Integrated behavioral health care (IBHC) is a model of mental health care service delivery that seeks to reduce stigma and service utilization barriers by embedding mental health professionals into the primary care team. This study explored whether IBHC service referrals, utilization, and outcomes were comparable for Latinos and non-Latino White primary care patients. Data for the current study were collected from 793 consecutive patients (63.8% Latino; M age = 29.02 years [SD = 17.96]; 35.1% under 18 years; 65.3% women; 54.3% uninsured) seen for behavioral health services in 2 primary care clinics during a 10.5 month period. The most common presenting concerns were depression (21.6%), anxiety (18.5%), adjustment disorder (13.0%), and externalizing behavior problems (9.8%). Results revealed that while Latino patients had significantly lower self-reported psychiatric distress, significantly higher clinician-assigned global assessment of functioning scores, and fewer received a psychiatric diagnosis at their initial visit compared to non-Latino White patients, both groups had comparable utilization rates, comparable and clinically significant improvements in symptoms (Cohen’s d values > .50), and expressed high satisfaction with integrated behavioral services. These data provide preliminary evidence suggesting integration of behavioral health services into primary care clinics may help reduce mental health disparities for Latinos.

Objective Compared with more traditional mental health care, integrated behavioral health care (IBHC) offers greater access to services and earlier identification and intervention of behavioral and mental health difficulties. The current study examined demographic, diagnostic, and intervention factors that predict positive changes for IBHC patients. Method Participants were 1,150 consecutive patients (mean age = 30.10 years, 66.6% female, 60.1% Hispanic, 47.9% uninsured) seen for IBHC services at 2 primary care clinics over a 34-month period. Patients presented with depressive (23.2%), anxiety (18.6%), adjustment (11.3%), and childhood externalizing (7.6%) disorders, with 25.7% of patients receiving no diagnosis. Results The most commonly delivered interventions included behavioral activation (26.1%), behavioral medicine-specific consultation (14.6%), relaxation training (10.3%), and parent-management training (8.5%). There was high concordance between diagnoses and evidence-based intervention selection. We used latent growth curve modeling to explore predictors of baseline global assessment of functioning (GAF) and improvements in GAF across sessions, utilizing data from a subset of 117 patients who attended at least 3 behavioral health visits. Hispanic ethnicity and being insured predicted higher baseline GAF, while patients with an anxiety disorder had lower baseline GAF than patients with other diagnoses. Controlling for primary diagnosis, patients receiving behavioral activation or exposure therapy improved at faster rates than patients receiving other interventions. Demographic variables did not relate to rates of improvement. Conclusion Results suggest even brief IBHC interventions can be focused, targeting specific patient concerns with evidence-based treatment components.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract