Practice Members' Perspectives on the Implementation of Colorado Integrated Behavioral Health Plus (CIBH +).

IF 1.6 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Jodi Summers Holtrop, Dennis Gurfinkel, Vanessa Owen, Douglas H Fernald, Lakshmi Karra, Patrick Hosokawa, Shandra Brown Levey, Lauren Tolle, Jay Shore
{"title":"Practice Members' Perspectives on the Implementation of Colorado Integrated Behavioral Health Plus (CIBH +).","authors":"Jodi Summers Holtrop, Dennis Gurfinkel, Vanessa Owen, Douglas H Fernald, Lakshmi Karra, Patrick Hosokawa, Shandra Brown Levey, Lauren Tolle, Jay Shore","doi":"10.1007/s10880-026-10134-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Integrated Behavioral Health is a key solution in addressing significant problems of access and quality of care. This study assessed practice members' perspectives on the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of an integrated care model called Colorado Integrated Behavioral Health Plus (CIBH +) in a large integrated health system. Seven family medicine practices implemented CIBH + . Practice members completed surveys regarding feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness (analyzed with descriptive statistics) and semi-structured interviews (analyzed using a grounded theory hermeneutic editing approach). A total of 156 practice members responded to the survey (62% response rate) and 46 participated in interviews (78% response rate). Respondents indicated high levels of agreement about the perceived feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of CIBH + . Qualitative themes included: (1) observing the benefits to patients and comprehensive team care reinforced the value of integrating care; (2) supports from teamwork, leadership, and telehealth facilitated implementation; and (3) limitations from role clarity, staffing, space, telehealth, and lack of long-term care options remained challenging for implementation. Identifying the key features of CIBH + may make practical implementation in other settings more feasible to implement and acceptable for patients and care teams to use.</p>","PeriodicalId":15494,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings","volume":" ","pages":"431-442"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13582135/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-026-10134-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Integrated Behavioral Health is a key solution in addressing significant problems of access and quality of care. This study assessed practice members' perspectives on the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of an integrated care model called Colorado Integrated Behavioral Health Plus (CIBH +) in a large integrated health system. Seven family medicine practices implemented CIBH + . Practice members completed surveys regarding feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness (analyzed with descriptive statistics) and semi-structured interviews (analyzed using a grounded theory hermeneutic editing approach). A total of 156 practice members responded to the survey (62% response rate) and 46 participated in interviews (78% response rate). Respondents indicated high levels of agreement about the perceived feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of CIBH + . Qualitative themes included: (1) observing the benefits to patients and comprehensive team care reinforced the value of integrating care; (2) supports from teamwork, leadership, and telehealth facilitated implementation; and (3) limitations from role clarity, staffing, space, telehealth, and lack of long-term care options remained challenging for implementation. Identifying the key features of CIBH + may make practical implementation in other settings more feasible to implement and acceptable for patients and care teams to use.

实践成员对科罗拉多州综合行为健康+ (CIBH +)实施的看法。
综合行为健康是解决获得保健和保健质量等重大问题的关键解决办法。本研究评估了实践成员对科罗拉多综合行为健康+ (CIBH +)综合护理模式在大型综合卫生系统中的可行性、可接受性和适当性的看法。7家家庭医学实践实施了CIBH +。实践成员完成了关于可行性、可接受性和适当性的调查(用描述性统计分析)和半结构化访谈(用基础理论解释性编辑方法分析)。共有156名执业成员回应了调查(62%的回复率),46名参加了访谈(78%的回复率)。受访者对CIBH +的可行性、可接受性和适当性表示高度一致。定性主题包括:(1)观察对患者的益处和综合团队护理增强了整合护理的价值;(2)团队合作、领导和远程医疗的支持促进了实施;(3)角色明确、人员配备、空间、远程医疗和缺乏长期护理选择等方面的限制仍然是实施的挑战。确定CIBH +的关键特征可能会使在其他环境中的实际实施更加可行,并且患者和护理团队可以接受使用。
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
4.00
自引率
4.50%
发文量
93
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original papers related to all areas of the science and practice of psychologists in medical settings. Manuscripts are chosen that have a broad appeal across psychology as well as other health care disciplines, reflecting varying backgrounds, interests, and specializations. The journal publishes original research, treatment outcome trials, meta-analyses, literature reviews, conceptual papers, brief scientific reports, and scholarly case studies. Papers accepted address clinical matters in medical settings; integrated care; health disparities; education and training of the future psychology workforce; interdisciplinary collaboration, training, and professionalism; licensing, credentialing, and privileging in hospital practice; research and practice ethics; professional development of psychologists in academic health centers; professional practice matters in medical settings; and cultural, economic, political, regulatory, and systems factors in health care. In summary, the journal provides a forum for papers predicted to have significant theoretical or practical importance for the application of psychology in medical settings.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书