↓ Skip to main content

Building Behavioral Health Homes: Clinician and Staff Perspectives on Creating Integrated Care Teams

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
Building Behavioral Health Homes: Clinician and Staff Perspectives on Creating Integrated Care Teams
Published in
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11414-018-9622-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tracy Anastas, Elizabeth Needham Waddell, Sonya Howk, Mark Remiker, Gretchen Horton-Dunbar, L. J. Fagnan

Abstract

Adults with serious mental illness and substance use disorders have elevated risk of mortality and higher healthcare costs compared to the general population. As these disparities have been linked to poor management of co-occurring chronic conditions in primary care, the behavioral health setting may be a preferred setting for routine medical screening and treatment. This qualitative study describes early stages of integrating care teams in emerging medical homes based in mental health and addiction treatment settings. Clinicians and staff from ten agencies engaged in the Behavioral Health Home Learning Collaborative participated in qualitative interviews exploring local definitions of "behavioral health home" and initial barriers and facilitators to integration. Facilitators included clear staff roles, flexible scheduling, and interdisciplinary huddles and staff trainings. Challenges included workforce, limited use of electronic health records, and differing professional cultures. Participants advocated for new workflows and payment structures to accommodate scheduling demands and holistic case management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 15%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 28 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 14%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 31 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 June 2018.
All research outputs
#16,223,992
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research
#358
of 469 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,254
of 333,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 469 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.