Skip to main content

What constitutes “behavioral health”? Perceptions of substance-related problems and their treatment in primary care

Abstract

Background

Integrating behavioral health in primary care is a widespread endeavor. Yet rampant variation exists in models and approaches. One significant question is whether frontline providers perceive that behavioral health includes substance use. The current study examined front line providers’: 1. definition of behavioral health, and 2. levels of comfort treating patients who use alcohol and other drugs. Frontline providers at two primary care clinics were surveyed using a 28-item instrument designed to assess their comfort and knowledge of behavioral health, including substance use. Two questions from the Integrated Behavioral Health Staff Perceptions Survey pertaining to confidence in clinics’ ability to care for patients’ behavioral health needs and comfort dealing with patients with behavioral health needs were used for the purposes of this report. Participants also self-reported their clinic role. Responses to these two items were assessed and then compared across roles. Chi square estimates and analysis of variance tests were used to examine relationships between clinic roles and comfort of substance use care delivery.

Results

Physicians, nurses/nurse practitioners, medical assistants, and other staff (N = 59) participated. Forty-nine participants included substance use in their definition of behavioral health. Participants reported the least comfort caring for patients who use substances (M = 3.5, SD = 1.0) compared to those with mental health concerns (M = 4.1, SD = 0.7), chronic medical conditions (M = 4.2, SD = 0.7), and general health concerns (M = 4.2, SD = 0.7) (p < 0.001). Physicians (M = 3.0, SD = 0.7) reported significantly lower levels of comfort than medical assistants (M = 4.2, SD = 0.9) (p < 0.001) caring for patients who use substances.

Conclusions

In a small sample of key stakeholders from two primary care clinics who participated in this survey, most considered substance use part of the broad umbrella of behavioral health. Compared to other conditions, primary care providers reported being less comfortable addressing patients’ substance use. Level of comfort varied by role, where physicians were least comfortable, and medical assistants most comfortable.

Background

Integrated primary care reflects the ideas of “no wrong door” or “one stop shop whereby patients can received both medical and behavioral health services, including services addressing substance use disorders [1]. Such a model supports, alongside physical health care, the identification, diagnosis, and management of patients with emerging, mild, or moderate behavioral issues including alcohol and other drugs, and refer acute or severe cases to specialists [2, 3]. Clinical research has generated robust evidence for collaborative care models in primary care but have only recently begun to consider substance use disorder treatment and services [1, 4].

Progress is however being made. Interventions such as Medications for Opioid Use Disorder and Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) have been designed and implemented to various degrees in primary care settings to expand access to substance use services [5, 6]. Whereas only the screening piece of “screening and brief intervention” was routinely implemented in primary care [4], brief intervention is now well executed in at least three large healthcare systems in the United States [4, 7,8,9,10,11,12]. Further, the Affordable Care Act now funds such care therefore increasing access [13, 14].

Yet, challenges to integrate substance use treatment in primary care settings persist. For instance, the Primary Care–Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI) model of the Veterans Health Administration supports the co-management of primary and mental health care but patients needing substance use services to address anything beyond misuse are referred to specialty services [15, 16]. Further, the Lexicon for Behavioral Health and Primary Care Integration, a standardized manual developed by AHRQ’s Integration Academy to streamline the implementation of integrated behavioral health in primary care settings, mentions substance use throughout but falls short of including concrete implications for policies, services, and workforce requirements necessary for optimal substance use care delivery [1].

Primary care providers are uniquely positioned and vested to partake in integrated behavioral care. Approximately 30% of adult primary care patients have a substance use disorder, yet routine screening and treatment of unhealthy substance use within general practices remains low [17, 18]. This gap in care is staggering given that the epidemiological evidence for comorbidities between substance use disorders, psychiatric disorders, and chronic conditions is well-established and that these comorbidities have been associated with greater mortality, increased health care utilization, and negative patient outcomes [19,20,21,22,23]. A recent study of primary care providers at an integrated VA clinic however found that providers did not view substance use as a focus of their work [24]. Further, primary care providers report unfamiliarity and low levels of preparedness to identify, and assist patients with substance use concerns [25,26,27].

Behavioral health should include identification and treatment of substance use, but it is unclear if primary care providers and staff believe this to be true and are comfortable with offering identification and treatment of substance use under the umbrella of behavioral health. Data are needed about how much primary care practitioners consider substance use to be within the integrated behavioral health purview. This data can then be used to provide a better understanding of what efforts should be deployed to address gaps for a broader adoption of integrated behavioral health that includes substance use. This study poses the following research questions in an effort to start addressing these gaps: 1. Do primary care providers perceive substance use as an integral part of behavioral health?; 2. Do primary care providers feel comfortable caring for patients who use substances?; and 3. Are there differences in comfort engaging with patients who use substances by clinic role?

Methods

Participants and setting

Participants were staff members from two primary care clinics located at an academic medical center in a metropolitan area of Northern California. All staff members with direct patient care responsibilities within these clinics were eligible for participation. Roles with direct patient care responsibilities at these clinic sites include physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, residents, medical assistants, pharmacists, and administrative personnel. The study sites, a Family Medicine practice and an Internal Medicine practice, are housed in the same building and have a combined panel size of 21,960 patients with an estimated 1015 patient visits weekly.

Procedure

Data collection took place over a six-week period in April and May 2019. Sixty-five clinic staff members were contacted by email with an invitation to participate in a confidential, online survey about their experience caring for patients. Emails were sent by individuals in leadership positions (i.e. Director of Operations or Medical Directors). This strategy was employed to improve the likelihood that email recipients would complete the survey.

On average, completion of the survey took 10 min. No monetary compensation was provided for participation. All procedures were reviewed and approved by the Stanford University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board. The Institutional Review Board also deemed this study eligible for a waiver of informed consent.

Measures

The Integrated Behavioral Health Staff Perceptions Survey is a 28-item questionnaire developed by the authors of this study, with input and feedback from organizational leadership and care providers. This measure was designed to be a current state assessment tool of providers’ comfort and knowledge of behavioral health, including substance use, as well as time spent on patients with behavioral health needs. Specifically, the instrument covered themes of confidence in clinics’ ability to care for patients’ behavioral health needs, comfort dealing with patients with behavioral health needs, time spent on patients’ behavioral health needs, consistency of care, accessibility to behavioral health care, and provider’s burden caring for patients with behavioral health needs. Participants were also asked to specify what conditions they believed fell under the umbrella of behavioral health. The current report focuses on elements of the survey pertinent to comfort related to patient substance use. Two outcomes were assessed including: perceptions of who is included in provision of behavioral healthcare and comfort caring for patients based on condition.

Clinic role was considered a key independent variable of interest in this study and was measured using a single survey item asking participants to self-report their role. Clinic roles were categorized as: Physicians, Nurses/Nurse Practitioners, Medical Assistants, and “Other.” The “Other” category is comprised of pharmacists, administrative personnel, and those who identified their clinic role as other in the survey. These roles were grouped together in the “Other” category due to their small cell counts. Specific questions from the instrument used for the purposes of this report can be found in Table 1. The Integrated Behavioral Health Staff Perceptions Survey is available from the senior author (MM) upon request.

Table 1 Selected Items from the Integrated Behavioral Health Staff Perceptions Survey pertinent to this report

Data analysis

Both perceptions of what is included in the provision of behavioral healthcare and comfort caring for patients based on condition were analyzed descriptively and then compared across clinic roles. Chi square tests were used to assess for differences in the inclusion of substance use as a behavioral health issue between study sites, as well as by clinic role. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine: 1. Differences in level of comfort caring for patients by health condition, and 2. Differences in level of comfort caring for patients who use substances by clinic role. Where appropriate, post hoc mean comparisons were conducted with Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test. Statistical significance was defined at a p value of less than 0.05. Analyses were conducted using Stata, version 13 [28].

Results

Fifty-nine clinic staff members (91%) participated in the survey. The sample was comprised of 25 internal medicine and family medicine physicians (42%), 17 medical assistants (29%), 4 nurses/nurse practitioners (7%), and 13 other staff members (22%). Twenty-seven participants were from Family Medicine, and 32 participants were from Internal Medicine. There were no significant differences by site for any survey item related to substance use. Participants completed all 28 items on the questionnaire.

Substance use as behavioral health

The majority (n = 49; 83%) of participants included substance use in their definition of behavioral health (Fig. 1). No significant differences by clinic role were found in the inclusion of substance use as a behavioral health condition, χ2 (3) = 2.12, p = 0.548.

Fig. 1
figure1

Definition of behavioral health, by clinic role

Comfort caring for patients by health conditions

Overall

Participants generally reported feeling comfortable caring for patients with four clusters of health conditions: mental health concerns, substance use, chronic medical conditions, and general health concerns.

A statistically significant difference was observed in levels of comfort caring for patients by health condition, F(3, 232) = 9.89, p < 0.001. A Tukey post hoc test revealed that comfort was lowest for substance use (M = 3.5, SD = 1.0) compared to mental health concerns (M = 4.1, SD = 0.7, p < 0.001), chronic medical conditions (M = 4.2, SD = 0.7, p < 0.001), and general health concerns (M = 4.2, SD = 0.7, p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between mental health problems and chronic medical conditions (p = 0.967), mental health problems and general health concerns (p = 0.938), and chronical medical conditions and general health concerns (p = 0.999).

By role

A significant difference by clinic role was found for comfort caring for patients who use substances, F(3,55) = 6.22, p = 0.001 (Fig. 2). Post hoc comparisons indicate that physicians (M = 3.0, SD = 0.7) were significantly less comfortable than medical assistants addressing substance use concerns (M = 4.2, SD = 0.9, p < 0.001). In contrast, one-way ANOVA showed no significant differences by clinic role for mental health problems, F(3,55) = 2.52, p = 0.067; chronic medical conditions, F(3,55) = 1.02, p = 0.389; and general health concerns, F(3,55) = 0.78, p = 0.508.

Fig. 2
figure2

Mean rating for comfort caring for patients with substance use disorder, by clinic role (N = 59). Error bars represent standard error

Discussion

Summary of findings

With the push for integrated behavioral health services in primary care settings, it is important to understand how primary care practitioners consider patients’ substance use in their conceptualization of behavioral health. Our findings indicate that a majority of care providers consider substance use to be a component of behavioral health. Nevertheless, these same front line providers reported significantly less comfort interacting with patients who use substances compared to patients with mental health problems or chronic medical conditions. With regard to comfort caring for patients with substance use, medical assistants reported greater comfort than did physicians.

Limitations

Several limitations to this small study are notable. First, the survey was conducted across two clinics within a single health care system, and our findings may not be generalizable to primary care practices in different geographic regions, systems of care, organizations, as well as provider and patient types. Second, the survey was designed for rapid data collection and anonymity so did not gather information on personal and demographic characteristics of staff and providers outside of their role within the clinic. Factors like age, gender, and health care work experience may meaningfully influence perceptions of patients’ behavioral health and substance use. Third, although the response rate was excellent, the sample size is relatively small. Further, there is a possibility that participants’ responses may have been biased given that recruitment emails came from individuals in leadership positions even though confidentiality was ensured.

Implications

This is the first study to quantitatively examine primary care providers’ conceptualization of integrated behavioral health. Specifically, to assess whether said conceptualization includes substance use. Further, it sought to evaluate comfort caring for patients by health conditions, and by role.

Addressing substance use is critical to the delivery of fully integrated care. Recent studies suggest patients may be more willing to receive behavioral health including substance use treatment services within primary care settings [29, 30]. The high inclusion of substance use in providers’ definitions of behavioral health in our study suggests primary care providers recognize substance use as a behavioral health issue but report discomfort addressing it with patients. This finding is somewhat but not entirely consistent with previously reported findings indicating more negative attitudes toward substance use by non-specialist health professionals [31, 32]. It is however unclear, given that we did not assess for stigma, whether these negative attitudes are about perceived lack of comfort or stigmatization of patients with substance related concerns. Strengthening provider capability and organizational capacity to address these issues, including establishing and reinforcing standardized workflows, can reduce low self-efficacy and improve attitudes about addressing substance use [2]. Differences among provider types is also noteworthy. Physicians reported much lower comfort than medical assistants, who work closely with physicians and play increasingly critical roles in managing care and maintaining patient relationships. This discrepancy may be indicative of differential burden in clinical responsibilities in primary care [33, 34].

Conclusion

In a small sample of key stakeholders from two primary care clinics who responded to a survey, providers recognized substance use as a behavioral health issue. They however report lower comfort caring for patients who use substances compared to caring for patients with mental health concerns, chronic conditions, or general health concerns. These attitudes may have clinical implications on access to needed care, health outcomes and quality of care. Expanding evidence-based models of integrated behavioral health to include substance use must be a priority in intervention development, evaluating for effectiveness and the potential for implementability in routine practice.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset generated and analyzed for the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AHRQ:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

ANOVA:

Analysis of variance

PC-MHI:

Primary Care-Mental Health Integration

SBIRT:

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment

Tukey’s HSD:

Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference

References

  1. 1.

    Peek C, of Minnesota U, National Integration Academy Council T. Lexicon for Behavioral Health and Primary Care Integration: Concepts and Definitions Developed by Expert Consensus. 2013

  2. 2.

    McGovern M, Dent K, Kessler R. A Unified Model of Behavioral Health Integration in Primary Care. Acad Psychiatry. 2018;42(2):265–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Watkins KE, Ober AJ, Lamp K, Lind M, Setodji C, Osilla KC, et al. Collaborative care for opioid and alcohol use disorders in primary care: the SUMMIT randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(10):1480–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Williams EC, Johnson ML, Lapham GT, Caldeiro RM, Chew L, Fletcher GS, et al. Strategies to Implement Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention in Primary Care Settings: a Structured Literature Review. Psychol Addict Behav. 2011;25(2):206–14.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Korthuis PT, McCarty D, Weimer M, Bougatsos C, Blazina I, Zakher B, et al. Primary care-based models for the treatment of opioid use disorder: A scoping review. Vol. 166, Annals of Internal Medicine. American College of Physicians; 2017. p. 268–78.

  6. 6.

    Glass JE, Hamilton AM, Powell BJ, Perron BE, Brown RT, Ilgen MA. Specialty substance use disorder services following brief alcohol intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Vol. 110, Addiction. Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2015. p. 1404–15.

  7. 7.

    Sterling S, Kline-Simon AH, Satre DD, Jones A, Mertens J, Wong A, et al. Implementation of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment for adolescents in pediatric primary care a cluster randomized trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(11):e153145.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Glass JE, Bobb JF, Lee AK, Richards JE, Lapham GT, Ludman E, et al. Study protocol: A cluster-randomized trial implementing Sustained Patient-centered Alcohol-related Care (SPARC trial). Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):108.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Bobb JF, Lee AK, Lapham GT, Oliver M, Ludman E, Achtmeyer C, et al. Evaluation of a pilot implementation to integrate alcohol-related care within primary care. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(9):1030.

    PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Lapham G, Boudreau DM, Johnson EA, Bobb JF, Matthews AG, McCormack J, et al. Prevalence and treatment of opioid use disorders among primary care patients in six health systems. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020;1:207.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bradley KA, Bobb JF, Ludman EJ, Chavez LJ, Saxon AJ, Merrill JO, et al. Alcohol-related nurse care management in primary care a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(5):613–21.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Mertens JR, Chi FW, Weisner CM, Satre DD, Ross TB, Allen S, et al. Physician versus non-physician delivery of alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment in adult primary care: The ADVISe cluster randomized controlled implementation trial. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2015;10(1):26.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Emmet W, Morgan O, Stange JL. Full immersion in the mainstream: how years of promise for mental health and substance use disorders came to fruition with the affordable care act. J Soc Work Disabil Rehabil. 2014;13(1–2):4–20.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Kuramoto F. The Affordable Care Act and Integrated Care. J Soc Work Disabil Rehabil. 2014;13(1–2):44–86.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Dundon M, Dollar K, Schohn M, Lantinga LJ. Primary Care-Mental Health Integration Co-Located, Collaborative Care: An Operations Manual National Program Manager for Health Behavior National Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Acknowledgements and Disclaimers. 2011.

  16. 16.

    Post EP, Metzger M, Dumas P, Lehmann L. Integrating Mental Health Into Primary Care Within the Veterans Health Administration. Fam Syst Heal. 2010;28(2):83–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Wu LT, McNeely J, Subramaniam GA, Brady KT, Sharma G, VanVeldhuisen P, et al. DSM-5 substance use disorders among adult primary care patients: results from a multisite study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017;1(179):42–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Pace CA, Uebelacker LA. Addressing Unhealthy Substance Use in Primary Care. Vol. 102, Medical Clinics of North America. W.B. Saunders; 2018. p. 567–86.

  19. 19.

    Merikangas KR, Mehta RL, Molnar BE, Walters EE, Swendsen JD, Aguilar-Gaziola S, et al. Comorbidity of substance use disorders with mood and anxiety disorders: results of the international consortium in psychiatric epidemiology. Addict Behav. 1998;23(6):893–907.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Katon WJ. Epidemiology and treatment of depression in patients with chronic medical illness. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011;13(1):7–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Lai HMX, Cleary M, Sitharthan T, Hunt GE. Prevalence of comorbid substance use, anxiety and mood disorders in epidemiological surveys, 1990–2014: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;154:1–13.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Mitchell AJ, Malone D, Doebbeling CC. Quality of medical care for people with and without comorbid mental illness and substance misuse: Systematic review of comparative studies. Br J Psychiatry. 2009;194:491–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Poorolajal J, Haghtalab T, Farhadi MDN. Substance use disorder and risk of suicidal ideation, suicide attempt and suicide death: a meta-analysis. J Public Heal. 2016;38:282–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Zubkoff L, Shiner B, Watts BV. Staff Perceptions of Substance Use Disorder Treatment in VA Primary Care-Mental Health Integrated Clinics. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2016;1(70):44–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Ray MK, Beach MC, Nicolaidis C, Choi D, Saha S, Korthuis PT. Patient and provider comfort discussing substance use. Fam Med. 2013;45(2):109–17.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Shapiro B, Coffa D, McCance-Katz EF. A Primary Care Approach to Substance Misuse. Am Fam Physician. 2013;88(2):113–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Wakeman SE, Pham-Kanter G, Donelan K. Attitudes, practices, and preparedness to care for patients with substance use disorder: results from a survey of general internists. Subst Abus. 2016;37(4):635–41.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Stata: Software for Statistics and Data Science [Internet]. [cited 2020 Jun 30]. https://www.stata.com/.

  29. 29.

    Barry CL, Epstein AJ, Fiellin DA, Fraenkel L, Busch SH. Estimating demand for primary care-based treatment for substance and alcohol use disorders. Addiction. 2016;111(8):1376–84.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Chen I, Gotham H, Dent K, Mahoney M, Morrison T, Filipowicz H et al. Do primary care patients and providers include substance use issues in their perceptions of integrated behavioral health? [abstract]. In: The 2019 addiction health services research conference: Insights, review, and abstracts. 2019.

  31. 31.

    Van Boekel LC, Brouwers EPM, van Weeghel J, Garretsen HFL. Healthcare professionals’ regard towards working with patients with substance use disorders: comparison of primary care, general psychiatry and specialist addiction services. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;134(1):92–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Van Boekel LC, Brouwers EPM, Van Weeghel J, Garretsen HFL. Stigma among health professionals towards patients with substance use disorders and its consequences for healthcare delivery: systematic review. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;131:23–35.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Donelan K, DesRoches CM, Dittus RS, Buerhaus P. Perspectives of physicians and nurse practitioners on primary care practice. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(20):1898–906.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Nugus P, Greenfield D, Travaglia J, Westbrook J, Braithwaite J. How and where clinicians exercise power: interprofessional relations in health care. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(5):898–909.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express gratitude to Baldeep Singh, Steven Lin, Laurie Anne Silva, Julie Varvel, Elizabeth Cardoza, Kaitlin Dent, and the staff and patients at Stanford Primary Care.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

IQC and HCG analyzed the data and drafted the initial manuscript. TSM, MRM, and HF facilitated data acquisition and contributed to revisions of the manuscript. MPM designed the study, guided data interpretation, and provided substantive revisions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark P. McGovern.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Stanford University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board. A waiver of consent was granted.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, I.Q., Chokron Garneau, H., Seay-Morrison, T. et al. What constitutes “behavioral health”? Perceptions of substance-related problems and their treatment in primary care. Addict Sci Clin Pract 15, 29 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13722-020-00202-w

Download citation