Search

Objective: To measure strategies of interorganizational collaboration among health care and social service organizations that serve older adults.Study Setting: Twenty Hospital Service Areas (HSAs) in the United States.Study Design: We developed and validated a novel scale to characterize interorganizational collaboration, and then tested its application by assessing whether the scale differentiated between HSAs with high vs low performance on potentially avoidable health care use and spending for Medicare beneficiaries.Data Collection: Health care and social service organizations (N = 173 total) in each HSA completed a 12-item collaboration scale, three questions about collaboration behaviors, and a detailed survey documenting collaborative network ties.Principal Findings: We identified two distinguishable subscales of interorganizational collaboration: (a) Aligning Strategy and (b) Coordinating Current Work. Each subscale demonstrated convergent validity with the organization's position in the collaborative network, and with collaboration behaviors. The full scale and Coordinating Current Work subscale did not differentiate high- vs low-performing HSAs, but the Aligning Strategy subscale was significantly higher in high-performing HSAs than in low-performing HSAs (P = .01).Conclusions: Cross-sector collaboration-and particularly Aligning Strategy-is associated with health care use and spending for older adults. This new survey measure could be used to track the impact of interventions to foster interorganizational collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To test the effect of survey conditioning (whether observed survey responses are affected by previous experience in the same survey or similar surveys) in a survey instrument used to assess mental health service use. Data Sources. Primary data collected in the National Latino and Asian American Study, a cross-sectional household survey of Latinos and Asian Americans residing in the United States. Study Design. Study participants are randomly assigned to a Traditional Instrument with an interleafed format placing service use questions after detailed questions on disorders, or a Modified Instrument with an ensemble format screening for service use near the beginning of the survey. We hypothesize the ensemble format to be less susceptible to survey conditioning than the interleafed format. We compare self-reported mental health services use measures (overall, aggregate categories, and specific categories) between recipients of the two instruments, using 2 × 2 χ2 tests and logistic regressions that control for key covariates. Data Collection. In-person computer-assisted interviews, conducted in respondent's preferred language (English, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, Tagalog, or Vietnamese). Principal Findings. Higher service use rates are reported with the Modified Instrument than with the Traditional Instrument for all service use measures; odds ratios range from 1.41 to 3.10, all p-values <.001. Results are similar across ethnic groups and insensitive to model specification. Conclusions. Survey conditioning biases downward reported mental health service use when the instrument follows an interleafed format. An ensemble format should be used when it is feasible for measures that are susceptible to survey conditioning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]