Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11497020›Full record

ArticleThe journal of behavioral health services & research2001

Approaches to risk-adjusting outcome measures applied to criminal justice involvement after community service.

S M Banks, J A Pandiani, J Bramley

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of behavioral health services & research, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Case-mix adjustment of adolescent mental health treatment outcomes.The journal of behavioral health services & research
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

S M BanksThe Bristol Observatory, VT 05443, USA. bristob@together.net
J A Pandiani
J Bramley

Funding

NHLBI NIH HHS 5 HR1 SM52001-02 SM-HR1/HS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ethic of fairness in program evaluation requires that measures of behavioral health agency performance be sensitive to differences in those agencies' caseload composition. The authors describe two traditional approaches to the statistical risk adjustment of outcome measures (stratification weighting and pre-post measurement) that are designed to account for differences in caseload composition and introduce a method that incorporates the strengths of both approaches. Procedures for deriving each of these measures are described in detail and demonstrated in the evaluation of a statewide system of community-based behavioral health care programs. This evaluation examines the degree to which service recipients get into trouble with the law after treatment. Three measures are recommended for inclusion in outcome-oriented "report cards," and the interpretation of each measure is discussed. Finally, the authors suggest formats for graphic and tabular presentation of the risk-adjusted evaluation for sharing findings with diverse stakeholder groups.

Indexed as

Risk AdjustmentAdultCommunity Mental Health ServicesCrimeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalOutcome Assessment, Health CareProgram EvaluationPublic Health AdministrationQuality Indicators, Health CareRetrospective StudiesSampling StudiesVermont

Identifiers

PMID11497020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.