ArticleThe journal of behavioral health services & research2010
Improving risk adjustment of self-reported mental health outcomes.
Article in The journal of behavioral health services & research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risks for re-hospitalization of persons with severe mental illness living in rehabilitation care settings.Israel journal of health policy research · 2024Review
- Investigating the relationship between costs and outcomes for English mental health providers: a bi-variate multi-level regression analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2018Article
- The incremental value of self-reported mental health measures in predicting functional outcomes of veterans.The journal of behavioral health services & research · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk adjustment for mental health care is important for making meaningful comparisons of provider, program, and system performance. The purpose of this study was to compare the predictive value of three diagnosis-based risk-adjustment models for predicting self-reported mental health outcomes. Baseline and 3-month follow-up mental health assessments were obtained on 1,023 veterans in Veterans Health Administration mental health programs between 2004 and 2006. Least-squares regression models predicting mental health outcomes used the Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale-24, Veterans RAND-36, and Brief Symptom Inventory. Sequential models began with sociodemographics, added baseline self-reported mental health, and compared three psychiatric case mix schemes: two using six diagnostic categories and the other (psychiatric case mix system [PsyCMS]) using 46 categories. R (2) were lowest for sociodemographic models (0.010-0.074) and highest for models with the PsyCMS (0.187-0.425). The best predictive ability was obtained when baseline mental health and 1 year of psychiatric diagnoses were added to sociodemographic models; however, the "best" risk-adjustment model differed between inpatients and outpatients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19862622What 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.