Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Dr. Cunningham is Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences and the Jack Laidlaw Chair in Patient-Centred Health Care. Dr. Deal is Associate Professor of Strategic Market Leadership and Health Services Management, DeGroote School of Business. Heather Rimas is Research Coordinator of the Patient-Centred Service Research Unit. This project was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Jack Laidlaw Chair in Patient-Centred Health at McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences. We acknowledge the contributions of the agencies and professionals who supported this research and the editorial assistance provided by Stephanie Mielko, Jenna Ratcliffe, Donna Bohaychuk, and Catherine Campbell. Address correspondence to Dr. Charles Cunningham, McMaster Children’s Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8N 3Z5. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to email@example.com.
We used discrete choice conjoint analysis to model the ways 645 children’s mental health (CMH) professionals preferred to provide information to parents seeking CMH services. Participants completed 20 choice tasks presenting experimentally varied combinations of the study’s 14 4-level CMH information transfer attributes. Latent class analysis revealed three segments. Open Access professionals (32.2%) preferred that intake workers automatically provide all parents with CMH information. They preferred information prepared by professional organizations and located at accessible settings such as public schools. They responded favorably to the internet as a source of information for parents. Controlled Access professionals (22.2%) preferred information that was approved and recommended by a child’s therapist, prepared by an experienced clinician, and located at hospitals and CMH clinics. Process Sensitive professionals (45.6%) showed a stronger preference for active learning materials with parenting groups and therapist “coaching” calls supporting the knowledge transfer process. Simulations suggested that realizing the benefits of CMH information requires the development of knowledge transfer strategies that align the preferences of professionals with those of the families they serve.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
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, 197–208. CrossRef
Amsallem, E., Kasparian, C., Cucherat, M., Chabaud, S., Haugh, M., Boissel, J. P., et al. (2007). Evaluation of two evidence-based knowledge transfer interventions for physicians. A cluster randomized controlled factorial design trial: the CardioDAS study. Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology, 21, 631–641. 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.
Arora, N., Allenby, G. M., & Ginter, J. L. (1998). A hierarchical Bayes model of primary and secondary demand. Marketing Science, 17, 29–44. CrossRef
Barbour, R. S. (1999). The case for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 4, 39–43.
Caruso, E. M., Rahnev, D. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Using conjoint analysis to detect discrimination: revealing covert preferences from overt choices. Social Cognition, 27, 128–137. CrossRef
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, 1043–1048.
Cunningham, C. E., Buchanan, D., & Deal, K. (2004). Modeling patient-centered children’s health services using choice-based conjoint hierarchical Bayes. 10th Annual Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings (pp. 249–256). Sequim: Sawtooth Software Inc.
Cunningham, C. E., Deal, K., Rimas, H., Buchanan, D. H., Gold, M., Sdao-Jarvie, K., et al. (2008). Modeling the information preferences of parents of children with mental health problems: a discrete choice conjoint experiment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 1128–1138. CrossRef
Cunningham, C. E., Vaillancourt, T., Rimas, H., Deal, K., Cunningham, L., Short, K., et al. (2009). Modeling the bullying prevention program preferences of educators: a discrete choice conjoint experiment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. doi: 10.1007/s10802-009-9324-2.
DeSarbo, W. S., Ramaswamy, V., & Cohen, S. H. (1995). Market segmentation with choice-based conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters, 6, 137–147. CrossRef
Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103–123. CrossRef
Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied choice analysis: A primer. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Huber, J. (1975). Predicting preferences on experimental bundles of attributes: a comparison of models. Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 290–297. CrossRef
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.
Jacobson, N., Butterill, D., & Goering, P. (2003). Development of a framework for knowledge translation: understanding user context. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 8, 94–99. CrossRef
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, 669–677. CrossRef
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, 173–192. CrossRef
Longo, M. F., Cohen, D. R., Hood, K., Edwards, A., Robling, M., Elwyn, G., et al. (2006). Involving patients in primary care consultations: assessing preferences using discrete choice experiments. The British Journal of General Practice, 56, 35–42. PubMed
Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods—analysis and application. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (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, 1–27. CrossRef
Montgomery, P., Bjornstad, G., & Dennis, J. (2006). Media-based behavioural treatments for behavioural problems in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 1, CD002206. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002206.pub3.
Orme, B. K. (2006). Getting started with conjoint analysis: Strategies for product design and pricing research. Madison: Research.
Orme, B. K. (2007). SSI web v6.4 software for web interviewing and conjoint analysis. Sequim: Sawtooth Software, Inc.
Orme, B. K., & Baker, G. C. (2000). Comparing hierarchical Bayes draws and randomized first choice simulations. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series. Retrieved from www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/rfcdrw.pdf.
Orme, B. K., & Huber, J. (2000). Improving the value of conjoint simulations. Marketing Research, 12, 12–20.
Patterson, M., & Chrzan, K. (2004). Partial profile discrete choice: What’s the optimal number of attributes? 2003 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings (pp. 173–185). Sequim: Sawtooth Software.
Pescosolido, B. A., Jensen, P. S., Martin, J. K., Perry, B. L., Olafsdottir, S., & Fettes, D. (2008). Public knowledge and assessment of child mental health problems: findings from the national stigma study-children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 339–349. CrossRefPubMed
Preference Collaborative Review Group. (2008). Patients’ preferences within randomized trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis. British Medical Journal, 337, a1864. CrossRef
President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. (2003). Achieving the promise: Transforming mental health care in America (Final Report No. SMA 03-3832). Retrieved from http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/reports/reports.htm.
Ramaswamy, V., & Cohen, S. H. (2007). Latent class models for conjoint analysis. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmanm & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement methods and applications (4th ed., pp. 295–320). Heidelberg: Springer.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free.
Ryan, M., Gerard, K., & Amaya-Amaya, M. (2007). Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Netherlands: Springer.
Sawtooth Software Inc. (2004a). The CBC latent class technical paper (version 3) . Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series, 1–20. Retrieved from http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/lctech.pdf.
Sawtooth Software Inc. (2004b). The CBC/HB system for hierarchical Bayes estimation version 4.0 technical paper . Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series, 1–31. Retrieved from http://www.sawtoothsoftware/download/techpap/hbtech.pdf.
Spoth, R., & Redmond, C. (1993). Identifying program preferences through conjoint analysis: illustrative results from a parent sample. American Journal of Health Promotion, 8, 124–133. PubMed
Statistics Canada. (2006). Community profiles from the 2006 census. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/Details/Page.cfm.
Vriens, M., Wedel, M., & Wilms, T. (1996). Metric conjoint segmentation methods: a Monte Carlo comparison. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 73–85. CrossRef
Wills, C. E., & Holmes-Rovner, M. (2006). Integrating decision making and mental health interventions research: research directions. Clinical Psychology, 13, 9–25. PubMed
- Providing Information to Parents of Children with Mental Health Problems: A Discrete Choice Conjoint Analysis of Professional Preferences
Charles E. Cunningham
Don H. Buchanan
- Springer US