Dataset Information

A framework to measure the value of public health services.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To develop a framework that public health practitioners could use to measure the value of public health services.

Data sources

Primary data were collected from August 2006 through March 2007. We interviewed (n=46) public health practitioners in four states, leaders of national public health organizations, and academic researchers.

Study design

Using a semi-structured interview protocol, we conducted a series of qualitative interviews to define the component parts of value for public health services and identify methodologies used to measure value and data collected.

Data collection/extraction methods

The primary form of analysis is descriptive, synthesizing information across respondents as to how they measure the value of their services.

Principal findings

Our interviews did not reveal a consensus on how to measure value or a specific framework for doing so. Nonetheless, the interviews identified some potential strategies, such as cost accounting and performance-based contracting mechanisms. The interviews noted implementation barriers, including limits to staff capacity and data availability.

Conclusions

We developed a framework that considers four component elements to measure value: external factors that must be taken into account (i.e., mandates); key internal actions that a local health department must take (i.e., staff assessment); using appropriate quantitative measures; and communicating value to elected officials and the public.

SUBMITTER: Jacobson PD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2758411 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A framework to measure the value of public health services.

Jacobson Peter D PD Neumann Peter J PJ

Health services research 20090814 5 Pt 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To develop a framework that public health practitioners could use to measure the value of public health services.<h4>Data sources</h4>Primary data were collected from August 2006 through March 2007. We interviewed (n=46) public health practitioners in four states, leaders of national public health organizations, and academic researchers.<h4>Study design</h4>Using a semi-structured interview protocol, we conducted a series of qualitative interviews to define the component parts ...[more]

PMID: 19686250

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDigital public health (DiPH) interventions may help us tackle substantial public health challenges and reach historically underserved populations, in addition to presenting valuable opportunities to improve and complement existing services. However, DiPH interventions are often triggered through technological advancements and opportunities rather than public health needs. To develop and evaluate interventions designed to serve public health needs, a comprehensive framework is needed that systematically covers all aspects with relevance for public health. This includes considering the complexity of the technology, the context in which the technology is supposed to operate, its implementation, and its effects on public health, including ethical, legal, and social aspects.ObjectiveWe aimed to develop such a DiPH framework with a comprehensive list of core principles to be considered throughout the development and evaluation process of any DiPH intervention.MethodsThe resulting digital public health framework (DigiPHrame) was based on a scoping review of existing digital health and public health frameworks. After extracting all assessment criteria from these frameworks, we clustered the criteria. During a series of multidisciplinary meetings with experts from the Leibniz ScienceCampus Digital Public Health, we restructured each domain to represent the complexity of DiPH. In this paper, we used a COVID-19 contact-tracing app as a use case to illustrate how DigiPHrame may be applied to assess DiPH interventions.ResultsThe current version of DigiPHrame consists of 182 questions nested under 12 domains. Domain 1 describes the current status of health needs and existing interventions; domains 2 and 3, the DiPH technology under assessment and aspects related to human-computer interaction, respectively; domains 4 and 5, structural and process aspects, respectively; and domains 6-12, contextual conditions and the outcomes of the DiPH intervention from broad perspectives. In the CWA use case, a number of questions relevant during its development but also important for assessors once the CWA was available were highlighted.ConclusionsDigiPHrame is a comprehensive framework for the development and assessment of digital technologies designed for public health purposes. It is a living framework and will, therefore, be updated regularly and as new public health needs and technological advancements emerge.

Project description:IntroductionAdolescents and youths who need exceptional healthcare are the shapers and leaders of our global future. However, many of them are died prematurely, while others suffer from diseases partly because of the poor quality of health services. Thus, this study aimed to assess the quality of Adolescent and Youth-friendly Health Services (AYFHS) and associated factors in the public health facilities of Dehana district, Northeast Ethiopia.MethodsA facility-based quantitative cross-sectional study supported with a qualitative component was conducted from February 24 to March 30, 2020. The quality of AYFHS was measured using the Donbidean framework (structure, process and output component). Accordingly, a total of 431 adolescents and youths, five health facilities, twenty-five client-provider interaction observations, and nine key informant interviews were conducted. Binary logistic regression analysis was done, and variables with a p-value of < 0.05 and Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) with its 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were used to measure the association. The qualitative data were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Then, Open Code 4.03 software was used to manage and analyze the data.ResultsThe quality of adolescent and youth-friendly health services was 58.8, 46.4, and 47.2% for structural, process, and output quality dimensions, respectively. The predictor variables for output quality were, being a student (AOR: 2.07, 95%CI: 1.07-3.40), farmers (AOR: 2.59, 95%CI: 1.25-5.39), own income sources (AOR: 1.99, 95%CI: 1.03-3.85), exempted services (AOR: 2.30, 95%CI: 1.43-3.71) and long waiting time (AOR: 3.8495%CI: 1.80-8.23).ConclusionsThe overall quality of adolescent and youth-friendly health services was still lower than the WHO good quality standards. The structural quality dimension was affected by the unavailability of adequate and trained health service providers, poor engagement of adolescents and youths in the facility governance structure, unavailability of guidelines, protocols and procedures. In contrast, the process quality dimension was also compromised due to the provider's poor compliance with the national AYFHS guidelines. Therefore, health facilities need to engage adolescents and youths in the health facility governance structure, and providers should comply with the national guideline.

Project description:BackgroundNumerous determinants have been linked to public mental health; however, they have not been brought together in a comprehensive conceptual framework. The goal of this work was to bring together academic research, practitioner expertise, and public perspectives to create a public mental health conceptual framework.MethodsThe development process proceeded in four stages. First, we identified a comprehensive list of potential determinants through a state-of-the-art academic literature review, grey literature review, and created mind maps created by peer researchers. Next, we conducted in-person workshops, consultations, and an online survey with academics, practitioners, policy makers, and members of the public to review the potential determinants, nominate additional determinants, and prioritise determinants by importance for understanding public mental health. This iterative process resulted in the final list of determinants contained in the framework. We then conducted rapid reviews to define each determinant and to identify key research, interventions, and resources. Finally, we worked with a design team to visualise the conceptual framework as an online tool and printable infographic.ResultsWe found substantial overlap between sources reflecting a shared understanding of the key drivers of public mental health. The unique determinants that emerged from each data source highlighted the importance of using multiple sources to create a comprehensive model. 72 potential determinants were prioritised through stakeholder consultations, resulting in a final list of 55 determinants and organised into four levels: individual, family, community, and structural.ConclusionsThis is the most complete conceptual framework for public mental health to date, bringing together academic research, policy and practitioner views, and lived experience perspectives. The co-production processes and tools we used provides a template for researchers looking to include multiple perspectives in their research. The conceptual framework draws together current knowledge on each determinant, but also highlights areas where further research is needed to better understand the relationship between each factor and mental health, which can inform the research agenda. This online tool and infographic can be used by practitioners to identify interventions for promoting mental health, and by the general public as a resource to increase awareness of the broad factors which shape public mental health.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Connected health (CH), as a new paradigm, manages individual and community health in a holistic manner by leveraging a variety of technologies and has the potential for the incorporation of telehealth and integrated care services, covering the whole spectrum of health-related services addressing healthy subjects and chronic patients. The reorganization of services around the person or citizen has been expected to bring high impact in the health care domain. There are a series of concerns (eg, contextual factors influencing the impact of care models, the cost savings associated with CH solutions, and the sustainability of the CH ecosystem) that should be better addressed for CH technologies to reach stakeholders more successfully. Overall, there is a need to effectively establish an understanding of the concepts of CH impact. As services based on CH technologies go beyond standard clinical interventions and assessments of medical devices or medical treatments, the need for standardization and for new ways of measurements and assessments emerges when studying CH impact. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to introduce the CH impact framework (CHIF) that serves as an approach to assess the impact of CH services. METHODS:This study focused on the subset of CH comprising services that directly address patients and citizens on the management of disease or health and wellness. The CHIF was developed through a multistep procedure and various activities. These included, as initial steps, a literature review and workshop focusing on knowledge elicitation around CH concepts. Then followed the development of the initial version of the framework, refining of the framework with the experts as a result of the second workshop, and, finally, composition and deployment of a questionnaire for preliminary feedback from early-stage researchers in the relevant domains. RESULTS:The framework contributes to a better understanding of what is CH impact and analyzes the factors toward achieving it. CHIF elaborates on how to assess impact in CH services. These aspects can contribute to an impact-aware design of CH services. It can also contribute to a comparison of CH services and further knowledge of the domain. The CHIF is based on 4 concepts, including CH system and service outline, CH system end users, CH outcomes, and factors toward achieving CH impact. The framework is visualized as an ontological model. CONCLUSIONS:The CHIF is an initial step toward identifying methodologies to objectively measure CH impact while recognizing its multiple dimensions and scales.

Dataset Information

A framework to measure the value of public health services.

Objective

Data sources

Study design

Data collection/extraction methods

Principal findings

Conclusions

Publications

A framework to measure the value of public health services.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets