Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Adm Policy Ment Health ; 49(2): 312-325, 2022 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34529202

RESUMEN

Primary care has increasingly adopted integrated behavioral health (IBH) practices to enhance overall care. The IBH Cross-Model Framework clarifies the core processes and structures of IBH, but little is known about how practices vary in the implementation of these processes and structures. This study aimed to describe clusters of clinics using the IBH Cross-Model Framework for a large sample of primary care clinics, as well as contextual variables associated with differences in implementation. Primary care clinics (N = 102) in Minnesota reported their level of implementation across 18 different components of IBH via the site self-assessment (SSA). The components were mapped to all five principles and four of the nine structures of the IBH Cross-Model Framework. latent class analysis was used to identify unique clusters of IBH components from the SSA across the IBH Cross-Model Framework's processes and structures. Latent classes were then regressed onto context variables. A four-class model was determined to be the best fit: Low IBH (39.6%), Structural IBH (7.9%), Partial IBH (29.4%), and Strong IBH (23.1%). Partial IBH clinics were more urban than the other three classes, lower in SES risk than Structural IBH clinics, and located in smaller organizations than Strong IBH clinics. There were no differences between classes in race/ethnicity of the clinic area or practice size. Four groups of IBH implementation were identified representing unique profiles of integration. These clusters may represent patterns of community-based implementation of IBH that indicate easier and more challenging aspects of IBH implementation.


Asunto(s)
Prestación Integrada de Atención de Salud , Psiquiatría , Instituciones de Atención Ambulatoria , Humanos , Análisis de Clases Latentes , Atención Primaria de Salud
2.
Curr Pain Headache Rep ; 18(3): 398, 2014 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24500636

RESUMEN

Research has shown that psychosocial factors can predict poor outcome for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for patients with chronic pain, substantiating the need for standardized assessment techniques to incorporate psychosocial factors in patient selection. Presurgical psychological assessment is often required for SCS. Best practices include clinical interviews by psychologists and use of standardized measures of psychosocial risk factors. Psychologists should assess mental health and social risk factors, as well as an individual's understanding of SCS and expectations for pain relief, while consulting with physicians to support a multidisciplinary based patient selection. In addition, psychologists take part in preparing patients who were initially deemed unsuitable for SCS by providing recommendations and potential access to clinical care addressing psychological issues in chronic pain. Barriers to presurgical psychological assessments include limited access to skilled psychologists and issues with feasibility and appropriateness of standardized measures, and further work is needed to improve standardized methodology.


Asunto(s)
Dolor de Espalda/psicología , Dolor de Espalda/terapia , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica , Síndrome de Fracaso de la Cirugía Espinal Lumbar/psicología , Salud Mental , Médula Espinal/fisiopatología , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica/métodos , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica/psicología , Síndrome de Fracaso de la Cirugía Espinal Lumbar/terapia , Femenino , Humanos , Comunicación Interdisciplinaria , Vértebras Lumbares/fisiopatología , Masculino , Dimensión del Dolor/psicología , Selección de Paciente , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Pronóstico , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA