The Integration of the Program Evaluation Standards into an Evaluation Toolkit for a Transformative Model of Care for Mental Health Service Delivery

Background: Stepped Care 2.0 (SC2.0) is a transformative model of mental health service delivery. This model was created by Stepped Care Solutions (SCS), a not-for-profit consultancy that collaborates with governments, public service organizations, and other institutions that wish to redesign their mental health and addictions systems of care. The SC2.0 model is based on 10 foundational principles and 9 core components that can be flexibly adapted to an organization’s or community’s needs. The model supports groups to reorganize and deliver mental health care in an evidence-informed, person-centric way. SCS partnered with evaluators from the Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences (CHÉOS) to create a toolkit that provides evaluation guidance. The toolkit includes a theory of change, guidance on selecting evaluation questions and designs, and an evaluation matrix including suggested process and outcome metrics, all of which can be tailored to each unique implementation of the SC2.0 model. The objective of this resource is to support organizations and communities to conduct high-quality evaluations for the purpose of continuous improvement (a core component of the model of care) and to assess the model’s impact. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to discuss the integration of the program evaluation standards (PES) into an evaluation toolkit for SC2.0. Setting: In this paper, we describe the toolkit development, focusing on how the PES were embedded in the process and tools. We explore how the integration of the PES into the toolkit supports evaluators to enhance the quality of their evaluation planning, execution, and meta-evaluation. Intervention: Not applicable Research Design: Not applicable Data Collection and Analysis: Not applicable Findings: In this paper, we describe the toolkit development, focusing on how the PES were embedded in the process and tools. We explore how the integration of the PES into the toolkit supports evaluators to enhance the quality of their evaluation planning, execution, and meta-evaluation. Keywords: program evaluation standards; evaluation; mental healt

Why do firms disclose and not disclose structural intangibles?

This study conducts 22 interviews with the directors of 11 firms chosen from the top 30 listed firms by market capital on the Colombo Stock Exchange, with each firm representing an industry. The interviews explore senior executives' views about disclosing the structural intangibles in annual reports to attract financial investments.The study identifies 20 intangible resources in 10 intangible classes. It analyzes the interview data using latent thematic analysis and explores them as responses to social, political, and economic interest groups. Corroborating interview data with annual report data, this study identifies five broad reasons for disclosure and non-disclosure. Build empathy, show they are good corporate citizens, win government support, and build confidence are about disclosure, and divert attention from issues at hand is about non-disclosure. This study finds that disclosure results in managing legitimacy of the social and political interest groups, and also in managing impressions of the economic interest group. Non-disclosure results in managing impressions of the social and political interest groups. The findings contribute to building an evidence-led theoretical connection to understand the structural intangibles disclosed and not disclosed to attract financial investment to firms

Worldwide trends in population-based survival for children, adolescents, and young adults diagnosed with leukaemia, by subtype, during 2000–14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual data from 258 cancer registries in 61 countries

Background: Leukaemias comprise a heterogenous group of haematological malignancies. In CONCORD-3, we analysed data for children (aged 0–14 years) and adults (aged 15–99 years) diagnosed with a haematological malignancy during 2000–14 in 61 countries. Here, we aimed to examine worldwide trends in survival from leukaemia, by age and morphology, in young patients (aged 0–24 years). Methods: We analysed data from 258 population-based cancer registries in 61 countries participating in CONCORD-3 that submitted data on patients diagnosed with leukaemia. We grouped patients by age as children (0–14 years), adolescents (15–19 years), and young adults (20–24 years). We categorised leukaemia subtypes according to the International Classification of Childhood Cancer (ICCC-3), updated with International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, third edition (ICD-O-3) codes. We estimated 5-year net survival by age and morphology, with 95% CIs, using the non-parametric Pohar-Perme estimator. To control for background mortality, we used life tables by country or region, single year of age, single calendar year and sex, and, where possible, by race or ethnicity. All-age survival estimates were standardised to the marginal distribution of young people with leukaemia included in the analysis. Findings: 164 563 young people were included in this analysis: 121 328 (73·7%) children, 22 963 (14·0%) adolescents, and 20 272 (12·3%) young adults. In 2010–14, the most common subtypes were lymphoid leukaemia (28 205 [68·2%] patients) and acute myeloid leukaemia (7863 [19·0%] patients). Age-standardised 5-year net survival in children, adolescents, and young adults for all leukaemias combined during 2010–14 varied widely, ranging from 46% in Mexico to more than 85% in Canada, Cyprus, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, and Australia. Individuals with lymphoid leukaemia had better age-standardised survival (from 43% in Ecuador to ≥80% in parts of Europe, North America, Oceania, and Asia) than those with acute myeloid leukaemia (from 32% in Peru to ≥70% in most high-income countries in Europe, North America, and Oceania). Throughout 2000–14, survival from all leukaemias combined remained consistently higher for children than adolescents and young adults, and minimal improvement was seen for adolescents and young adults in most countries. Interpretation: This study offers the first worldwide picture of population-based survival from leukaemia in children, adolescents, and young adults. Adolescents and young adults diagnosed with leukaemia continue to have lower survival than children. Trends in survival from leukaemia for adolescents and young adults are important indicators of the quality of cancer management in this age group