ArticleThe journal of behavioral health services & research2001
Comparing alternative risk-adjustment models.
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 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Guideline conformity and outcome of inpatient treatment for schizophrenia. A clinical comparison].Der Nervenarzt · 2005Trial
- Development of mental health quality indicators (MHQIs) for inpatient psychiatry based on the interRAI mental health assessment.BMC health services research · 2013Article
- Improving risk adjustment of self-reported mental health outcomes.The journal of behavioral health services & research · 2010Article
- When programs benefit some people more than others: tests of differential service effectiveness.Administration and policy in mental health · 2008Article
- Monitoring of mental health systems and services: comparison of four existing indicator schemes.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of mental health indicators to compare provider performance requires that comparisons be fair. Fair provider comparisons mean that scores are risk adjusted for client characteristics that influence scores and that are beyond provider control. Data for the study are collected from 336 outpatients receiving publicly funded mental health services in Washington State. The study compares alternative specifications of multiple regression-based risk-adjustment models to argue that the particular form of the model will lead to different conclusions about comparative treatment agency performance. In order to evaluate performance fairly it is necessary to not only incorporate risk adjustment, but also identify the most correct form that the risk-adjustment model should take. Future research is needed to specify; test, and validate the mental health risk-adjustment models best suited to particular treatment populations and performance indicators.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11497021What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.