Care management program evaluation: constituents, conflicts, and moves toward standardization.

D Adam Long, Theodore L Perry, Kenneth R Pelletier, Gregg O Lehman
{"title":"Care management program evaluation: constituents, conflicts, and moves toward standardization.","authors":"D Adam Long,&nbsp;Theodore L Perry,&nbsp;Kenneth R Pelletier,&nbsp;Gregg O Lehman","doi":"10.1089/dis.2006.9.176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Care management program evaluations bring together constituents from finance, medicine, and social sciences. The differing assumptions and scientific philosophies that these constituents bring to the task often lead to frustrations and even contentions. Given the forms and variations of care management programs, the difficulty associated with program outcomes measurement should not be surprising. It is no wonder then that methods for clinical and economic evaluations of program efficacy continue to be debated and have yet to be standardized. We describe these somewhat hidden processes, examine where the industry stands, and provide recommendations for steps to standardize evaluation methodology.</p>","PeriodicalId":51235,"journal":{"name":"Disease Management : Dm","volume":"9 3","pages":"176-81"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/dis.2006.9.176","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disease Management : Dm","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/dis.2006.9.176","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Care management program evaluations bring together constituents from finance, medicine, and social sciences. The differing assumptions and scientific philosophies that these constituents bring to the task often lead to frustrations and even contentions. Given the forms and variations of care management programs, the difficulty associated with program outcomes measurement should not be surprising. It is no wonder then that methods for clinical and economic evaluations of program efficacy continue to be debated and have yet to be standardized. We describe these somewhat hidden processes, examine where the industry stands, and provide recommendations for steps to standardize evaluation methodology.

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
护理管理计划评估:成分、冲突和走向标准化。
护理管理项目评估汇集了金融、医学和社会科学的成分。这些成分为这项任务带来的不同假设和科学哲学常常导致挫折甚至争论。考虑到护理管理项目的形式和变化,与项目结果测量相关的困难不应该令人惊讶。因此,对项目效果进行临床和经济评估的方法仍存在争议,且尚未标准化,也就不足为奇了。我们描述了这些隐藏的过程,研究了行业的现状,并为标准化评估方法的步骤提供了建议。
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
Improving medication adherence with a targeted, technology-driven disease management intervention. Weight loss and maintenance outcomes using moderate and severe caloric restriction in an outpatient setting. Where we've gone wrong. Disease management programs for the underserved. Co-occurring mental illness and health care utilization and expenditures in adults with obesity and chronic physical illness.
×
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