Cargando…

Prioritizing measures to assess performance of drug treatment services: a Delphi process with funders, treatment providers and service‐users

BACKGROUND AND AIM: While many studies have examined outcome measurement as part of clinical trials and routine outcome collection at the person‐level in alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment services, there has been limited attention to measures required to assess performance at the service‐level....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stirling, Robert, Nathan, Sally, Ritter, Alison
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10087953/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36043344
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.16038
_version_ 1785022466159017984
author Stirling, Robert
Nathan, Sally
Ritter, Alison
author_facet Stirling, Robert
Nathan, Sally
Ritter, Alison
author_sort Stirling, Robert
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIM: While many studies have examined outcome measurement as part of clinical trials and routine outcome collection at the person‐level in alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment services, there has been limited attention to measures required to assess performance at the service‐level. In Australia, non‐government services are primarily funded by government using public funds; however, there is no standardized approach to performance measurement. This study sought to establish a finite list of performance measures that represented consensus between funders, treatment providers and service‐users. METHOD: A three‐round Delphi process was undertaken with (i) funders of treatment (n = 10), (ii) treatment providers (n = 10) and (iii) treatment service‐users (n = 10). Participants were asked to rate a range of measures on a 10‐point Likert scale on how important they were to be included in contracts with funders. Measures with a median score > 7 and agreement among participants above 70% were the criteria for inclusion in the final set of measures. Qualitative data in the form of text responses provided by participants for their ratings in rounds 1 and 2 were also analysed. RESULTS: Participants rated 93 measures in round 1, which reduced to 78 measures in round 2 and 32 measures in round 3. Fifteen service‐level measures and two system‐level measures met criteria for inclusion in the final set of performance measures. The final set of measures cover a range of measurement types: outcomes (n = 5), access (n = 3), structural (n = 3), experience (n = 2), input (n = 2), process (n = 1) and output (n = 1). CONCLUSION: In Australia, performance measures for alcohol and other drug treatment services that represent a consensus among service‐users, providers and funders focus upon demonstrating accountability for public funds, improving services and communicating key measures of success to future service‐users and the broader community.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10087953
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100879532023-04-12 Prioritizing measures to assess performance of drug treatment services: a Delphi process with funders, treatment providers and service‐users Stirling, Robert Nathan, Sally Ritter, Alison Addiction Research Reports BACKGROUND AND AIM: While many studies have examined outcome measurement as part of clinical trials and routine outcome collection at the person‐level in alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment services, there has been limited attention to measures required to assess performance at the service‐level. In Australia, non‐government services are primarily funded by government using public funds; however, there is no standardized approach to performance measurement. This study sought to establish a finite list of performance measures that represented consensus between funders, treatment providers and service‐users. METHOD: A three‐round Delphi process was undertaken with (i) funders of treatment (n = 10), (ii) treatment providers (n = 10) and (iii) treatment service‐users (n = 10). Participants were asked to rate a range of measures on a 10‐point Likert scale on how important they were to be included in contracts with funders. Measures with a median score > 7 and agreement among participants above 70% were the criteria for inclusion in the final set of measures. Qualitative data in the form of text responses provided by participants for their ratings in rounds 1 and 2 were also analysed. RESULTS: Participants rated 93 measures in round 1, which reduced to 78 measures in round 2 and 32 measures in round 3. Fifteen service‐level measures and two system‐level measures met criteria for inclusion in the final set of performance measures. The final set of measures cover a range of measurement types: outcomes (n = 5), access (n = 3), structural (n = 3), experience (n = 2), input (n = 2), process (n = 1) and output (n = 1). CONCLUSION: In Australia, performance measures for alcohol and other drug treatment services that represent a consensus among service‐users, providers and funders focus upon demonstrating accountability for public funds, improving services and communicating key measures of success to future service‐users and the broader community. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-09-11 2023-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10087953/ /pubmed/36043344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.16038 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Research Reports
Stirling, Robert
Nathan, Sally
Ritter, Alison
Prioritizing measures to assess performance of drug treatment services: a Delphi process with funders, treatment providers and service‐users
title Prioritizing measures to assess performance of drug treatment services: a Delphi process with funders, treatment providers and service‐users
title_full Prioritizing measures to assess performance of drug treatment services: a Delphi process with funders, treatment providers and service‐users
title_fullStr Prioritizing measures to assess performance of drug treatment services: a Delphi process with funders, treatment providers and service‐users
title_full_unstemmed Prioritizing measures to assess performance of drug treatment services: a Delphi process with funders, treatment providers and service‐users
title_short Prioritizing measures to assess performance of drug treatment services: a Delphi process with funders, treatment providers and service‐users
title_sort prioritizing measures to assess performance of drug treatment services: a delphi process with funders, treatment providers and service‐users
topic Research Reports
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10087953/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36043344
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.16038
work_keys_str_mv AT stirlingrobert prioritizingmeasurestoassessperformanceofdrugtreatmentservicesadelphiprocesswithfunderstreatmentprovidersandserviceusers
AT nathansally prioritizingmeasurestoassessperformanceofdrugtreatmentservicesadelphiprocesswithfunderstreatmentprovidersandserviceusers
AT ritteralison prioritizingmeasurestoassessperformanceofdrugtreatmentservicesadelphiprocesswithfunderstreatmentprovidersandserviceusers