Search

Objective: To perform a factor analysis of the Practice Integration Profile (PIP), a 30-item practice-level measure of primary care and behavioral health integration derived from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Lexicon for Behavioral Health and Primary Care Integration.Data Sources: The PIP was completed by 735 individuals, representing 357 practices across the United States.Study Design: The study design was a cross-sectional survey. An exploratory factor analysis and assessment of internal consistency reliability via Cronbach's alpha were performed.Data Collection Methods: Participant responses were collected using REDCap, a secure, web-based data capture tool.Principal Findings: Five of the PIP's six domains had factor loadings for most items related to each factor representing the PIP of 0.50 or greater. However, one factor had items from two PIP domains that had loadings >0.50. A five-factor model with redistributed items resulted in improved factor loadings for all domains along with greater internal consistency reliability (>0.80).Conclusions: Five of the PIP's six domains demonstrated excellent internal consistency for measures of health care resources. Although minor improvements to strengthen the PIP are possible, it is a valid and reliable measure of the integration of primary care and behavioral health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Practice Integration Profile (PIP) is a reliable, valid, and broadly used measure of the integration of behavioral health (BH) into primary care. The PIP assesses operational and procedural elements that are grounded in the AHRQ Lexicon for Behavioral Health and Primary Care Integration. Prior analyses of PIP data and feedback from users suggested the measure was in need of revisions. This article describes the process used to improve readability, clarity, and pragmatic utility of the instrument. Method: Two rounds of structured cognitive interviews were conducted with clinicians in primary care settings. After each round, interview transcripts were coded by an analytic team using an iterative and consensus-driven process. Themes were identified based on codes. Themes and recommendations for revisions were reviewed and modified by committee. Results: Based on feedback and a prior factor analysis of the PIP, revisions were undertaken to: (a) eliminate redundant or overlapping items; (b) clarify the meaning of items; (c) standardize the response categories, and (d) place items in the most appropriate domains. The resulting measure has 28 items in five domains. Discussion: PIP 2.0 will need further examination to confirm its continuing use as a foundational tool for evaluating integrated care. Public Significance Statement: This article presents a revised version of a previously validated survey that measures the extent to which primary care practices have integrated behavioral health care. The revised survey can be used to support practice improvement in primary care and research on such topics as the determinants of practice-level performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We developed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) to measure the degree of behavioral health integration in clinical practices with a focus on primary care (PC). Its 30 items, completed by providers, managers, and staff, provide an overall score and 6 domain scores derived from the Lexicon of Collaborative Care. We describe its history and psychometric properties.Method: The PIP was tested in a convenience sample of practices. Linear regression compared scores across integration exemplars, PC with behavioral services, PC without behavioral services, and community mental health centers without PC. An additional sample rated 4 scenarios describing practices with varying degrees of integration.Results: One hundred sixty-nine surveys were returned. Mean domain scores ran from 49 to 65. The mean total score was 55 (median 58; range 0-100) with high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .95). The lowest total scores were for PC without behavioral health (27), followed by community mental health centers (44), PC with behavioral health (60), and the exemplars (86; p < .001). Eleven respondents rerated their practices 37 to 194 days later. The mean change was + 1.5 (standard deviation = 11.1). Scenario scores were highly correlated with the degree of integration each scenario was designed to represent (Spearman's ρ = -0.71; P = 0.0005).Discussion: These data suggest that the PIP is useful, has face, content, and internal validity, and distinguishes among types of practices with known variations in integration. We discuss how the PIP may support practices and policymakers in their integration efforts and researchers assessing the degree to which integration affects patient health outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]