Financial performance drivers and strategic control: The case of cancer treatment centers

Strategic control is defined as the use of qualitative and quantitative tools for the evaluation of strategic organizational performance. Most research in strategic planning has focused on strategy formulation and implementation, but little work has been done on strategic performance evaluation particularly in the area of cancer research. The objective of this study was to identify strategic control approaches and financial performance metrics used by major cancer centers in the country as an initial step in expanding the theory and practice behind strategic organizational performance. Focusing on hospitals which share similar mandate and resource constraints was expected to improve measurement precision. The results indicate that most cancer centers use a wide selection of evaluation tools, but sophisticated analytical approaches were less common. In addition, there was evidence that high-performing centers tend to invest a larger degree of resources in the area of strategic performance analysis than centers showing lower financial results. The conclusions point to the need for incorporating higher degree of analytical power in order to improve the tracking of strategic performance. This study is one of the first to concentrate in the area of strategic control.^

Bayesian generalized linear models for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests

With the recognition of the importance of evidence-based medicine, there is an emerging need for methods to systematically synthesize available data. Specifically, methods to provide accurate estimates of test characteristics for diagnostic tests are needed to help physicians make better clinical decisions. To provide more flexible approaches for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests, we developed three Bayesian generalized linear models. Two of these models, a bivariate normal and a binomial model, analyzed pairs of sensitivity and specificity values while incorporating the correlation between these two outcome variables. Noninformative independent uniform priors were used for the variance of sensitivity, specificity and correlation. We also applied an inverse Wishart prior to check the sensitivity of the results. The third model was a multinomial model where the test results were modeled as multinomial random variables. All three models can include specific imaging techniques as covariates in order to compare performance. Vague normal priors were assigned to the coefficients of the covariates. The computations were carried out using the 'Bayesian inference using Gibbs sampling' implementation of Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques. We investigated the properties of the three proposed models through extensive simulation studies. We also applied these models to a previously published meta-analysis dataset on cervical cancer as well as to an unpublished melanoma dataset. In general, our findings show that the point estimates of sensitivity and specificity were consistent among Bayesian and frequentist bivariate normal and binomial models. However, in the simulation studies, the estimates of the correlation coefficient from Bayesian bivariate models are not as good as those obtained from frequentist estimation regardless of which prior distribution was used for the covariance matrix. The Bayesian multinomial model consistently underestimated the sensitivity and specificity regardless of the sample size and correlation coefficient. In conclusion, the Bayesian bivariate binomial model provides the most flexible framework for future applications because of its following strengths: (1) it facilitates direct comparison between different tests; (2) it captures the variability in both sensitivity and specificity simultaneously as well as the intercorrelation between the two; and (3) it can be directly applied to sparse data without ad hoc correction. ^

Performance tiers: Implementing comparative effectiveness analysis in the health care setting through operations research and spatial methods

This dissertation develops and tests a comparative effectiveness methodology utilizing a novel approach to the application of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) in health studies. The concept of performance tiers (PerT) is introduced as terminology to express a relative risk class for individuals within a peer group and the PerT calculation is implemented with operations research (DEA) and spatial algorithms. The analysis results in the discrimination of the individual data observations into a relative risk classification by the DEA-PerT methodology. The performance of two distance measures, kNN (k-nearest neighbor) and Mahalanobis, was subsequently tested to classify new entrants into the appropriate tier. The methods were applied to subject data for the 14 year old cohort in the Project HeartBeat! study.^ The concepts presented herein represent a paradigm shift in the potential for public health applications to identify and respond to individual health status. The resultant classification scheme provides descriptive, and potentially prescriptive, guidance to assess and implement treatments and strategies to improve the delivery and performance of health systems. ^

Nonlinear dimension reduction in pathway-based genome-wide association analysis

Pathway based genome wide association study evolves from pathway analysis for microarray gene expression and is under rapid development as a complementary for single-SNP based genome wide association study. However, it faces new challenges, such as the summarization of SNP statistics to pathway statistics. The current study applies the ridge regularized Kernel Sliced Inverse Regression (KSIR) to achieve dimension reduction and compared this method to the other two widely used methods, the minimal-p-value (minP) approach of assigning the best test statistics of all SNPs in each pathway as the statistics of the pathway and the principal component analysis (PCA) method of utilizing PCA to calculate the principal components of each pathway. Comparison of the three methods using simulated datasets consisting of 500 cases, 500 controls and100 SNPs demonstrated that KSIR method outperformed the other two methods in terms of causal pathway ranking and the statistical power. PCA method showed similar performance as the minP method. KSIR method also showed a better performance over the other two methods in analyzing a real dataset, the WTCCC Ulcerative Colitis dataset consisting of 1762 cases, 3773 controls as the discovery cohort and 591 cases, 1639 controls as the replication cohort. Several immune and non-immune pathways relevant to ulcerative colitis were identified by these methods. Results from the current study provided a reference for further methodology development and identified novel pathways that may be of importance to the development of ulcerative colitis.^