PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 955751

Unmet needs as sociomedical indicators.

W Carr·S Wolfe
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper discusses the Meharry Medical College Study of Unmet Needs designed to measure the effectiveness of alternative health care delivery systems: (a) comprehensive care with broad outreach, (b) comprehensive care with limited outreach, and (c) traditional care. Unmet needs are defined as the differences between services judged necessary to deal appropriately with health problems and services actually received. The central hypothesis is that comprehensive health programs will be more effective than traditional care in reducing unmet needs. Unmet needs are viewed as measures of program outcome and are one of several types of sociomedical indicators which use factors other than biomedical or biological states as measures of outcome. The distinction is made between unmet needs are discussed and the relatively limited focus of these is contrasted with the more comprehensive Meharry approach. Household interviews and clinical examinations provide the data base for deriving professional judgements of unmet needs in the medical, dental, nursing, and social services areas. The Meharry work suggests several areas in which further work on unmet needs would be useful.

Explore related subjects

Comprehensive Health CareConsumer BehaviorDelivery of Health CareHealth Status IndicatorsHealth SurveysHumansSchools, MedicalSociologyTennesseeJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W Carr, S Wolfe. 1976. Unmet needs as sociomedical indicators.. https://doi.org/10.2190/mcg0-uh8d-0ag8-vfnu

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Quality of integrated care for patients with head and neck cancer: Development and measurement of clinical indicators.

BACKGROUND: To improve the quality of integrated care, we developed indicators for assessing current practice in a large reference center for head and neck oncology. METHODS: We defined a set of indicators based on integrated care literature, national evidence-based guidelines for patients with head and neck cancer, and the opinions of professionals and patients. We tested this set regarding assessment of current practice and clinimetric characteristics. RESULTS: The final set consisted of 8 integrated care indicators and 23 specific indicators for patients with head and neck cancer. Current practice assessment produced high scores for the integrated care indicators, but the specific indicators showed room for improvement. The practice test showed that 9 indicators had good applicability. CONCLUSIONS: The indicators, while based on evidence-based guidelines and the principles of integrated care, should incorporate patients' opinions and include a practice test. Our results show that the quality of integrated care for patients with head and neck cancer could be improved.

Comprehensive Health Care↗
PubMed2006

The role of workplace health promotion in addressing job stress.

The enormous human and economic costs associated with occupational stress suggest that initiatives designed to prevent and/or reduce employee stress should be high on the agenda of workplace health promotion (WHP) programmes. Although employee stress is often the target of WHP, reviews of job stress interventions suggest that the common approach to combating job stress is to focus on the individual without due consideration of the direct impacts of working conditions on health as well as the effects of working conditions on employees' ability to adopt and sustain 'healthy' behaviours. The purpose of the first part of this paper is to highlight the criticisms of the individual approach to job stress and to examine the evidence for developing strategies that combine both individual and organizational-directed interventions (referred to as the comprehensive approach). There is a risk that WHP practitioners may lose sight of the role that they can play in developing and implementing the comprehensive approach, particularly in countries where occupational health and safety authorities are placing much more emphasis on identifying and addressing organizational sources of job stress. The aim of the second part of this paper is therefore to provide a detailed description of what the comprehensive approach to stress prevention/reduction looks like in practice and to examine the means by which WHP can help develop initiatives that address both the sources and the symptoms of job stress.

Comprehensive Health Care↗