Geografisk variasjon i vaksnes bruk av avtalespesialistar og DPS i psykisk helsevern

M. Holsen, P. Holmen, Ole André Solbakken, L. Lien
{"title":"Geografisk variasjon i vaksnes bruk av avtalespesialistar og DPS i psykisk helsevern","authors":"M. Holsen, P. Holmen, Ole André Solbakken, L. Lien","doi":"10.52734/ihak9103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Equitable mental healthcare regardless of area of residence is a political aim in Norway. The purpose of this study is to evaluate geographical variation in private practitioner coverage, and explore differences between private practitioners with public reimbursement and local community mental health centers (CMHCs) in terms of diagnoses and scope of outpatient treatment, with a focus on mood and neurotic disorders. Method: Cross-sectional registry-based study of adults in outpatient mental healthcare at private practitioners or CMHCs in Norway in 2014–2018. We calculated distribution of diagnoses, geographical variation in rates of private practitioners, and analyzed scope of treatment for patients with mood and neurotic disorders (ICD-10 disorders F3, F4). We estimate cost per treated patient and report geographic variation for hospital catchment areas. Results: Patients with F3, F4 disorders accounted for 64.7 % at private practitioners, and 31.5 % at CMHCs, and received more treatment at private practitioners, five more consultations in a 42 day longer period. There is considerable geographical variation in private practitioner coverage, highest in South-East Norway and lowest in North Norway. Implications: As long as management and priority setting are differently organized for CMHCs and private practitioners in mental health care, we must expect geographical variation in access and use. It appears as an equity paradox that a group of patients, rejected by or not referred to CMHC, receive more treatment by private practitioners. Keywords: mental healthcare, outpatient consultations, private practitioners, CMHC, geographical variation, equal access, equity, priority setting","PeriodicalId":344686,"journal":{"name":"Tidsskrift for Norsk psykologforening","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tidsskrift for Norsk psykologforening","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52734/ihak9103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Equitable mental healthcare regardless of area of residence is a political aim in Norway. The purpose of this study is to evaluate geographical variation in private practitioner coverage, and explore differences between private practitioners with public reimbursement and local community mental health centers (CMHCs) in terms of diagnoses and scope of outpatient treatment, with a focus on mood and neurotic disorders. Method: Cross-sectional registry-based study of adults in outpatient mental healthcare at private practitioners or CMHCs in Norway in 2014–2018. We calculated distribution of diagnoses, geographical variation in rates of private practitioners, and analyzed scope of treatment for patients with mood and neurotic disorders (ICD-10 disorders F3, F4). We estimate cost per treated patient and report geographic variation for hospital catchment areas. Results: Patients with F3, F4 disorders accounted for 64.7 % at private practitioners, and 31.5 % at CMHCs, and received more treatment at private practitioners, five more consultations in a 42 day longer period. There is considerable geographical variation in private practitioner coverage, highest in South-East Norway and lowest in North Norway. Implications: As long as management and priority setting are differently organized for CMHCs and private practitioners in mental health care, we must expect geographical variation in access and use. It appears as an equity paradox that a group of patients, rejected by or not referred to CMHC, receive more treatment by private practitioners. Keywords: mental healthcare, outpatient consultations, private practitioners, CMHC, geographical variation, equal access, equity, priority setting
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
背景:不论居住地区如何,公平的精神保健是挪威的一个政治目标。本研究的目的是评估私人医生覆盖率的地域差异,并探讨公共报销的私人医生与当地社区精神卫生中心(CMHCs)在诊断和门诊治疗范围方面的差异,重点是情绪和神经性疾病。方法:对2014-2018年挪威私人医生或cmhc门诊心理保健的成年人进行横断面登记研究。我们计算了诊断分布、私人开业医生比率的地域差异,并分析了情绪和神经障碍(ICD-10障碍F3, F4)患者的治疗范围。我们估计每位治疗患者的费用,并报告医院集水区的地理差异。结果:F3、F4障碍患者在私人医生中占64.7%,在cmhc中占31.5%,私人医生接受的治疗更多,在42天的时间内多咨询5次。私人医生的覆盖率在地理上有很大差异,挪威东南部最高,挪威北部最低。启示:只要CMHCs和私人从业者在精神卫生保健方面的管理和优先事项设置不同,我们必须预期在获取和使用方面的地理差异。这似乎是一个公平的悖论,一组病人,拒绝或不转介到CMHC,接受私人医生更多的治疗。关键词:精神卫生,门诊咨询,私人医生,CMHC,地域差异,平等获取,公平,优先设置
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Development and validation of the 12-item video consultation self-efficacy scale Pilotprosjekt om pasientprofiler – et verktøy for klinisk erfaringsdeling Kartlegging av foreldrestil: et spørreskjema for empatibasert, følelsesbevisst foreldrekompetanse Norske politistudenters kunnskap om øyenvitners pålitelighet: en preliminær undersøkelse Nyttige faktorer for tilfriskning av anoreksi: spørreskjemaresultater fra pasienter og foreldre
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1