Dataset Information

From Theory to Practice: Implementation of a Resource Allocation Model in Health Departments.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To develop a resource allocation model to optimize health departments' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-funded HIV prevention budgets to prevent the most new cases of HIV infection and to evaluate the model's implementation in 4 health departments. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS:We developed a linear programming model combined with a Bernoulli process model that allocated a fixed budget among HIV prevention interventions and risk subpopulations to maximize the number of new infections prevented. The model, which required epidemiologic, behavioral, budgetary, and programmatic data, was implemented in health departments in Philadelphia, Chicago, Alabama, and Nebraska. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The optimal allocation of funds, the site-specific cost per case of HIV infection prevented rankings by intervention, and the expected number of HIV cases prevented. RESULTS:The model suggested allocating funds to HIV testing and continuum-of-care interventions in all 4 health departments. The most cost-effective intervention for all sites was HIV testing in nonclinical settings for men who have sex with men, and the least cost-effective interventions were behavioral interventions for HIV-negative persons. The pilot sites required 3 to 4 months of technical assistance to develop data inputs and generate and interpret the results. Although the sites found the model easy to use in providing quantitative evidence for allocating HIV prevention resources, they criticized the exclusion of structural interventions and the use of the model to allocate only CDC funds. CONCLUSIONS:Resource allocation models have the potential to improve the allocation of limited HIV prevention resources and can be used as a decision-making guide for state and local health departments. Using such models may require substantial staff time and technical assistance. These model results emphasize the allocation of CDC funds toward testing and continuum-of-care interventions and populations at highest risk of HIV transmission.

SUBMITTER: Yaylali E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4887404 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

From Theory to Practice: Implementation of a Resource Allocation Model in Health Departments.

Yaylali Emine E Farnham Paul G PG Schneider Karen L KL Landers Stewart J SJ Kouzouian Oskian O Lasry Arielle A Purcell David W DW Green Timothy A TA Sansom Stephanie L SL

Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP 20161101 6

<h4>Objective</h4>To develop a resource allocation model to optimize health departments' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-funded HIV prevention budgets to prevent the most new cases of HIV infection and to evaluate the model's implementation in 4 health departments.<h4>Design, settings, and participants</h4>We developed a linear programming model combined with a Bernoulli process model that allocated a fixed budget among HIV prevention interventions and risk subpopulations to max ...[more]

PMID: 26352385

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough eMental health interventions are a viable solution to address disparities in access to mental healthcare and increase its efficiency, they still face challenges of implementation. Literature highlights numerous barriers such as diffusion of responsibility and unclear expectations of what implementation entails might hinder this process. While research mostly focuses on analyzing these barriers, there is an urgent need to increase uptake in practice. In turn, commercial companies focus mostly on increasing uptake, while overlooking research outputs. To bridge the gap between research and practice, attention to how implementation occurs in practice is required. This study investigates "Make it Happen" (MiH), the implementation model developed by the eMental Health company Minddistrict, aiming to gain more insight into operationalizing implementation frameworks by 1) describing MiH and its conceptual underpinnings, and 2) gaining lessons learned from the development of MiH. Ultimately, this work aims at improving existing scientific frameworks by extending them with knowledge from practice.MethodsFirst, individual interviews and focus groups with Minddistrict implementation managers were performed. Second, individual interviews with project leads in mental healthcare organizations that were involved in the implementation of Minddistrict were conducted. Within Minddistrict, 7 implementation managers and account managers were involved, in addition to 11 project leads from mental healthcare organizations. Data were elaborated with thematic analysis.ResultsA comprehensive description of MiH and its 5 main phases was achieved. During the 1) Onboarding phase, implementing organizations are guided by Minddistrict to build a team responsible for implementation, which then 2) designs patient and client journeys, 3) builds, tailors and configures their offer, 4) trains key-users and, 5) evaluates the success of implementation. All participants had extensive and aligned definitions and articulated expectations on implementation. Points of improvement for the model such as role ambiguity and excessive workload were identified. As strengths, internal motivation and good relationships with the provider were valued.ConclusionThe present study highlights the importance of clear role division and stakeholder engagement in implementation processes, and suggest that a strong collaboration between companies and academia could optimize implementation efforts and ensure a better fit between humans, context, and technologies.

Project description:IntroductionAdvanced practice providers (APP), including physicians' assistants and nurse practitioners, have been increasingly incorporated into emergency department (ED) staffing over the past decade. There is scant literature examining resource utilization and the cost benefit of having APPs in the ED. The objectives of this study were to compare resource utilization in EDs that use APPs in their staffing model with those that do not and to estimate costs associated with the utilized resources.MethodsIn this five-year retrospective secondary data analysis of the Emergency Department Benchmarking Alliance (EDBA), we compared resource utilization rates in EDs with and without APPs in non-academic EDs. Primary outcomes were hospital admission and use of computed tomography (CT), radiography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Costs were estimated using the 2014 physician fee schedule and inpatient payments from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We measured outcomes as rates per 100 visits. Data were analyzed using a mixed linear model with repeated measures, adjusted for annual volume, patient acuity, and attending hours. We used the adjusted net difference to project utilization costs between the two groups per 1000 visits.ResultsOf the 1054 EDs included in this study, 79% employed APPs. Relative to EDs without APPs, EDs staffing APPs had higher resource utilization rates (use per 100 visits): 3.0 more admissions (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-4.1), 1.7 more CTs (95% CI, 0.2-3.1), 4.5 more radiographs (95% CI, 2.2-6.9), and 1.0 more ultrasound (95% CI, 0.3-1.7) but comparable MRI use 0.1 (95% CI, -0.2-0.3). Projected costs of these differences varied among the resource utilized. Compared to EDs without APPs, EDs with APPs were estimated to have 30.4 more admissions per 1000 visits, which could accrue $414,717 in utilization costs.ConclusionEDs staffing APPs were associated with modest increases in resource utilization as measured by admissions and imaging studies.

Project description:International institutions provide well over US$10 billion in development assistance for health (DAH) annually and between 1990 and 2014, DAH disbursements totaled $458 billion but how do they decide who gets what, and for what purpose? In this article, we explore how allocation decisions were made by the nine convening agencies of the Equitable Access Initiative. We provide clear, plain language descriptions of the complete process from resource mobilization to allocation for the nine multilateral agencies with prominent agendas in global health. Then, through a comparative analysis we illuminate the choices and strategies employed in the nine international institutions. We find that resource allocation in all reviewed institutions follow a similar pattern, which we categorized in a framework of five steps: strategy definition, resource mobilization, eligibility of countries, support type and funds allocation. All the reviewed institutions generate resource allocation decisions through well-structured and fairly complex processes. Variations in those processes seem to reflect differences in institutional principles and goals. However, these processes have serious shortcomings. Technical problems include inadequate flexibility to account for or meet country needs. Although aid effectiveness and value for money are commonly referenced, we find that neither performance nor impact is a major criterion for allocating resources. We found very little formal consideration of the incentives generated by allocation choices. Political issues include non-transparent influence on allocation processes by donors and bureaucrats, and the common practice of earmarking funds to bypass the normal allocation process entirely. Ethical deficiencies include low accountability and transparency at international institutions, and limited participation by affected citizens or their representatives. We find that recipient countries have low influence on allocation processes themselves, although within these processes they have some influence in relatively narrow areas.

Project description:ContextAs the science and practice of syndromic surveillance (SyS) evolve, it has increasing utility for public health surveillance at the local level. Local health departments (LHDs) require specific organizational and workforce capabilities to use SyS data. In 2013, more than half of the LHDs reported using SyS, although little has been reported about LHD workforce capabilities in SyS.ObjectiveTo conduct an assessment of self-reported knowledge and skills in SyS tasks to effectively target technical assistance to different levels of LHD need.Design, setting, and participantsA stratified sampling design based on LHD jurisdiction population and SyS status was employed. Data were drawn from the 2015 Biosurveillance Needs Assessment Survey, which captured variables related to LHD use of SyS, management of systems, and self-reported proficiencies in a typology of SyS functionalities developed by a workgroup of subject matter experts in SyS. Respondents were US-based LHD public health practitioners. Estimation weights were applied during analysis to determine the national representation of the responses.Main outcome measuresRespondents self-reported proficiency in 26 SyS tasks within 5 categories, analyzed by LHD jurisdiction size and respondents' years of SyS experience.ResultsSyS expertise varied widely across LHDs. Less than 50% of workers who have access to SyS demonstrated overall proficiency within any of the task areas: communication, data use, data analysis, quality monitoring and assurance, and system design and development. SyS users were strongest in data use tasks. Proficiency in SyS practice corresponded directly with respondents' years of SyS experience and the LHD jurisdiction size.ConclusionSyS practitioners display a wide range of proficiencies both within and across SyS tasks. Considerable gaps in proficiencies of all areas of SyS practice indicate a need for technical assistance and knowledge dissemination to improve SyS practice as an important component of an LHD surveillance strategy.

Dataset Information

From Theory to Practice: Implementation of a Resource Allocation Model in Health Departments.

Publications

From Theory to Practice: Implementation of a Resource Allocation Model in Health Departments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets