4.3 Article

Characteristics of Providers Using a Child Psychiatry Access Program

Journal

PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES
Volume 72, Issue 10, Pages 1213-1217

Publisher

AMER PSYCHIATRIC PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000292

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Maryland Department of Health, Behavioral Health Administration (BHA)
  2. University of Maryland School of Medicine
  3. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
  4. Salisbury University
  5. Morgan State University
  6. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Child Psychiatry Access Programs (CPAPs) in Maryland are primarily contacted by pediatric primary care clinicians (PPCCs) for consultation or referrals, with those in rural areas more likely to seek consultation. PPCCs who called seven or more times were more likely to have medical degrees and specialize in pediatrics.
Objective: Child psychiatry access programs (CPAPs) help increase access to mental health services. This study aimed to provide information on the types of pediatric primary care clinicians (PPCCs) who call Maryland's CPAP. Methods: Descriptive statistics and multinomial logistic regressions were conducted with data from 676 PPCCs who called Maryland's CPAP at least once between October 2012 and June 2019. Results: On average, PPCCs contacted Maryland's CPAP 6.8 times. Providers who called seven or more times were more likely to have an allopathic or osteopathic medicine degree and to specialize in pediatrics. Providers calling from rural regions were less likely to call only for referrals. Conclusions: Most PPCCs contacted the CPAP for consultation or referrals but not both. PPCCs in rural areas were more likely to call for consultation, suggesting that they may be more likely to manage the care of patients with mental health conditions themselves, because of a lack of resources in their locations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available