Background Chronic diseases that drive morbidity, mortality, and health care costs are largely influenced by human behavior. Behavioral health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders can often be effectively managed. The majority of patients in need of behavioral health care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some primary care practices are providing integrated behavioral health care (IBH), where primary care and behavioral health providers work together, in one location, using a team-based approach. Research suggests there may be an association between IBH and improved patient outcomes. However, it is often difficult for practices to achieve high levels of integration. The Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care study responds to this need by testing the effectiveness of a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed to improve outcomes in patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions by increasing the practice’s degree of behavioral health integration. Methods Forty-five primary care practices, with existing onsite behavioral health care, will be recruited for this study. Forty-three practices will be randomized to the intervention or usual care arm, while 2 practices will be considered “Vanguard” (pilot) practices for developing the intervention. The intervention is a 24-month supported practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Each practice’s degree of behavioral health integration will be measured using the Practice Integration Profile. Approximately 75 patients with both chronic medical and behavioral health conditions from each practice will be asked to complete a series of surveys to measure patient-centered outcomes. Change in practice degree of behavioral health integration and patient-centered outcomes will be compared between the two groups. Practice-level case studies will be conducted to better understand the contextual factors influencing integration. Discussion As primary care practices are encouraged to provide IBH services, evidence-based interventions to increase practice integration will be needed. This study will demonstrate the effectiveness of one such intervention in a pragmatic, real-world setting. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02868983. Registered on August 16, 2016.

Purpose: Many patients delayed health care during COVID-19. We assessed the extent to which patients managing multiple chronic conditions (MCC) delayed care in the first months of the pandemic, reasons for delay, and impact of delay on patient-reported physical and behavioral health (BH) outcomes.Methods: As part of a large clinical trial conducted April 2016-June, 2021, primary care patients managing MCC were surveyed about physical and behavioral symptoms and functioning. Surveys administered between September 3, 2020, and March 16, 2021, included questions about the extent of and reasons for any delayed medical and BH care since COVID-19. Multivariable linear regression was used to assess health outcomes as a function of delay of care status.Results: Among patients who delayed medical care, 58% delayed more than once. Among those who delayed behavioral health care, 63% delayed more than once. Participants who delayed multiple times tended to be younger, female, unmarried, and reported food, financial, and housing insecurities and worse health. The primary reasons for delaying care were lack of availability of in-person visits and perceived lack of urgency. Participants who delayed care multiple times had significantly worse outcomes on nearly every measure of physical and mental health, compared with participants who delayed care once or did not delay.Conclusions: Delay of care was substantial. Patients who delayed care multiple times were in poorer health and thus in need of more care. Effective strategies for reengaging patients in deferred care should be identified and implemented on multiple levels.

Aims and Objectives To describe the development of the Patient Centeredness Index (PCI), evaluate its psychometric characteristics and evaluate the relationships between scores on the PCI and an established measure of empathy. Background Patient centeredness helps patients manage multiple chronic conditions with their providers, nurses and other team members. However, no instrument exists for evaluating patient centeredness within primary care practices treating this population. Design Multi‐site instrument development and validation. STROBE reporting guidelines were followed. Methods To identify themes, we consulted literature on patient centeredness and engaged stakeholders who had or were caring for people with multiple chronic conditions (n = 7). We composed and refined items to represent those themes with input from clinicians and researchers. To evaluate reliability and convergent validity, we administered surveys to participants (n = 3622) with chronic conditions recruited from 44 primary care practices for a large‐scale cluster randomised clinical trial of the effects of a practice‐level intervention on patient and practice‐level outcomes. Participants chose to complete the 16‐item survey online, on paper or by phone. Surveys assessed demographics, number of chronic conditions and ratings of provider empathy. We conducted exploratory factor analysis to model the interrelationships among items. Results A single factor explained 93% of total variance. Factor loadings ranged from 0.55–0.85, and item‐test correlations were ≥.67. Cronbach's alpha was .93. A moderate, linear correlation with ratings of provider's empathy (r = .65) supports convergent validity. Conclusions The PCI is a new tool for obtaining patient perceptions of the patient centeredness of their primary care practice. The PCI shows acceptable reliability and evidence of convergent validity among patients managing chronic conditions. Relevance to clinical practice The PCI rapidly identifies patients' perspectives on patient centeredness of their practice, making it ideal for administration in busy primary care settings that aim to efficiently address patient‐identified needs. Trial registration http://Clinicaltrials.org Protocol ID: WLPS‐1409‐24372. Title: Integrating Behavioural Health and Primary Care for Comorbid Behavioural and Medical Problems (IBHPC).

Context: Most patients in need of behavioral health (BH) care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some practices integrate behavioral health care (IBH), with medical and BH providers at the same location, working as a team. However, it is difficult to achieve high levels of integration. Objective: Test the effectiveness of a practice intervention designed to increase BH integration. Study Design: Pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial. Setting: 43 primary care practices with on-site BH services in 13 states. Population: 2,460 adults with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions. Intervention: 24-month practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Outcomes: Primary outcomes were changes in the 8 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) domain scores. Secondary outcomes were changes in medication adherence, self-reported healthcare utilization, time lost due to disability, cardiovascular capacity, patient centeredness, provider empathy, and several conditionspecific measures. A sample of practice staff completed the Practice Integration Profile at each time point to estimate the degree of BH integration in that site. Practice-level case studies estimated the typical costs of implementing the intervention. Results: The intervention had no significant effect on any

Context: Despite a growing commitment to integrating behavioral health (IBH) in primary care (PC), high levels of integration that improve care and outcomes are elusive. As previously reported to NAPCRG (2021), "IBH-PC" studied the effectiveness of an intervention to support BH integration in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). A small improvement in BH integration was detected; there was no observed effect on patient outcomes. Objective: Secondary analysis to understand relationships among intervention completion, timing of study measures relative to COVID-19, level of BH integration, and patient reported outcomes. Study Design: Post-hoc analysis of pragmatic RCT. Setting: 42 primary care clinics with on-site BH services, in 13 states, Sep 2017-Dec 2020. Population: 2,426 adults with multiple chronic behavioral and medical conditions. Intervention: Clinic-level support to implement IBH using online curricula, workbooks, remote coaching, and online learning community. Outcomes and Predictors: Change in mean Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scores (PROMIS) and median Practice Integration Profile (PIP); timing relative to COVID-19; and completion of the implementation stage of the intervention. Results: Higher PIP scores were associated with better patient outcomes in all 8 PROMIS domains at baseline and follow-up.