精神健康和物质使用障碍的关键绩效指标:文献综述和讨论文件

C. Henderson, J. Klimas, C. Dunne, D. Leddin, D. Meagher, T. O'toole, W. Cullen
{"title":"精神健康和物质使用障碍的关键绩效指标:文献综述和讨论文件","authors":"C. Henderson, J. Klimas, C. Dunne, D. Leddin, D. Meagher, T. O'toole, W. Cullen","doi":"10.1080/17523281.2014.901402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With increasing recognition of the importance of mental and substance use disorders for population health and health systems and the potential value of systems-based performance indicators in addressing this issue, we aimed to describe the development and content of key performance indicators for mental and substance use disorders. Publications were identified through official websites, Google searches and PubMed. Following ‘PRISMA’ guidelines, twenty-five studies were kept for qualitative synthesis and six for quantitative analysis. We describe their use in practice by comparing their application across a range of public and mixed healthcare systems. Currently, key performance indicator development for mental and substance use disorders adopts several methodologies, including expert opinion, literature review, stakeholder consultation and the structured consensus method. The rationales provided for selection of particular key performance indicators vary greatly between systems. Systems exhibit different levels of key performance indicator adaptability, which is reflective of dynamic changes in evidence-based practices. We noted bias in the level of key performance indicator assessment towards system/health plan evaluation followed by programme/service evaluation. Similarly, there is a large skew towards key performance indicators that reflect evaluation of processes. Collection of data in all systems is nearly exclusively reliant on electronic administrative/medical data. Experiences from these systems are synthesized into methodological recommendations, and considerations for further research and clinical practice are provided.","PeriodicalId":88592,"journal":{"name":"Mental health and substance use : dual diagnosis","volume":"17 1","pages":"407-419"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Key performance indicators for mental health and substance use disorders: a literature review and discussion paper\",\"authors\":\"C. Henderson, J. Klimas, C. Dunne, D. Leddin, D. Meagher, T. O'toole, W. Cullen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17523281.2014.901402\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"With increasing recognition of the importance of mental and substance use disorders for population health and health systems and the potential value of systems-based performance indicators in addressing this issue, we aimed to describe the development and content of key performance indicators for mental and substance use disorders. Publications were identified through official websites, Google searches and PubMed. Following ‘PRISMA’ guidelines, twenty-five studies were kept for qualitative synthesis and six for quantitative analysis. We describe their use in practice by comparing their application across a range of public and mixed healthcare systems. Currently, key performance indicator development for mental and substance use disorders adopts several methodologies, including expert opinion, literature review, stakeholder consultation and the structured consensus method. The rationales provided for selection of particular key performance indicators vary greatly between systems. Systems exhibit different levels of key performance indicator adaptability, which is reflective of dynamic changes in evidence-based practices. We noted bias in the level of key performance indicator assessment towards system/health plan evaluation followed by programme/service evaluation. Similarly, there is a large skew towards key performance indicators that reflect evaluation of processes. Collection of data in all systems is nearly exclusively reliant on electronic administrative/medical data. Experiences from these systems are synthesized into methodological recommendations, and considerations for further research and clinical practice are provided.\",\"PeriodicalId\":88592,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mental health and substance use : dual diagnosis\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"407-419\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mental health and substance use : dual diagnosis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17523281.2014.901402\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mental health and substance use : dual diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17523281.2014.901402","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

随着人们越来越认识到精神和物质使用障碍对人口健康和卫生系统的重要性,以及基于系统的绩效指标在解决这一问题方面的潜在价值,我们旨在描述精神和物质使用障碍关键绩效指标的发展和内容。出版物是通过官方网站、谷歌搜索和PubMed确定的。遵循“PRISMA”指南,25项研究用于定性合成,6项用于定量分析。我们通过比较它们在一系列公共和混合医疗保健系统中的应用来描述它们在实践中的使用。目前,精神和物质使用障碍的关键绩效指标制定采用了几种方法,包括专家意见、文献审查、利益攸关方协商和结构化共识法。在不同的系统之间,选择特定关键绩效指标的依据差别很大。系统表现出不同程度的关键绩效指标适应性,这反映了循证实践的动态变化。我们注意到,在关键绩效指标评估水平上,偏向于系统/健康计划评估,然后是项目/服务评估。同样,反映过程评价的关键绩效指标也有很大的倾斜。所有系统的数据收集几乎完全依赖于电子管理/医疗数据。这些系统的经验被综合成方法学建议,并为进一步的研究和临床实践提供了考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Key performance indicators for mental health and substance use disorders: a literature review and discussion paper
With increasing recognition of the importance of mental and substance use disorders for population health and health systems and the potential value of systems-based performance indicators in addressing this issue, we aimed to describe the development and content of key performance indicators for mental and substance use disorders. Publications were identified through official websites, Google searches and PubMed. Following ‘PRISMA’ guidelines, twenty-five studies were kept for qualitative synthesis and six for quantitative analysis. We describe their use in practice by comparing their application across a range of public and mixed healthcare systems. Currently, key performance indicator development for mental and substance use disorders adopts several methodologies, including expert opinion, literature review, stakeholder consultation and the structured consensus method. The rationales provided for selection of particular key performance indicators vary greatly between systems. Systems exhibit different levels of key performance indicator adaptability, which is reflective of dynamic changes in evidence-based practices. We noted bias in the level of key performance indicator assessment towards system/health plan evaluation followed by programme/service evaluation. Similarly, there is a large skew towards key performance indicators that reflect evaluation of processes. Collection of data in all systems is nearly exclusively reliant on electronic administrative/medical data. Experiences from these systems are synthesized into methodological recommendations, and considerations for further research and clinical practice are provided.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信