↓ Skip to main content

Toward cost-effective staffing mixes for Veterans Affairs substance use disorder treatment programs

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Toward cost-effective staffing mixes for Veterans Affairs substance use disorder treatment programs
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-1175-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jinwoo J. Im, Ross D. Shachter, John W. Finney, Jodie A. Trafton

Abstract

In fiscal year (FY) 2008, 133,658 patients were provided services within substance use disorders treatment programs (SUDTPs) in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. To improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SUDTPs, we analyze the impacts of staffing mix on the benefits and costs of specialty SUD services. This study demonstrates how cost-effective staffing mixes for each type of VA SUDTPs can be defined empirically. We used a stepwise method to derive prediction functions for benefits and costs based on patients' treatment outcomes at VA SUDTPs nationally from 2001 to 2003, and used them to formulate optimization problems to determine recommended staffing mixes that maximize net benefits per patient for four types of SUDTPs by using the solver function with the Generalized Reduced Gradient algorithm in Microsoft Excel 2010 while conforming to limits of current practice. We conducted sensitivity analyses by varying the baseline severity of addiction problems between lower (2.5 %) and higher (97.5 %) values derived from bootstrapping. Compared to the actual staffing mixes in FY01-FY03, the recommended staffing mixes would lower treatment costs while improving patients' outcomes, and improved net benefits are estimated from $1472 to $17,743 per patient.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 21%
Researcher 4 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 16%
Other 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 26%
Social Sciences 3 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 11%
Other 4 21%
Unknown 1 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,496,301
of 18,812,327 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,204
of 6,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,444
of 383,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#254
of 304 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,812,327 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,322 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 383,593 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 304 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.