MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4317893928 · doi:10.32388/0dku2v

Modelling the Clinical and Economic Impacts of Foundation-Funded versus Staff-Driven Quality Improvement Mental Health Strategies

2023· preprint· en· W4317893928 sur OpenAlexaff
Eden McCaffrey, David Cawthorpe

Notice bibliographique

RevueQeios · 2023
Typepreprint
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Établissements canadiensUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMental healthScale (ratio)Test (biology)Quality (philosophy)Service (business)LiteracyPsychologyMedicineNursingMedical educationBusinessPsychiatry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Employing a valid and reliable clinical measurement system established in 2002 within our regional Child and Adolescent, Addictions, Mental Health, and Psychiatry Program, we have been able to measure the effect of the general service system, a novel pre-admission initial family group session to orient families to treatment, and an acute at-home care service designed to divert admissions from emergency to in-home support rather than inpatient admission. Additionally, we modelled the clinical effect and economic impact of two community programs: one school-based mental health literacy program and one primary care physician training and education program focusing on the management of children's mental health problems. In this paper, we present an established clinical measurement system combined with a standardized cost evaluation strategy to assess the respective cost/benefit impacts of four service innovations. METHODS The clinical measurement system has been described in detail, as has its role in measuring the impact of community-level training on the quality of referrals. Our financial department developed standardized per diem cost references for levels of care within our system. The cost references permitted comparison of groups that were exposed and unexposed to the system innovations before and after the initiation of service and community innovations. The school-based mental health literacy program was a regional implementation of a national program (https://mentalhealthliteracy.org/). The primary care physician education was an internationally developed program from the United States (https://thereachinstitute.org). The other two projects were accomplished on a somewhat smaller local scale and at lower overall cost. The pre-admission initial family group session was a bottom-up, staff-designed and developed quality improvement project. The acute at-home project, while funded by the children’s hospital foundation as were the two national and international projects, was a top-down director-designed project with one manager and a coordinator. RESULTS The four innovations were evaluated employing the same model. In each case, the clinical space created by each innovation was measured in terms of the cost saved by comparing the same outcomes (re-admission rates and lengths of stay) over comparable time intervals between and within pre/post exposed and unexposed groups, whilst controlling for clinical effects of exposure and time. The clinical measurement system helped determine group effects to ensure that the target groups were comparable within each initiative’s exposed and unexposed groups and were appropriately distinct between initiatives (e.g., appropriate clinical groups were served by each initiative). While the four projects were different and served somewhat different patient groups, the pre-admission initial family group session was the most cost-effective. The physician training program was both effective and cost-neutral. The school-based mental health literacy program was the least evaluable due to the direction of implementation and tended to increase referrals rather than create clinical space for more affected youth, as might be expected. The acute at-home project successfully diverted less suicidal patients away from inpatient readmission over the evaluation period. DISCUSSION The main implications for mental health policy derive from linking standardized cost and clinical measurement models, permitting economic evaluation of system and community-level innovations. Pre- and post-clinical and cost measurements within and between exposed and unexposed groups for each innovation or project permitted estimation of benefits and costs. CONCLUSIONS The projects varied in focus together with the evaluability of each project, yet this provided important information for health system innovation and renewal within the context of fiscal constraint. The ranking of the projects in terms of their overall benefits and costs may guide decision-making where maximum return on investment makes the most sense.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,058
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,115

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,019
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,334
Tête enseignante GPT0,552
Écart entre enseignants0,218 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueQeiosMême sujetPrimary Care and Health OutcomesTravaux en français237 207