ArticleCommunity mental health journal2009
Field test of the feasibility and validity of using the Hoosier Assurance Plan Instrument for Adults in a state mental health program.
Article in Community mental health journal, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current paper reports on the feasibility of using the HAPI-A, an instrument designed to assess a person's level of functioning in the community: (1) to help determine eligibility to receive behavioral health services, (2) to assign reimbursement case rates; and (3) to provide data for a service provider report card. A 3-year field study of the use of the instrument across an entire state mental health system explored the effectiveness of methods to enhance data accuracy, including annual training and a professional clinical record audit, and the ability of the test to detect differences in improvement rates within risk-adjusted groupings. The combination of training and auditing produced statistically significant, cumulative reductions in data errors across all 3 years of the field test. The HAPI-A also was sensitive in detecting differences among service providers in outcome improvements for six of six risk-adjusted groups rated at the moderate level of impairment and for five of six groups rated at the mild level of impairment, but was inconsistent in detecting outcome differences for persons rated at the severe level of impairment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19551504What 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.