Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28726250›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2017

Too Big, Too Small, or Just Right? Cost-Efficiency of Environmental Inspection Services in Connecticut.

Jeffrey P Cohen, Patricia J Checko

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Jeffrey P CohenDepartment of Finance, School of Business, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.ORCID 0000-0001-5467-7584
Patricia J CheckoConnecticut Association of Directors of Health, Hartford, CT.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess optimal activity size/mix of Connecticut local public health jurisdictions, through estimating economies of scale/scope/specialization for environmental inspections/services. DATA SOURCES/STUDY

settingConnecticut's 74 local health jurisdictions (LHJs) must provide environmental health services, but their efficiency or reasons for wide cost variation are unknown. The public health system is decentralized, with variation in organizational structure/size. We develop/compile a longitudinal dataset covering all 74 LHJs, annually from 2005 to 2012. STUDY

designWe estimate a public health services/inspections cost function, where inputs are translated into outputs. We consider separate estimates of economies of scale/scope/specialization for four mandated inspection types. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION

methodsWe obtain data from Connecticut Department of Public Health databases, reports, and other publicly available sources. There has been no known previous utilization of this combined dataset. PRINCIPAL

findingsOn average, regional districts, municipal departments, and part-time LHJs are performing fewer than the efficient number of inspections. The full-time municipal departments and regional districts are more efficient but still not at the minimum efficient scale. The regional districts' elasticities of scale are larger, implying they are more efficient than municipal health departments.

conclusionsLocal health jurisdictions may enhance efficiency by increasing inspections and/or sharing some services.

Indexed as

Quality ControlConnecticutEfficiency, OrganizationalEnvironmental HealthFood ServicesHumansLead PoisoningPublic Health AdministrationWaste Disposal, FluidWater Wellseconomies of scale/scopeEnvironmental inspections

Identifiers

PMID28726250
PMCPMC5682153

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.