Literature DB >> 26369880

Preferences for Early Intervention Mental Health Services: A Discrete-Choice Conjoint Experiment.

Mackenzie P E Becker1, Bruce K Christensen1, Charles E Cunningham1, Ivana Furimsky1, Heather Rimas1, Fiona Wilson1, Lisa Jeffs1, Peter J Bieling1, Victoria Madsen1, Yvonne Y S Chen1, Stephanie Mielko1, Robert B Zipursky1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Early intervention services (EISs) for mental illness may improve outcomes, although treatment engagement is often a problem. Incorporating patients' preferences in the design of interventions improves engagement. A discrete-choice conjoint experiment was conducted in Canada to identify EIS attributes that encourage treatment initiation.
METHODS: Sixteen four-level attributes were formalized into a conjoint survey, completed by patients, family members, and mental health professionals (N=562). Participants were asked which EIS option people with mental illness would contact. Latent-class analysis identified respondent classes characterized by shared preferences. Randomized first-choice simulations predicted which hypothetical options, based on attributes, would result in maximum utilization.
RESULTS: Participants in the conventional-service class (N=241, 43%) predicted that individuals would contact traditional services (for example, hospital location and staffed by psychologists or psychiatrists). Membership was associated with being a patient or family member and being male. Participants in the convenient-service class (N=321, 57%) predicted that people would contact services promoting easy access (for example, self-referral and access from home). Membership was associated with being a professional. Both classes predicted that people would contact services that included short wait times, direct contact with professionals, patient autonomy, and psychological treatment information. The convenient-service class predicted that people would use an e-health model, whereas the conventional-service class predicted that people would use a primary care or clinic-hospital model.
CONCLUSIONS: Provision of a range of services may maximize EIS use. Professionals may be more apt to adopt EISs in line with their beliefs regarding patient preferences. Considering several perspectives is important for service design.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26369880     DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.201400306

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychiatr Serv        ISSN: 1075-2730            Impact factor:   3.084


  6 in total

1.  Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Mo Zhou; Winter Maxwell Thayer; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Using discrete choice experiments to develop and deliver patient-centered psychological interventions: a systematic review.

Authors:  Meghan E McGrady; Ahna L H Pai; Lisa A Prosser
Journal:  Health Psychol Rev       Date:  2020-01-22

Review 3.  Application of discrete choice experiments to enhance stakeholder engagement as a strategy for advancing implementation: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ramzi G Salloum; Elizabeth A Shenkman; Jordan J Louviere; David A Chambers
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2017-11-23       Impact factor: 7.327

4.  An Exploration of Facilitators and Challenges to Young Adult Engagement in a Community-Based Program for Mental Health Promotion.

Authors:  Anne Marie Creamer; Jean Hughes; Nicole Snow
Journal:  Glob Qual Nurs Res       Date:  2020-05-27

5.  Patients' and Psychologists' Preferences for Feedback Reports on Expected Mental Health Treatment Outcomes: A Discrete-Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Loes Hilhorst; Jip van der Stappen; Joran Lokkerbol; Mickaël Hiligsmann; Anna H Risseeuw; Bea G Tiemens
Journal:  Adm Policy Ment Health       Date:  2022-04-15

Review 6.  Mental health service preferences of patients and providers: a scoping review of conjoint analysis and discrete choice experiments from global public health literature over the last 20 years (1999-2019).

Authors:  Anna Larsen; Albert Tele; Manasi Kumar
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-06-18       Impact factor: 2.655

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.