A Systematic Review of the Methods Used to Evaluate Child Psychiatry Access Programs

Background: There is a well-documented gap between the need for and availability of mental health services for children nationwide. To address this gap, over 30 regional Child Psychiatry Access Programs (CPAPs) provide psychiatric consultation and other services to primary care providers. Objective: Summarize the methods used to evaluate CPAPs in the United States. Data Sources: PubMed, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and reference checking. Study Appraisal Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted searching 3 databases. The search produced 307 unique articles, 278 were excluded for irrelevance, leaving 29 for data extraction. Data extracted included author(s), publication year, provider types, CPAP formats, study sample, design, outcomes examined, results, and limitations. Articles were also appraised for quality using the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Evidence Level and Quality Guide. Results: The 29 articles evaluated 13 unique CPAPs. Most evaluations used nonexperimental observational designs (68.9%), 6.9% used quasi-experimental designs, and none used true experimental designs. Evaluations examined the following outcomes: usage of program services (82.8%), provider satisfaction (48.3%), provider comfort/confidence with managing mental health concerns (31.0%), provider practice change (24.1%), patient outcomes (13.7%), and family satisfaction (6.9%). Outcomes were measured using surveys, qualitative interviews, or insurance claims data. Limitations: Review was limited to articles published in English in 3 databases or identified by reference checking. Conclusions: Evaluations of CPAPs have largely been descriptive in nature, focusing primarily on program usage and provider satisfaction. Few studies have examined the impact of CPAPs on patients, families, or health systems. Future studies should evaluate the broader impacts of CPAPs.