Pediatric integrated behavioral health service delivery models: Using a federal framework to assess levels of integration.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the level of integration of pediatric integrated behavioral health service delivery models (IBHSDM) since it has not been well established. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of journal databases (e.g., PubMed) and Google searches was used to identify publications. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they examined children who were treated in an IBHSDM. DATA EXTRACTION: The authors extracted data from studies and assessed them for level of integration using a federal conceptual framework. DATA SYNTHESIS: Guided by PRISMA standards, the authors identified 40 journal articles that described 32 integrated delivery models. Five models (15.6%) were rated at integration level 1 or 2 (coordinated care), eight models (25%) were rated level 3 and five models (15.6%) were rated level 4 (co-located care), and fourteen models (43.8%) were rated level 5 or 6 (integrated care). CONCLUSIONS: In general, it is assumed that more completely integrated care will result in higher quality care and reduced costs. Thirteen of the models described (40.6%) had levels of integration of 3 or lower that may be too low to produce desired effects on quality and cost. Future research should address potential barriers that impede the development of models with higher degrees of integration.

The baby or the bath water? Lessons learned from the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention Research Prioritization Task Force literature review.

CONTEXT: The Research Prioritization Task Force of the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention conducted a comprehensive literature review of suicide prevention/intervention trials to assess the quality of the scientific evidence. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A literature "review of reviews" was conducted by searching the most widely used databases for mental health and public health research. The quality of the reviews was evaluated using the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews system; the quality of the scientific evidence for the suicide preventions/interventions was assessed using U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. The reviews were limited to peer-reviewed publications with human subjects published in English. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Ninety-eight systematic reviews and 45 primary sources on suicide prevention/interventions published between January 2000 and September 2012 were evaluated. The results suggest that the quality of both the systematic reviews and the scientific evidence for suicide preventions/interventions were mixed. The majority of the systematic reviews and prevention/interventions were evaluated as fair to poor in quality. CONCLUSIONS: There are many promising suicide prevention/intervention trials, but research findings are often inconclusive because of methodologic problems. Methodologic problems across systematic reviews include not conducting hand searches, not surveying gray literature, and being unable to aggregate data across studies. Methodologic problems with the scientific quality of the prevention/intervention trials include paucity of information on sample demographic characteristics, poorly defined outcomes, and excluding actively suicidal participants. Suggestions for ways to improve the quality of the systematic reviews and suicide preventions/interventions are provided.