were used only once. Only 12% of the measures had psychometric properties reported. The availability and accessibility domains had uneven coverage across secondary sources and unique measures. One brief, public-facing, psychometrically tested measure was found, but it lacked one of the availability domains.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Availability and accessibility should be treated as constructs distinct from utilization. National surveys provide indispensable information about the availability and accessibility of behavioral health services. The field would benefit from having a brief, client- and public-facing, psychometrically tested measure covering core availability and accessibility domains.</p>","PeriodicalId":520759,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)","volume":" ","pages":"748-759"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.20240282","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Service availability and accessibility are necessary precursors to scaling up behavioral health services. This review aimed to examine the literature in order to identify and summarize quantitative measurement approaches to assessing the availability and accessibility of behavioral health services.
Methods: The search used in this scoping review included terms for psychiatric diagnoses, behavioral health services, measurement, and availability and accessibility. Databases queried were CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, and Web of Science. Two coders first screened the titles and abstracts and then the full texts of retrieved articles. Articles were included if they discussed a behavioral health service outcome and provided sufficient description of their quantitative measures or measurement approach. Two researchers extracted data from each article that met the inclusion criteria and deductively coded measures by using availability and accessibility domains derived from existing frameworks.
Results: The search yielded 266 articles containing 250 unique measurement approaches. Articles most frequently used secondary (vs. nonsecondary) data sources. Measures were often developed for a single study; 93% of the unique measures were used only once. Only 12% of the measures had psychometric properties reported. The availability and accessibility domains had uneven coverage across secondary sources and unique measures. One brief, public-facing, psychometrically tested measure was found, but it lacked one of the availability domains.
Conclusions: Availability and accessibility should be treated as constructs distinct from utilization. National surveys provide indispensable information about the availability and accessibility of behavioral health services. The field would benefit from having a brief, client- and public-facing, psychometrically tested measure covering core availability and accessibility domains.
目的：服务的可得性和可及性是扩大行为卫生服务的必要前提。本综述旨在检查文献，以确定和总结定量测量方法来评估行为健康服务的可用性和可及性。方法：在此范围综述中使用的搜索包括精神病学诊断、行为健康服务、测量、可获得性和可及性等术语。查询的数据库包括CINAHL、MEDLINE、PsycInfo、Embase和Web of Science。两名编码员首先筛选标题和摘要，然后是检索文章的全文。如果文章讨论了行为健康服务的结果，并对其定量措施或测量方法提供了充分的描述，则纳入文章。两位研究人员从每篇文章中提取符合纳入标准的数据，并通过使用从现有框架派生的可用性和可访问性域演绎编码度量。结果：检索得到266篇文章，包含250种独特的测量方法。文章最常使用辅助（相对于非辅助）数据源。衡量标准通常是针对单一研究制定的；93%的独特措施只使用了一次。据报道，只有12%的测量具有心理测量学性质。可获得性和可访问性领域在次要来源和独特度量之间的覆盖不均匀。我们找到了一个简短的、面向公众的、经过心理测量学测试的测量方法，但它缺乏一个可用域。结论：可用性和可及性应被视为不同于利用率的构式。国家调查提供了关于行为健康服务的可得性和可及性的不可或缺的信息。该领域将受益于一个简短的，面向客户和公众的，涵盖核心可用性和可访问性领域的心理测量测试。
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
