Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology
Gepubliceerd in: Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology 7/2008

01-10-2008

Modeling the Information Preferences of Parents of Children with Mental Health Problems: A Discrete Choice Conjoint Experiment

Auteurs: Charles E. Cunningham, Ken Deal, Heather Rimas, Don H. Buchanan, Michelle Gold, Katherine Sdao-Jarvie, Michael Boyle

Gepubliceerd in: Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology | Uitgave 7/2008

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Although materials informing parents about children’s mental health (CMH) problems can improve outcomes, we know relatively little about the design factors that might influence their utilization of available resources. We used a discrete choice conjoint experiment to model the information preferences of parents seeking mental health services for 6 to 18 year olds. Parents completed 30 choice tasks presenting experimentally varied combinations of 20 four-level CMH information content, transfer process, and outcome attributes. Latent class analysis revealed three segments with different preferences. Parents in the Action segment (43%) chose materials providing step-by-step solutions to behavioral or emotional problems. They preferred weekly meetings with other parents and coaching calls from a therapist. The Information segment (41%) chose materials helping them understand rather than solve their child’s problems. These parents were more sensitive to logistical factors such as receiving information in groups, the location where information was available, the modality in which the information was presented, and the time required to obtain and use the information. The Overwhelmed segment (16%) reported more oppositional and conduct problems, felt their children’s difficulties exerted a greater adverse impact on family functioning, and reported higher personal depression scores than those in the Action or Information segments. Nonetheless, they did not choose information about, or solutions to, the problems their children presented. Simulations predicted that maximizing utilization and realizing the potential benefits of CMH information would require knowledge transfer strategies consistent with each segment’s preferences.
vorige artikel Heterotyic and Homotypic Continuity: The Moderating Effects of Age and Gender
Voetnoten
1
Briefly, CBC/HB uses Bayes theorem and simulated Monte Carlo Markov Chain processes (e.g. Gibbs Sampling) to estimate partworths or conjoint utilities for each participant. This program is referred to as hierarchical Bayes because the estimation process samples from two distributions of scores: (1) an upper level model which estimates part-worth utility averages and variances for the sample population, and (2) a lower level model drawing on the choices of each respondent in the study sample (Orme 2006).
 
2
Randomized First Choice Simulations improve prediction by estimating both attribute variability and product variability (Huber et al. 2007). We computed 100,000 sampling iterations to stabilize estimates.
 
Literatuur
Ahmed, S. F., Blamires, C., & Smith, W. (2007). Facilitating and understanding the family’s choice of injection device for growth hormone therapy by using conjoint analysis. Archives of Disease in Childhood, DOI 10.​1136/​adc.​2006.​105353.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRef
Allenby, G. M., Arora, N., & Gintner, J. L. (1995). Incorporating prior knowledge into the analysis of conjoint studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 152–162.CrossRef
Allenby, G. M., Fennell, G., Huber, J., Eagle, T., Gilbride, T., Horsky, D., et al. (2005). Adjusting choice models to better predict market behavior. Marketing Letters, 16(3–4), 197–208.CrossRef
Andrews, J. N., Swank, P. R., Foorman, B., & Fletcher, J. M. (1995). Effects of educating parents about ADHD. The ADHD Report, 3, 12–13.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499.PubMedCrossRef
Arora, N., Allenby, G. M., & Ginter, J. L. (1998). A hierarchical Bayes model of primary and secondary demand. Marketing Science, 17(1), 29–44.CrossRef
Arora, N., & McHorney, C. A. (2000). Patient preferences for medical decision making: who really wants to participate. Medical Care, 38(3), 335–341.PubMedCrossRef
Beevers, C. G. (2005). Cognitive vulnerability to depression: a dual process model. Clinical Psychology Review, 25(7), 975–1002.PubMedCrossRef
Bowskill, R., Clatworthy, J., Parham, R., Rank, T., & Horne, R. (2007). Patients’ perceptions of information received about medication prescribed for bipolar disorder: implications for informed choice. Journal of Affective Disorders, 100(1–3), 253–257.PubMedCrossRef
Boyle, M. H., Offord, D. R., Racine, Y., Fleming, J. E., Szatmari, P., & Sanford, M. (1993). Evaluation of the revised Ontario Child Health Study scales. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34(2), 189–213.PubMedCrossRef
Chi, T. C., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2002). Mother–child relationships of children with ADHD: the role of maternal depressive symptoms and depression-related distortions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(4), 387(14).
Corkum, P., Rimer, P., & Schachar, R. (1999). Parental knowledge of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and opinions of treatment options: impact on enrollment and adherence to a 12-month treatment trial. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 44(10), 1043–1048.
Coulter, A., Entwistle, V., & Gilbert, D. (1999). Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough. British Medical Journal, 318(7179), 318–322.PubMed
Crossley, J., & Davies, H. (2005). Doctors’ consultations with children and their parents: a model of competencies, outcomes and confounding influences. Medical Education, 39(8), 807–819.PubMedCrossRef
Cunningham, C. E. (2007). A family-centered approach to planning and measuring the outcome of interventions for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32(6), 676–694.PubMedCrossRef
Cunningham, C. E., Boyle, M., Offord, D., Racine, Y., Hundert, J., Secord, M., et al. (2000). Tri-ministry study: correlates of school-based parenting course utilization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(5), 928–933.PubMedCrossRef
Cunningham, C. E., Buchanan, D., & Deal, K. (2004). Modelling patient-centred children’s health services using choice-based conjoint hierarchical Bayes (pp. 249–256). 10th Annual Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, San Antonio, TX.
Cunningham, C. E., Deal, K., Neville, A., Rimas, H., & Lohfeld, L. (2006). Modeling the problem-based learning preferences of McMaster University undergraduate medical students using a discrete choice conjoint experiment. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 11(3), 245–266.CrossRef
Desarbo, W. S., Ramaswamy, V., & Cohen, S. H. (1995). Market segmentation with choice-based conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters, 6(2), 137–147.CrossRef
Dwight-Johnson, M., Lagomasino, I. T., Aisenberg, E., & Hay, J. (2004). Using conjoint analysis to assess depression treatment preferences among low-income Latinos. Psychiatric Services, 55(8), 934–936.PubMedCrossRef
Dwight-Johnson, M., Sherbourne, C. D., Liao, D., & Wells, K. B. (2000). Treatment preferences among depressed primary care patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 15(8), 527–534.PubMedCrossRef
Elgar, F. J., Mills, R. S. L., McGrath, P. J., Waschbusch, D. A., & Brownridge, D. A. (2007). Maternal and paternal depressive symptoms and child maladjustment: the mediating role of parental behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(6), 943–955.PubMedCrossRef
Fraenkel, L., Gulanski, B., & Wittink, D. (2006). Patient treatment preferences for osteoporosis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 55(5), 729–735.PubMedCrossRef
Garland, A. F., Lewczyk-Boxmeyer, C. M., Gabayan, E. N., & Hawley, K. M. (2004). Multiple stakeholder agreement on desired outcomes for adolescents’ mental health services. Psychiatric Services, 55(6), 671–676.PubMedCrossRef
Godolphin, W., Towle, A., & McKendry, R. (2001). Evaluation of the quality of patient information to support informed shared decision-making. Health Expectations, 4(4), 235–242.PubMedCrossRef
Gold, M., Cunningham, C. E., Deal, K., & & Rimas, H. (2008). Bringing children’s mental health research home: a qualitative analysis of the information preferences of parents of children with mental health problems. Unpublished manuscript.
Gotlib, I. H., Kasch, K. L., Traill, S., Joormann, J., Arnow, B. A., & Johnson, S. L. (2004a). Coherence and specificity of information-processing biases in depression and social phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(3), 386–398.PubMedCrossRef
Gotlib, I. H., Krasnoperova, E., Yue, D. N., & Joormann, J. (2004b). Attentional biases for negative interpersonal stimuli in clinical depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(1), 121–135.PubMedCrossRef
Gotlib, I. H., & Meltzer, S. J. (1987). Depression and the perception of social skill in dyadic interaction. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11(1), 41–53.CrossRef
Hoagwood, K. E. (2005). Family-based services in children’s mental health: a research review and synthesis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(7), 690–713.PubMedCrossRef
Huber, J., Orme, B., & Miller, R. (2007). Dealing with product similarity in conjoint simulations. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann, & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications (4th ed., pp. 347–362). New York: Springer.
Johnston, C., Seipp, C., Hommersen, P., Hoza, B., & Fine, S. (2005). Treatment choices and experiences in attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder: relations to parents’ beliefs and attributions. Child: Care, Health and Development, 31(6), 669–677.CrossRef
Kazdin, A. E., & Wassell, G. (1999). Barriers to treatment participation and therapeutic change among children referred for conduct disorder. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28(2), 160–172.PubMedCrossRef
Kerr, N., Scott, J., & Phillips, M. L. (2005). Patterns of attentional deficits and emotional bias in bipolar and major depressive disorder. The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(3), 343–356.PubMedCrossRef
Lenk, P. J., DeSarbo, W. S., Green, P. E., & Young, M. R. (1996). Hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis: recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs. Marketing Science, 15(2), 173–192.
Lissman, T. L., & Boehnlein, J. K. (2001). A critical review of internet information about depression. Psychiatric Services, 52(8), 1046–1050.PubMedCrossRef
Louviere, J., Hensher, D., & Swait, J. (2007). Conjoint preference elicitation methods in the broader context of random utility theory preference elicitation methods. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann, & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement—methods and applications (4th Ed., pp. 167–197). New York: Springer.
Luce, R. D., & Tukey, J. W. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(1), 1–27.CrossRef
MacNaughton, K. L., & Rodrigue, J. R. (2001). Predicting adherence to recommendations by parents of clinic-referred children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(2), 262–270.PubMedCrossRef
Maughan, A., Cicchetti, D., Toth, S. L., & Rogosch, F. A. (2007). Early-occurring maternal depression and maternal negativity in predicting young Children’s emotion regulation and socioemotional difficulties. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(5), 685–703.PubMedCrossRef
McGregor, J. C., Harris, A. D., Furuno, J. P., Bradham, D. D., & Perencevich, E. N. (2007). Relative influence of antibiotic therapy attributes on physician choice in treating acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis. Medical Decision Making, 27(4), 387–394.PubMedCrossRef
Montgomery, P., Bjornstad, G., & Dennis, J. (2006). Media-based behavioural treatments for behavioural problems in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online), 1(1), CD002206.
O’Connor, A. M., Bennett, C., Stacey, D., Barry, M. J., Col, N. F., Eden, K. B., et al. (2007). Do patient decision aids meet effectiveness criteria of the international patient decision aid standards collaboration? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Decision Making, 27(5), 554–574.PubMedCrossRef
O’Connor, A. M., Stacey, D., Rovner, D., Holmes-Rovner, M., Tetroe, J., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., et al. (2001). Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (3)(3), CD001431.
Orme, B. K. (2006). Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. Madison: Research.
Oudhoff, J. P., Timmermans, D. R., Knol, D. L., Bijnen, A. B., & Van der Wal, G. (2007). Prioritising patients on surgical waiting lists: a conjoint analysis study on the priority judgments of patients, surgeons, occupational physicians, and general practitioners. Social Science & Medicine, 64(9), 1863–1875.CrossRef
Owens, P. L., Hoagwood, K., Horwitz, S. M., Leaf, P. J., Poduska, J. M., Kellam, S. G., et al. (2002). Barriers to children’s mental health services. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41(6), 731–738.PubMedCrossRef
Patterson, M., & Chrzan, K. (2004). Partial profile discrete choice: what’s the optimal number of attributes? (pp. 173–185). 2003 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, San Antonio, TX.
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The use of multiple strategies in judgment and choice. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Phillips, K. A., Johnson, F. R., & Maddala, T. (2002). Measuring what people value: a comparison of “attitude” and “preference” surveys. Health Services Research, 37(6), 1659–1679.PubMedCrossRef
Rinck, M., & Becker, E. S. (2005). A comparison of attentional biases and memory biases in women with social phobia and major depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114(1), 62–74.PubMedCrossRef
Ruland, C. M. (1999). Decision support for patient preference-based care planning: effects on nursing care and patient outcomes. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 6(4), 304–312.PubMed
Ryan, M. (1999). Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Social Science & Medicine, 48(4), 535–546.CrossRef
Ryan, M., & Farrar, S. (2000). Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. British Medical Journal, 320(7248), 1530–1533.PubMedCrossRef
Ryan, M., & Gerard, K. (2003). Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2(1), 55–64.PubMed
Schor, E. L., & American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on the Family (2003). Family pediatrics: report of the task force on the family. Pediatrics, 111(6), 1541–1571.PubMed
Segrin, C. (2000). Social skills deficits associated with depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 20(3), 379–403.PubMedCrossRef
Sherbourne, C. D., Sturm, R., & Wells, K. B. (1999). What outcomes matter to patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 14(6), 357–363.PubMedCrossRef
Singh, J., Cuttler, L., Shin, M., Silvers, J. B., & Neuhauser, D. (1998). Medical decision-making and the patient: understanding preference patterns for growth hormone therapy using conjoint analysis. Medical Care, 36(8 Suppl), AS31–AS45.PubMedCrossRef
Spoth, R., & Redmond, C. (1993). Identifying program preferences through conjoint analysis: illustrative results from a parent sample. American Journal of Health Promotion, 8(2), 124–133.PubMed
Stanek, E. J., Oates, M. B., McGhan, W. F., Denofrio, D., & Loh, E. (2000). Preferences for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure: symptoms versus survival. Journal of Cardiac Failure, 6(3), 225–232.PubMedCrossRef
Vick, S., & Scott, A. (1998). Agency in health care. examining patients’ preferences for attributes of the doctor–patient relationship. Journal of Health Economics, 17(5), 587–605.PubMedCrossRef
Vriens, M., Wedel, M., & Wilms, T. (1996). Metric conjoint segmentation methods: a Monte Carlo comparison. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(1), 73–85.CrossRef
Wills, C. E., & Holmes-Rovner, M. (2006). Integrating decision making and mental health interventions research: research directions. Clinical Psychology, 13(1), 9–25.PubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Modeling the Information Preferences of Parents of Children with Mental Health Problems: A Discrete Choice Conjoint Experiment
Auteurs
Charles E. Cunningham
Ken Deal
Heather Rimas
Don H. Buchanan
Michelle Gold
Katherine Sdao-Jarvie
Michael Boyle
Publicatiedatum
01-10-2008
Uitgeverij
Springer US
Gepubliceerd in
Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology / Uitgave 7/2008
Print ISSN: 2730-7166
Elektronisch ISSN: 2730-7174
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-008-9238-4

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2008

Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology 7/2008 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Do Theory of Mind and Executive Function Deficits Underlie the Adverse Outcomes Associated with Profound Early Deprivation?: Findings from the English and Romanian Adoptees Study

OriginalPaper

Depressed Adolescents and Comorbid Psychiatric Disorders: Are There Differences in the Presentation of Depression?

OriginalPaper

Justification of Violence and Grandiosity Schemas as Predictors of Antisocial Behavior in Adolescents

OriginalPaper

Severe Life Events and Chronic Adversities as Antecedents to Anxiety in Children: A Matched Control Study

OriginalPaper

Cognitive Vulnerability–Stress Model of Depression During Adolescence: Investigating Depressive Symptom Specificity in a Multi-Wave Prospective Study

OriginalPaper

Biological Implications of Gene–Environment Interaction