Planning, commissioning, and then financing health services are fundamental
aspects of health care administration. This includes using the best possible information
on the needs of the population and the anticipated use of services to make reasonable
capacity and cost projections, a process often referred to as “needs-based
planning.” The principles, assumptions, and methodologies involved in needs-based
planning apply to the substance use field, as much as any other part of the health
care
system. This work has been a core element of epidemiological and services research
in
the field for several years.
The purpose of the collection of articles in this special supplement is to provide
decision makers and researchers with an update on current work in this area, specific
to
substance use services. Collectively, this work provides a crucial counterpoint to
other
factors that often impinge on the decision-making process, factors such as institutional
path dependence (Marquis & Tilcsik, 2013),
which maintains the status quo despite constantly evolving community needs, or
community/political pressure for certain types of programs despite lack of evidence
as
to anticipated coverage or cost effectiveness among alternatives.
E.M. Jellinek was the first to propose a statistical methodology for estimating the
prevalence of alcoholism—the famous Jellinek Estimation Formula—and did so
with the goal of showing the need for treatment services (see Page, 1997, for a review
of Jellinek’s efforts). A variety
of indirect approaches to estimation of population needs followed (e.g.,
capture–recapture studies; projections from alcohol sales data; other
mortality-based studies; Kaelber & Nobel,
1982; Dewit & Rush, 1996). The
goal of estimating treatment coverage has been a fundamental aspect of population
survey
work in the United States since the seminal Epidemiological Catchment Area study of
the
1980s (Regier et al., 1984), followed by the
National Comorbidity Surveys (Wang et al., 2005)
as well as special surveys focused on alcohol and other drug use (Edlund et al., 2009).
Internationally, the assessment of treatment
coverage has been a major focus of the World Mental Health Surveys (e.g., Degenhardt
et al., 2017). These surveys have in
common the use of diagnostic algorithms to estimate need for services as well as survey
questions that inquire about people’s access to service, which in turn yields
estimates of the treatment gap, or the converse, treatment coverage. Syntheses of
this
research have focused on mental health broadly, with substance use disorders embedded
in
the work (e.g., De Silva et al., 2014; Kohn et al., 2004) or special reviews specific
to
substance use (Drummond et al., 2011). De Silva and colleagues (2014) summarize estimates
of treatment coverage for mental disorders, including substance use disorders based
on a
variety of approaches, such as population surveys. It should also be noted that, on
a
global scale, this body of work is situated in seminal and ongoing efforts to estimate
overall health care coverage (Boerma et al., 2014;
Tanahashi, 1978) and conceptual work on the
definition and measurement of “need” (e.g., Asadi-Lari et al., 2003).
Although an estimate of treatment coverage certainly tells decision makers that more
services are needed, they do not elucidate exactly what specific services are needed,
for example, by level of care. Rush (1990),
building on the work of Ford (1985), developed
such a needs-based planning model, now adapted in several jurisdictions, including
recent applications in this current collection of articles. Mental health researchers
have worked in parallel on similar methodologies (Andrews
& Tolkien II Team, 2006), more recently relying on data from the Global
Burden of Disease Study 2010 to estimate prevalence as well as severity distributions
(Burstein et al., 2015; Whiteford el al.,
2015).
As the methodologies in this area of research have grown, so too has the treatment
system. Major changes include the integration of alcohol and other drug treatment
services with each other, with mental health services, and with collaborative care
models in primary care. Services are also more likely to address a wider range of
problem severity and complexity—for example, supporting new care pathways that
include a role for Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT)
or
web-based self-management tools. All these changes increase the difficulty of using
epidemiological data to build models of treatment needs and capacity estimation.
Further, there remains an ongoing concern about the appropriateness of methodology
established for high-income countries to other mid- to low-income countries, which
differ markedly in terms of available data (Jordans et
al., 2016; Ndetei & Jenkins,
2009). Many of these challenges are faced in the efforts of the World Health
Organization to map substance use treatment systems on a global scale (Babor & Poznyak,
2010).
The collection of articles that have been commissioned for this special supplement
represent the path-breaking work and current thinking of international experts in
this
field. The articles are grouped into three general topic areas: (a) planning of
treatment systems, (b) needs-based planning models, and (c) system performance
measurement.
Planning of treatment systems
The articles in this grouping explore a common theme: philosophical, conceptual,
and methodological issues underpinning the estimation of needs for substance use
treatment services.
Rush and Urbanoski (2019) summarize seven
core principles of substance use treatment system design that are supported by a
large international evidence base. Together, the core principles provide a
framework for system design (i.e., What should the system look like?) that can
also be used for system analysis (How close are we to that ideal?). Lessons
learned from the application of these principles in system treatment reviews are
highlighted.
Ritter and colleagues (2019b) present a
thematic review of the literature on approaches to estimating need and demand
for services and then consider the implications for health system planners. They
introduce the crucial point that the simple quantum of need or demand (i.e.,
treatment coverage is X%) is limited in its usefulness unless it is matched with
consideration of different treatment types and their relative intensity. The
review concludes with a call for the development of more complex capacity
estimation models.
Storbjörk and Stenius (2019)
introduce critical thinking that causes us to stand back and reflect on a
fundamental assumption; namely, that the needs of the population are of primary
importance to planners and policy makers developing treatment systems. They
argue that market logic has influenced treatment systems and is now taken into
account in system planning, provision of services, and the outcomes for services
users. Findings point to several cautions about the marketization process and
the need to safeguard scientific approaches to assessing needs and planning
activities in the interests of both service users and the public.
Needs-based planning models
The articles in this grouping are all applications of needs-based planning
methodologies, highlighting strengths, challenges, and opportunities for
improvement. The international nature of the collection shows the global
interest in more evidence-based approaches to planning services.
Ritter, Gomez, and Chalmers (2019a)
introduce the collection with a projection model used in Australia to estimate
unmet treatment demand. Innovations introduced in their work include the attempt
to estimate treatment demand by drug type, level of severity, and type of
services based on input from expert panels. The work illustrates that the most
sensitive parameter in the modeling process is the expected proportion of people
in need of treatment who will in fact present for assistance.
The next article, by Rush, Tremblay, and Brown
(2019), constitutes an upgrade of the initial Canadian model by Rush (1990), which
was centered on alcohol
and planning for specialized alcohol treatment services for adults. Going beyond
diagnostic data as a proxy for need, they present a five-tiered model of
severity and complexity of alcohol and other drug use from high-risk use to
severe dependence in combination with mental health problems. They then use
expert panels to estimate the percentage of people from each tier in need of the
updated service categories and the proportion likely to seek assistance.
Tremblay and colleagues (2019) expand
further on the work of Rush et al. (2019)
by adapting it to youth (12–17 years old). They, too, consulted a large
panel of clinicians and planners, refining service categories and adding service
types (e.g., for managing acute intoxication in emergency departments). They
propose a tiered model adapted for youth, taking into account not only alcohol
and other drug severity as well as mental health problems but also a refined
list of co-occurring problems in domains such as school attendance; family,
social and material deprivation; peer influence; and aggressive/delinquent
behaviors.
Hirschovits-Gerz, Kuussaari, Stenius, and Tammi
(2019) analyze the need for services from seven Finnish
municipalities, using easily available databases. They point out that local
needs for services vary based on deprivation status, prevalence of alcohol and
other drug abuse, and rates of services use. They illustrate, via a qualitative
analysis, the benefits of planning services locally to provide appropriate and
cost-effective services to populations.
Mota and colleagues (2019) deploy efforts
to estimate the need for alcohol and other drug services for a heavily populated
metropolitan area in a middle-income country—Brazil. They follow a
methodology similar to the one deployed by Rush
et al. (2019), using data from the São Paulo Megacity Study,
information rarely available in middle- or low-income countries. Thus, they
estimate service needs in a situation with very scarce resources and illustrate
the potential to use this type of estimation process when good population survey
data are available.
Brennan and colleagues (2019) in the United
Kingdom, focusing specifically on the need for specialist alcohol services,
built a capacity estimation model that incorporates a range of innovations.
Using population survey data derived from the Alcohol Use Disorders
Identification Test, they retain the focus on a range of severity levels. Going
further, however, they deployed a model that allows scenario testing that
incorporates trajectories to future population prevalence, service capacity,
costs, treatment outcomes, and mortality rates. The dynamic nature of the model
illustrates a new way forward for needs-based planning in the future.
System performance measurement
Whereas planning the service delivery system on the basis of evidence is the
“front-end” of system design and financing, measuring its
operational performance in an evidence-informed way, and making ongoing
improvements, is equally important. This is the focus of the final three
articles in the Supplement collection.
Urbanoski and Inglis (2019) undertook a
systematic and very comprehensive scoping review covering the definition,
conceptualization, and performance measurement strategies for mental health and
addiction service systems globally. One of their important conclusions is the
lack of attention in performance measurement frameworks to the causal
relationships between domains and indicators. They also illustrate the global
emphasis on measures of treatment process with much less attention to crucially
important indicators of structure and outcomes.
To complement the preceding article by Urbanoski
and Inglis (2019), Myers and
colleagues (2019) discuss the many challenges in the implementation
of performance measurement systems, particularly in low- to middle-income
countries. Their evaluation of a national performance measurement system in
South Africa revealed, for example, high rates of patient attrition, variable
enthusiasm of staff regarding participation, and limited capacity for using
feedback. These challenges remind us of the obstacles to implementing
data-driven quality improvement initiatives, challenges faced not only by low-
to mid-income countries.
Montanari and colleagues (2019) illustrate
how to meet these challenges in their description of a uniform data collection
used across most European countries. The system they describe, Treatment Demand
Indicators, is unique in its scope, covering 29 countries, reporting data on
nearly a half million people entering drug treatment. The authors reflect on the
importance of the resulting database to show trends in drug use profiles over
time and across jurisdictions. The Treatment Demand Indicators project stands as
a testament to the vision of a useful planning tool for decision makers working
in the European drug treatment system.
Conclusion
Needs-based planning has come a long way since the days of the Jellinek
Estimation Formula derived from liver cirrhosis rates and subsequent attempts to
document the extent of the “treatment gap” from population surveys
of substance use disorders. New concepts have been incorporated into planning
models, and new epidemiological methods have been applied to the development of
regional and national plans for the design, implementation, and funding of a
comprehensive range of services. The articles in this supplement provide ample
evidence that progress has been made toward identifying, if not filling, the
treatment gap, using the new generation of concepts and tools available to
health system planners, service providers, and policymakers.
Acknowledgment
The preparation of this supplement and its publication were supported by Health
Canada in a contract (#1617-HQ-000006) to the Centre for Addiction and Mental
Health, Toronto, Canada. The editors of this supplement have no conflicts of
interest with regard to its contents. All articles were subject to peer review.