Volume 48, Issue 5 pp. 869-879
REVIEW ARTICLE

Paediatric integrated care in the primary care setting: A scoping review of populations served, models used and outcomes measured

Jill D. McLeigh

Corresponding Author

Jill D. McLeigh

Children's Health, Rees-Jones Center for Foster Care Excellence, Dallas, Texas, USA

Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, UT Health School of Public Health, Dallas Campus, Dallas, Texas, USA

Correspondence

Jill D. McLeigh, Children's Health, Rees-Jones Center for Foster Care Excellence, 1935 Medical District Drive, Mailstop ST7.03, Dallas, TX 75235, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Lauren Malthaner

Lauren Malthaner

Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, UT Health School of Public Health, Dallas Campus, Dallas, Texas, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Caitlin Winebrenner

Caitlin Winebrenner

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Kimberly E. Stone

Kimberly E. Stone

Children's Health, Rees-Jones Center for Foster Care Excellence, Dallas, Texas, USA

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 15 March 2022
Citations: 2

Abstract

Background

Paediatric integrated care (PIC), which involves primary care and behavioural health clinicians working together with patients and families, has been promoted as a best practice in the provision of care. In this context, behavioural health includes behavioural elements in the care of mental health and substance abuse conditions, chronic illness and physical symptoms associated with stress, and addressing health behaviours. Models of and contexts in which PIC has been applied vary, as do the outcomes and measures used to determine its value. Thus, this study seeks to better understand (1) what paediatric subpopulations are receiving integrated care, (2) which models of PIC are being studied, (3) what PIC outcomes are being explored and what measures and strategies are being used to assess those outcomes, and (4) whether the various models are resulting in positive outcomes. These questions have significant policy and clinical implications, given current national- and state-level efforts aimed at promoting integrated health care.

Methods

This study utilized Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews to identify relevant articles published between January 1994 and 30 June 2020. The search utilized three databases: PubMed, PsycInfo and CINAHL. A total of 28 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion.

Results

Overall, acceptability of PIC appears to be high for patients and providers, with access, screening and engagement generally increasing. However, several gaps in the knowledge base on PIC were uncovered, and for some studies, ascertaining which models of integrated care were being implemented proved difficult.

Conclusion

PIC has the potential to improve access to and quality of behavioural health care, but more research is needed to understand what models of PIC prove most beneficial and which policies and conditions promote cost efficiency. Rigorous evaluation of patient outcomes, provider training, institutional buy-in and system-level changes are needed.

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.