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 8/2009

01-11-2009

Providing Information to Parents of Children with Mental Health Problems: A Discrete Choice Conjoint Analysis of Professional Preferences

Auteurs: Charles E. Cunningham, Ken Deal, Heather Rimas, Yvonne Chen, Don H. Buchanan, Kathie Sdao-Jarvie

Gepubliceerd in: Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology | Uitgave 8/2009

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

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.
vorige artikel Re-examining the Epidemiology of Sensory Regulation Dysfunction and Comorbid Psychopathology
volgende artikel Early Adolescents’ Perceptions of Their Mother’s Anxious Parenting as a Predictor of Anxiety Symptoms 12 Months Later
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 partworth 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).
 
Literatuur
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.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.CrossRefPubMed
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.
Bennett, D. S., Power, T. J., Rostain, A. L., & Carr, D. E. (1996). Parent acceptability and feasibility of ADHD interventions: assessment, correlates, and predictive validity. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 21, 643–657.CrossRefPubMed
Buchanan, A. (1988). Principal/agent theory and decision making in health care. Bioethics, 2, 317–333.CrossRefPubMed
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
Coast, J. (1999). The appropriate uses of qualitative methods in health economics. Health Economics, 8, 345–353.CrossRefPubMed
Connell, S., Sanders, M. R., & Markie-Dadds, C. (1997). Self-directed behavioral family intervention for parents of oppositional children in rural and remote areas. Behavior Modification, 21, 379–408.CrossRefPubMed
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., 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, 928–933.CrossRefPubMed
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
Grol, R., & Grimshaw, J. (2003). From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet, 362, 1225–1230.CrossRefPubMed
Hahlweg, K., Heinrichs, N., Kuschel, A., & Feldmann, M. (2008). Therapist-assisted, self-administered bibliotherapy to enhance parental competence: short-and long-term effects. Behavior Modification, 32, 659–681.CrossRefPubMed
Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied choice analysis: A primer. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hoagwood, K. (2003). The policy context for child and adolescent mental health services: implications for systems reform and basic science development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1008, 140–148.CrossRefPubMed
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
Jorm, A. F., Morgan, A. J., & Wright, A. (2008). Interventions that are helpful for depression and anxiety in young people: a comparison of clinicians’ beliefs with those of youth and their parents. Journal of Affective Disorders, 111, 227–234.CrossRefPubMed
Kazdin, A. E., Holland, L., & Crowley, M. (1997). Family experience of barriers to treatment and premature termination from child therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 453–463.CrossRefPubMed
Lavis, J. N., Robertson, D., Woodside, J. M., McLeod, C. B., Abelson, J., & Knowledge Transfer Study Group. (2003). How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? The Milbank Quarterly, 81, 221–248.CrossRefPubMed
Lazaratou, H., Anagnostopoulos, D. C., Alevizos, E. V., Haviara, F., & Ploumpidis, D. N. (2007). Parental attitudes and opinions on the use of psychotropic medication in mental disorders of childhood. Annals of General Psychiatry, 6, 32.CrossRefPubMed
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
Leslie, L. K., Weckerly, J., Plemmons, D., Landsverk, J., & Eastman, S. (2004). Implementing the American Academy of Pediatrics attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder diagnostic guidelines in primary care settings. Pediatrics, 114, 129–140.CrossRefPubMed
Lomas, J. (2007). The in-between world of knowledge brokering. British Medical Journal, 334, 129–132.CrossRefPubMed
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
Lyneham, H. J., & Rapee, R. M. (2006). Evaluation of therapist-supported parent-implemented CBT for anxiety disorders in rural children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1287–1300.CrossRefPubMed
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., & 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.
Perkins, M. B., Jensen, P. S., Jaccard, J., Gollwitzer, P., Oettingen, G., Pappadopulos, E., et al. (2007). Applying theory-driven approaches to understanding and modifying clinicians’ behavior: what do we know? Psychiatric Services, 58, 342–348.CrossRefPubMed
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
Phillips, K. A., Johnson, F. R., & Maddala, T. (2002). Measuring what people value: a comparison of “attitude” and “preference” surveys. Health Services Research, 37, 1659–1679.CrossRefPubMed
Preference Collaborative Review Group. (2008). Patients’ preferences within randomized trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis. British Medical Journal, 337, a1864.CrossRef
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.
Shah, A. K., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 207.CrossRefPubMed
Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S., & Balding, J. (1993). British parents’ beliefs about the causes of three forms of childhood psychological disturbance. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 367–376.CrossRefPubMed
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
Swift, J. K., & Callahan, J. L. (2009). The impact of client treatment preferences on outcome: a meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 368–381.CrossRefPubMed
Tolan, P. H., & Dodge, K. A. (2005). Children’s mental health as a primary care and concern: a system for comprehensive support and service: children’s mental health. The American Psychologist, 60, 601–614.CrossRefPubMed
Vick, S., & Scott, A. (1998). Agency in health care. Examining patients’ preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship. Journal of Health Economics, 17, 587–605.CrossRefPubMed
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
Metagegevens
Titel
Providing Information to Parents of Children with Mental Health Problems: A Discrete Choice Conjoint Analysis of Professional Preferences
Auteurs
Charles E. Cunningham
Ken Deal
Heather Rimas
Yvonne Chen
Don H. Buchanan
Kathie Sdao-Jarvie
Publicatiedatum
01-11-2009
Uitgeverij
Springer US
Gepubliceerd in
Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology / Uitgave 8/2009
Print ISSN: 2730-7166
Elektronisch ISSN: 2730-7174
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-009-9338-9

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2009

Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology 8/2009 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Early Adolescents’ Perceptions of Their Mother’s Anxious Parenting as a Predictor of Anxiety Symptoms 12 Months Later

OriginalPaper

Intergenerational Transmission of Multiple Problem Behaviors: Prospective Relationships between Mothers and Daughters

OriginalPaper

The Unity and Diversity of Inattention and Hyperactivity/Impulsivity in ADHD: Evidence for a General Factor with Separable Dimensions

OriginalPaper

Children’s Externalizing and Internalizing Symptoms over Time: The Role of Individual Differences in Patterns of RSA Responding

OriginalPaper

Examining Temporal Associations between Perceived Maternal Psychological Control and Early Adolescent Internalizing Problems

OriginalPaper

Inhibition, Reinforcement Sensitivity and Temporal Information Processing in ADHD and ADHD+ODD: Evidence of a Separate Entity?