Use of Pooled State Administrative Data for Mental Health Services Research.
Use of Pooled State Administrative Data for Mental Health Services Research.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s10488-014-0620-y
复制
发表时间：
2016-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Zerzan J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hoagwood KE;Essock S;Morrissey J;Libby A;Donahue S;Druss B;Finnerty M;Frisman L;Narasimhan M;Stein BD;Wisdom J;Zerzan J
国家系统是政策相关服务研究的丰富实验室，尽管具有挑战性。州精神卫生当局经常投入资源收集数据，用于州规划和报告目的。然而，这些数据很少用于跨州比较，为州或联邦政策的制定提供信息。2008年，为了响应国家精神卫生研究所咨询委员会“未来之路：转变服务的研究伙伴关系”的主要建议，(http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/advisory-boards-and-groups/namhc/reports/road-ahead.pdf)，国家精神卫生研究所发布了申请申请(RFA)，以支持关于国家政策变化对精神障碍患者护理机会、成本、质量和结果的影响的研究。RFA的目的是通过鼓励使用各州行政数据的研究来弥合研究和政策之间的鸿沟，并解决国家定义的重大卫生政策倡议。通过同行审查，选择了涉及8个州的5个项目进行资助。项目始于2009年，资助时间为3年。本报告简要介绍了这五个项目，并分析了这些政策合作研究的影响、挑战和经验教训。最后，我们就如何使用州行政数据为州卫生政策提供信息提供建议，鉴于国家和州在医疗保健结构和融资方面的变化，这一建议尤其及时。
State systems are a rich, albeit challenging, laboratory for policy-relevant services research studies. State mental health authorities routinely devote resources to collect data for state planning and reporting purposes. However, these data are rarely used in cross-state comparisons to inform state or federal policy development. In 2008, in response to key recommendations from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Advisory Council’s “The Road Ahead: Research Partnership to Transform Services,” (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/advisory-boards-and-groups/namhc/reports/road-ahead.pdf), NIMH issued a request for applications (RFA) to support studies on the impact of state policy changes on access, cost, quality and outcomes of care for individuals with mental disorders. The purpose of the RFA was to bridge the divide between research and policy by encouraging research that used state administrative data across states, and to address significant state-defined health policy initiatives. Five projects involving eight states were selected through peer review for funding. Projects began in 2009 and were funded for 3 years. This report provides a brief description of the five projects, followed by an analysis of the impact, challenges, and lessons learned from these policy-partnered studies. We conclude by offering suggestions on ways to use state administrative data for informing state health policies, which is especially timely given national and state changes in the structure and financing of healthcare.