Lessons from the front: implementing outcomes projects.

B J Thompson; J S Lyons

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10161582

Lessons from the front: implementing outcomes projects.

B J Thompson·J S Lyons

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

These issues are representative of the challenges facing those wishing to implement outcomes evaluations in the dramatically different settings of today's behavioral healthcare. To maintain acceptable levels of credibility, difficult issues such as these need to be addressed openly and assertively. We remain optimistic about the value of measuring the effects of behavioral healthcare interventions. Such measurement facilitates the development of communication across service providers and creates accountability where once there was none. When standards of quality research are applied, outcomes management offers great potential benefit to consumers, providers, and behavioral healthcare organizations.

Explore related subjects

Cost-Benefit Analysis Mental Health Services Organizational Objectives Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care Quality of Health Care United States Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

B J Thompson, J S Lyons. 1996. Lessons from the front: implementing outcomes projects.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10161582/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2005

Comparing costing results in across country economic evaluations: the use of technology specific purchasing power parities.

The number of economic evaluations conducted on a multinational basis is increasing. Therefore, techniques are required to compare the results of such studies in a meaningful manner. This paper explores different approaches to comparing across country cost data applied to a European study of dialysis therapy for end-stage renal disease. A price and volume index is created at the level of the individual health care technology and compared to an exchange rate conversion and published purchasing power parities (PPPs). Both exchange rate and PPP conversions when published rates are used fail to accurately reflect the true resource use of the applied health care example. These differences can be related to specific issues of input mix and price variation. Alternatively, the use of technology specific PPPs provided a more robust approach for international comparisons and also have the potential for use in multi-centre economic evaluations within the same country.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

PubMed2005

Assessing generalisability by location in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the use of multilevel models.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in health care is increasingly conducted alongside multicentre and multinational randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs). The increased use of stochastic CEA is designed to account for between-patient sampling variability in cost-effectiveness data assuming that observations are independently distributed. However, between-location variability in cost-effectiveness may result if there is a hierarchical structure in the data; that is, if there is correlation in costs and outcomes between patients recruited in particular locations. This may be expected in multi-location trials given that centres and countries often differ in factors such as clinical practice, patient case-mix and the unit costs of delivering health care. A failure to acknowledge this feature may lead to misleading conclusions in a trial-based economic study. Multilevel modelling (MLM) is an analytical framework that can be used to handle hierarchical cost-effectiveness data. Using data from a recently conducted economic analysis, this paper shows how multilevel modelling can be used to obtain (a) more appropriate estimates of the population average incremental cost-effectiveness and associated standard errors compared to standard stochastic CEA; and (b) location-specific estimates of incremental cost-effectiveness which can be used to explore appropriately the variability between centres/countries of the cost-effectiveness results.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

PubMed2005

Risk aversion and uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis: the expected-utility, moment-generating function approach.

The availability of patient-level data from clinical trials has spurred a lot of interest in developing methods for quantifying and presenting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Although the majority has focused on developing methods for using sample data to estimate a confidence interval for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), a small strand of the literature has emphasized the importance of incorporating risk preferences and the trade-off between the mean and the variance of returns to investment in health and medicine (mean-variance analysis). This paper shows how the exponential utility-moment-generating function approach is a natural extension to this branch of the literature for modelling choices from healthcare interventions with uncertain costs and effects. The paper assumes an exponential utility function, which implies constant absolute risk aversion, and is based on the fact that the expected value of this function results in a convenient expression that depends only on the moment-generating function of the random variables. The mean-variance approach is shown to be a special case of this more general framework. The paper characterizes the solution to the resource allocation problem using standard optimization techniques and derives the summary measure researchers need to estimate for each programme, when the assumption of risk neutrality does not hold, and compares it to the standard incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The importance of choosing the correct distribution of costs and effects and the issues related to estimation of the parameters of the distribution are also discussed. An empirical example to illustrate the methods and concepts is provided.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗