Importance: Recent health care legislation and shifting health care financing strategies are transforming health and behavioral health care in the United States and incentivizing integrated medical-behavioral health care as a strategy for improving access to high-quality care for behavioral health conditions, enhancing patient outcomes, and containing costs. Objective: To conduct a systematic meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to evaluate whether integrated medical-behavioral health care for children and adolescents leads to improved behavioral health outcomes compared with usual primary care. Data Sources: Search of the PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases from January 1, 1960, through December 31, 2014, yielded 6792 studies, of which 31 studies with 35 intervention-control comparisons and 13129 participants met the study eligibility criteria. Study Selection: We included randomized clinical trials that evaluated integrated behavioral health and primary medical care in children and adolescents compared with usual care in primary care settings that met prespecified methodologic quality criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers screened citations and extracted data, with raw data used when possible. Magnitude and direction of effect sizes were calculated. Main Outcomes and Measures: Meta-analysis with a random effects model were conducted to examine an overall effect across all trials, and within intervention and prevention trials. Subsequent moderator analyses for intervention trials explored the relative effects of integrated care type on behavioral health outcomes. Results: Meta-analysis with a random-effects model indicated a significant advantage for integrated care interventions relative to usual care on behavioral health outcomes (d = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21-0.44; P < .001). Moderator analyses indicated larger effects for treatment trials that targeted diagnoses and/or elevated symptoms (d = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.29-0.55; P < .001) relative to prevention trials (d = 0.07; 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.28; P = .49). The probability was 66% that a randomly selected youth would have a better outcome after receiving integrated medical-behavioral treatment than a randomly selected youth after receiving usual care. The strongest effects were seen for treatment interventions that targeted mental health problems and those that used collaborative care models. Conclusions and Relevance: Our results, demonstrating the benefits of integrated medical-behavioral primary care for improving youth behavioral health outcomes, enhance confidence that the increased incentives for integrated health and behavioral health care in the US health care system will yield improvements in the health of children and adolescents

Recent health care legislation and shifting health care financing strategies are transforming health and behavioral health (a broad term referring to mental health, substance use, and health behavior) care in the United States. Advances in knowledge regarding effective treatment and services coupled with incentives for innovation in health and behavioral health care delivery systems make this a unique time for mobilizing our science to enhance the success of health and behavioral health care redesign. To optimize the potential of our current health care environment, a team was formed composed of leaders from the Societies of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, Pediatric Psychology, and Child and Family Policy and Practice (Divisions 53, 54, and 37 of the American Psychological Association). This team was charged with reviewing the scientific and policy literature with a focus on five major issues: (a) improving access to care and reducing health disparities, (b) integrating behavioral health care within primary care, (c) preventive services, (d) enhancing quality and outcomes of care, and (e) training and workforce development. The products of that work are summarized here, including recommendations for future research, clinical, training, and policy directions. We conclude that the current emphasis on accountable care and evaluation of the outcomes of care offer numerous opportunities for psychologists to integrate science and practice for the benefit of our children, families, and nation. The dramatic changes that are occurring in psychological and behavioral health care services and payment systems also require evolution in our practice and training models.

CONTEXT: Depression is a common condition associated with significant morbidity in adolescents. Few depressed adolescents receive effective treatment for depression in primary care settings. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a quality improvement intervention aimed at increasing access to evidence-based treatments for depression (particularly cognitive-behavior therapy and antidepressant medication), relative to usual care, among adolescents in primary care practices. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized controlled trial conducted between 1999 and 2003 enrolling 418 primary care patients with current depressive symptoms, aged 13 through 21 years, from 5 health care organizations purposively selected to include managed care, public sector, and academic medical center clinics in the United States. INTERVENTION: Usual care (n = 207) or 6-month quality improvement intervention (n = 211) including expert leader teams at each site, care managers who supported primary care clinicians in evaluating and managing patients' depression, training for care managers in manualized cognitive-behavior therapy for depression, and patient and clinician choice regarding treatment modality. Participating clinicians also received education regarding depression evaluation, management, and pharmacological and psychosocial treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Depressive symptoms assessed by Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D) score. Secondary outcomes were mental health-related quality of life assessed by Mental Health Summary Score (MCS-12) and satisfaction with mental health care assessed using a 5-point scale. RESULTS: Six months after baseline assessments, intervention patients, compared with usual care patients, reported significantly fewer depressive symptoms (mean [SD] CES-D scores, 19.0 [11.9] vs 21.4 [13.1]; P = .02), higher mental health-related quality of life (mean [SD] MCS-12 scores, 44.6 [11.3] vs 42.8 [12.9]; P = .03), and greater satisfaction with mental health care (mean [SD] scores, 3.8 [0.9] vs 3.5 [1.0]; P = .004). Intervention patients also reported significantly higher rates of mental health care (32.1% vs 17.2%, P<.001) and psychotherapy or counseling (32.0% vs 21.2%, P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: A 6-month quality improvement intervention aimed at improving access to evidence-based depression treatments through primary care was significantly more effective than usual care for depressed adolescents from diverse primary care practices. The greater uptake of counseling vs medication under the intervention reinforces the importance of practice interventions that include resources to enable evidence-based psychotherapy for depressed adolescents.