Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “needs assessment”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2025

Quantitative Outcomes for Shared Assessment and Management in Forensic Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

Despite leading models of mental health care encouraging user involvement, users in forensic mental health (FMH) report poor involvement given the difficulty in reconciling shared approaches with risk-averse and legally mandated settings. While previous research has demonstrated qualitative benefits to shared approaches in FMH and has led to a proliferation of self-rated assessment tools, there remains to quantify agreement on self-rated tools and to clarify the impact of shared approaches on care. This meta-analysis examines (1) the correlation between clinician and user ratings, (2) the predictive validity of self-ratings for violence, and (3) the effects of shared risk management on violence and restriction in FMH. Five databases were searched from inception to April 2024, selecting for adult FMH inpatients, shared risk assessment, needs assessment or violence management as interventions, and quantitative outcomes (correlation, agreement, predictive validity, and effect on violence or restriction rates). Fifteen quantitative evaluations were retained. One of three planned meta-analyses could be conducted, with seven records providing paired clinician-user t-tests. Eleven more records provided clinical recommendations on operationalizing shared approaches. Random-effects meta-analysis showed a significant and large paired standard difference of .95 (95% CI = [.49,1.42]) across tools, with significant differences in DUNDRUM-3, DUNDRUM-4, and CANFOR sub-models. While acknowledging between-study heterogeneity, results substantiate quantitative differences where clinicians generally rate more needs and lesser progress than users across tools, showing that self-ratings can and should be used to broach collaborative discussions on needs and progress during FMH treatment. There remains an evidence gap for quantitative benefits in care outcomes and a need to standardize agreement measures for future comparisons and clinical sub-group analyses.

Humans↗
PubMed1978

Construct validation of the health belief model.

A multitrait-multimethod design was employed to assess the construct validity of the Health Belief Model. The data were obtained from a nonrepresentative sample of 85 graduate students at The University of Michigan's School of Public Health. The traits consisted of the respondents' perceptions of: health interest, locus of control, susceptibility to influenza, severity of influenza, benefits provided by a flu shot, and the barriers or costs associated with getting a flu shot. Each trait was measured by three methods: a seven-point Likert scale, a fixed-alternative multiple choice scale, and a vignette. The results indicate that the Health Belief Model variables can be measured with a substantial amount of convergent validity using Likert or multiple choice questionnaire items. With regard to discriminant validity, evidence suggests that subjects' perceptions of barriers and benefits are quite different from their perceptions of susceptibility and severity. Perceptions of susceptibility and severity are substantially but not entirely independent. Perceived benefits and barriers demonstrate a strong negative relationship which suggests the possibility that these two variables represent opposite ends of a single continuum and not separate health beliefs. These preliminary results provide the basis for developing brief health belief scales that may be administered to samples of consumers and providers to assess educational needs. Such needs assessment, in turn, could then be used to tailor messages and programs to meet the particular needs of a client group.

Attitude to Health↗
PubMed1979

Some thoughts on epidemiologic indexes for assessing the need for treatment of periodontal diseases.

Various indexes have been developed and used to collect information on the prevalence, aetiology and prevention of periodontal disease, but few efforts have been made to utilize this information to assess treatment needs in the populations examined. Recently, Johansen et al. (1973) have developed the Periodontal Treatment Needs System and Møller and Beck (1976) included an assessment of treatment requirements in the Collaborative Study of Dental Manpower Systems sponsored by WHO and the USPHS. The value of these various indexes and the problems encountered in their application to field studies are discussed in detail. The lessons learned have been incorporated into the second edition of the booklet Oral Health Surveys (WHO, 1977), but it is contended that the methods advocated are still less than perfect. Particular doubt is cast on the recommendation for the use of a periodontal probe in field surveys often conducted in primitive conditions and by examiners with minimal training and experience. It is suggested that the critical depth of 3 mm is too small to be regarded as requiring radical treatment. The need for a treatment index is questioned in the light of the probability that treatment needs could not be fully met even in developed countries.

Dental Health Surveys↗
PubMed2026

Care Models for the Genetic Evaluation of Dilated Cardiomyopathy at Sites of the DCM Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Clinical genetic evaluation for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is minimally implemented, and models of care are not well defined. To understand current genetic care for DCM, a systematic needs assessment was conducted. METHODS: Principal investigators of the DCM Consortium convened at the Summer Scientific Symposium in July 2025. An electronic needs assessment was conducted among the 24 principal investigators in advance to define current care models by evaluating which genetic evaluation components recommended by the Heart Failure Society of America were conducted, by whom, and the time required for each component. Descriptive statistics were generated to characterize model features. Focus group discussions explored barriers and facilitators to implementing genetic services. RESULTS: Four care models emerged from the principal investigator responses: model 1: Traditional-Synchronous (25%, n=6, requiring the most time per patient); model 2: Traditional-Asynchronous (33%, n=8); model 3: Externally Sourced (17%, n=4); and model 4: Physician/Advanced Practice Provider Conducted (25%, n=6, requiring the least time per patient). All models used genetic testing, whereas other components were implemented variably or not at all. Models 1 (15.7±4.1) and 2 (15.4±3.0) were rated more acceptable than model 4 (9.8±2.9; model 1 versus model 4; P=0.027; model 2 versus model 4; P=0.023). Notably, 88% of principal investigators used genetic information for treatment decisions, including implantable cardioverter defibrillator placement (83%; n=20) and cardiac transplantation (63%; n=15). Major facilitator themes from focus group discussions included having a genetic counselor as part of the heart failure team and developing authoritative standards directing provision of DCM genetic services. Barrier themes included operational challenges, limited personnel, clinician under-recognition, need for new service delivery models, and billing/reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: DCM genetic care models and components were highly variable across the 24 sites of the DCM Consortium, although all sites discussed similar factors that enable or hinder the implementation of genetic services for DCM. Understanding the basis of practice model variability may provide insight to yield more scalable care approaches.

cardiomyopathy, dilated↗
PubMed2026

Care Models for the Genetic Evaluation of Dilated Cardiomyopathy at Sites of the DCM Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Clinical genetic evaluation for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is minimally implemented and models of care are not defined. To understand current genetics care for DCM, a systematic needs assessment was conducted. METHODS: Principal Investigators (PIs) of the DCM Consortium convened at the Summer Scientific Symposium in July 2025. An electronic needs assessment was collected from the 24 PIs in advance to define current care models by evaluating which Heart Failure Society of America-recommended genetic evaluation components are conducted, by whom, and time required. Descriptive statistics were generated to characterize model features. Focus group discussions explored barriers and facilitators to implementing genetic services. RESULTS: Four care models emerged from the PI responses: 1 - Traditional-Synchronous (25%, n=6, requiring the most time per patient), 2 - Traditional-Asynchronous (33%, n=8), 3 - Externally Sourced (17%, n=4), and 4 - Physician/Advanced Practice Provider Conducted (25%, n=6, requiring the least time per patient). All models used genetic testing, whereas other components were implemented variably or not at all. Models 1 (15.7±4.1) and 2 (15.4±3.0) were rated more acceptable than Model 4 (9.8±2.9; 1 vs 4: p=0.027; 2 vs 4, p=0.023). Notably, 88% of PIs used genetic information for treatment decisions, including ICD placement (83%; n=20) or cardiac transplant (63%; n=15). Major facilitator themes from focus group discussions included having a genetic counselor on the HF team and developing authoritative standards directing provision of DCM genetic services. Barrier themes included operational challenges, limited personnel, clinician under-recognition, need for new service delivery models, and billing/reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: DCM genetic care models and components were highly variable across the 24 sites of the DCM Consortium, even though all sites discussed similar factors that enable or hinder implementing genetic services for DCM. Understanding the basis of practice model variability may provide insight to yield more scalable care approaches.

clinical genetics↗
PubMed1978

The assessment of need for support services as seen by general practitioners and a geriatric population.

The majority of doctors accepted the need for involvement in the management of patients with behavioural, family and welfare type problems. The health team concept was seen as desirable by a majority of respondents, though they appeared to feel that it made no great difference if the team members functioned from a health centre or were located in different sites. They were not so well informed as to the availability of supportive welfare services as they were of medical services. Of the elderly people interviewed, most had received medical care in the previous two months, and chiropody was the commonest supportive service used. About half were assessed as having at least one disability affecting their functional capacity, and a significant number were thought to be receiving inadequate care. There was an obvious need for home help services, which were in limited supply.

Aged↗
PubMed1979

Assessing the need for follow-up: the relationship of prognosis to posthospitalization adjustment.

Parents of children (N-64) hospitalized at a psychiatric hospital between the years 1971 and 1976 rated their child's adjustment in a number of behavioral areas. Problems in school, making friends, acting age-appropriately, and handling aggression were reported to be the major sources of difficulty for 40% of the former patients. No statistical relationship was found between clinicians' prognosis at discharge and children's post-hospitalization adjustment. The authors discuss some of the variables that mitigate against accurate outcome prediction and argue for the integration of an organized follow-up program into their treatment program.

Adolescent↗