MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2292817460 · doi:10.14288/1.0097652

Manpower substitution in mental health service delivery

2010· article· en· W2292817460 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elinor Carol Macpherson

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubstitution (logic)Mental healthService (business)BusinessMental health serviceMedicineComputer sciencePsychiatryMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study developed a model for projecting potential economies from manpower substitution among the four core mental health professions and applied the model to a proposed substitution situation which would substitute psychologists for psychiatrists in the delivery of a proportion of present private practice (fee-for-service) psychiatry services in British Columbia. The model identifies three controlling variables: treatment substitutability (TS), practice privilege constraints (PPC), and relative payment rates (RR). In the model, TS and PPC are conceptualized as determining the estimated substitutable share of costs (SSC%); RR, in combination with the values derived for SSC%, is then used to estimate potential cost savings (CS%). Two conditions were defined for each of the three controlling variables in order to provide a range of possible values for SSC% and CS%. For reasons of data availability, data were obtained from the Manitoba Health Services Commission for private practice psychiatry services for FY 1984 and estimates of SSC% calculated. These estimates were then applied to B.C. Medical Services Commission data for FY 1984, and projected values of CS% calculated. Calculations were made both for all services and for the subset of psychotherapy services, which accounted for 80 percent of the larger set of services. The results of the study indicated considerable possibilities for manpower substitution, ranging from 35 to 70 percent for all services and 40 to 75 percent for psychotherapy services. However, the study also found that while salaried psychologists offered the possibility of substantial cost savings, a fee-for-service arrangement suggested virtually no potential savings. Projected values of CS% for the salaried alternative were 20 to 40 percent for all services and 15 to 30 percent for psychotherapy services but in the fee-for-service alternative, only 4 to 8 percent for all services and 4 to 7 percent for psychotherapy services. Licensure and market rigidities which might pose barriers to implementation were evaluated and a review of professional training standards (TS), licensure standards (PPC), and funding alternatives (RR) indicated that the projected economies could be achieved with no necessity for modifications in existing arrangements. PPC appear to present almost no barriers to economies from the proposed manpower substitution and those barriers which are presented by TS and RR limitations still allow considerable potential for economies. Thus, the greatest opportunities for intervention in achieving and enhancing the projected, economies appear to be in the exploration of relative payment rates and relative effectiveness of treatment methods (e.g., psychotherapy vs. pharmacotherapy). The study concludes with a discussion of factors lying outside the boundaries of the model but which impinge, nonetheless, upon the feasibility of the proposed substitution and fall, necessarily, to policy makers to address. The existing network of B.C. community mental health centres was suggested as a possible mechanism for the delivery of the substitutable share of private practice psychiatry services.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicEmployment and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→