Cargando…
213 Provider-identified barriers to recommending low-intensity treatments for patients awaiting mental health care
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Waiting for psychotherapy is a major barrier to care and associated with negative outcomes. Individuals waiting for treatment may be particularly well-suited to receive low-intensity treatments (LITs), but few providers recommend LITs. We investigated provider-identified barriers t...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cambridge University Press
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10129520/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2023.285 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Waiting for psychotherapy is a major barrier to care and associated with negative outcomes. Individuals waiting for treatment may be particularly well-suited to receive low-intensity treatments (LITs), but few providers recommend LITs. We investigated provider-identified barriers to recommending LITs for patients on treatment waiting lists. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We recruited mental health professionals via social media and professional association listservs to participate in a brief survey. Participants were asked about their current waiting list practices and attitudes towards low-intensity resources for patients waiting for treatment. Participants were prompted to provide additional thoughts on recommending LITs for patients on waiting lists in an open-ended text box. Two members of the research team independently coded responses into themes, resolved discrepancies, and achieved total consensus. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: 141 mental health providers participated in the survey, and 65 (46%) provided a response to the open-ended question. The emerging themes included: Patient Barriers, Research Evidence/Efficacy, Feasibility, Patient Personal Contact, Patient Appropriateness, Liability, Systemic Problems, Trust in Programs, Downplaying Distress, Additional Resources, and Positive Attitudes. Providers were particularly concerned with giving a generalized intervention without having conducted a full evaluation or assessment with a patient. Many providers also reported concerns pertaining to the legal and ethical liability of providing LITs when a patient is not being seen face-to-face by a provider. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Many of the themes we identified parallel those identified in previous literature. Some barriers we identified from our providers, when thinking about integrating LITs on waiting lists, highlight the need for professional guidelines to address legal and ethical liability, as well as billing and reimbursement procedures. |
---|