Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
This project was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Charles Cunningham’s participation was supported by the Jack Laidlaw Chair in Patient-Centred Health at McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences. Patrick McGrath was supported by a Canada Research Chair. Graham Reid was supported by the Children’s Health Foundation. The authors acknowledge the research support provided by Stephanie Mielko, Amanda Holding, Sophia Fanourgiakis, Matt Horner, Kayley Brunsdon, and Lauren Mak. David Streiner and Richard McCollough provided helpful statistical consultation.
Parents seeking help for children with mental health problems are often assigned to a waiting list. We used a discrete choice conjoint experiment to model preferences for interim services that might be used while waiting for the formal assessment and treatment process to begin. A sample of 1,059 parents (92 % mothers) seeking mental health services for 4 to 16 year olds chose between hypothetical interim services composed by experimentally varying combinations of the levels of 13 interim service attributes. Latent Class analysis yielded a four–segment solution. All segments preferred interim options helping them understand how agencies work, enhancing their parenting knowledge and skill, and providing an opportunity to understand or begin dealing with their own difficulties. The Group Contact segment (35.1 %) preferred interim services in meetings with other parents, supported by phone contacts, frequent checkup calls, and wait–time updates. Virtual Contact parents (29.2 %) preferred to meet other parents in small internet chat groups supported by e–mail contact. Membership in this segment was linked to higher education and computer skills. Frequent Contact parents (24.4 %) preferred face–to–face interim services supported by weekly progress checks and wait time updates. Limited Contact parents (11.3 %) were less intent on using interim services. They preferred to pursue interim services alone, with contacts by phone, supported by fewer check–up calls and less frequent wait time updates. All segments were more likely to enroll in interim services involving their child.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Andrews, R. L., & Currim, I. S. (2003). A comparison of segment retention criteria for finite mixture logit models. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 235–243. CrossRef
Barkley, R. A., Shelton, T. L., Crosswait, C., Moorehouse, M., Fletcher, K., Barrett, S., et al. (2000). Multi-method psycho-educational intervention for preschool children with disruptive behavior: preliminary results at post-treatment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 319–332. PubMedCrossRef
Boxall, P. C., & Adamowicz, W. L. (2002). Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environmental and Resource Economics, 23, 421–446. CrossRef
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
Celeux, G., & Soromenho, G. (1996). An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model. Journal of Classification, 13, 195–212. CrossRef
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321. 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.
Cotten, S. R., & Gupta, S. S. (2004). Characteristics of online and offline health information seekers and factors that discriminate between them. Social Science & Medicine, 59, 1795–1806. CrossRef
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications 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., Boyle, M. H., Hong, S., Pettingill, P., & Bohaychuk, D. (2009). The brief child and family phone interview (BCFPI): 1. rationale, development, and description of a computerized children’s mental health intake and outcome assessment tool. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 416–423. PubMedCrossRef
Cunningham, C. E., McGrath, P., Chen, Y., Graham, R., Lipman, E., Corkum, P. (2013) Waiting for children’s mental health services: A qualitative analysis of factors influencing the utilization and outcome of interim service options. Unpublished data
Eyberg, S. M., Boggs, S. R., & Algina, J. (1995). Parent–child interaction therapy: a psychosocial model for the treatment of young children with conduct problem behavior and their families. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 31, 83–91. PubMed
Griffiths, K. M., Farrer, L., & Christensen, H. (2010). The efficacy of internet interventions for depression and anxiety disorders: a review of randomised controlled trials. The Medical Journal of Australia, 192, S4–S11. PubMed
Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., & Huber, F. (2007). Conjoint analysis as an instrument of market research practice. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann, & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement (pp. 3–34). Berlin: Springer. CrossRef
Huang, G. H., & Bandeen-Roche, K. (2004). Building an identifiable latent class model with covariate effects on underlying and measured variables. Psychometrika, 69, 5–32. CrossRef
Huber, J., Orme, B. K., & 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. CrossRef
Johnston, C., Scoular, D. J., & Ohan, J. L. (2004). Mothers’ reports of parenting in families of children with symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: relations to impression management. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 26, 45–61. 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. CrossRef
Lanza, S. T., & Rhoades, B. L. (2011). Latent class analysis: An alternative perspective on subgroup analysis in prevention and treatment. Prevention Science, 1–12.
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. CrossRef
McGrath, P. J., Lingley-Pottie, P., Thurston, C., MacLean, C., Cunningham, C., Waschbusch, D. A., et al. (2011). Telephone-based mental health interventions for child disruptive behavior or anxiety disorders: randomized trials and overall analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50, 1162–1172. PubMedCrossRef
Montgomery, P., Bjornstad, G., Dennis, J. (2008). Media-based behavioural treatments for behavioural problems in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online), 1.
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: a Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 535–569. CrossRef
Orme, B. K. (2009). Getting started with conjoint analysis: Strategies for product design and pricing research (2nd ed.). Madison: Research Publishers.
Orme, B. K., & Huber, J. (2000). Improving the value of conjoint simulations. Marketing Research, 12, 12–20.
Patterson, M., & Chrzan, K. (2003). Partial profile discrete choice: What’s the optimal number of attributes? 10th Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, San Antonio, TX. 173–185.
Reid, G. J., & Brown, J. B. (2008). Money, case complexity, and wait lists: perspectives on problems and solutions at children’s mental health centers in Ontario. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 35, 334–346. CrossRef
Ryan, M., Gerard, K., & Amaya-Amaya, M. (2007). Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Netherlands: Springer.
Sawtooth Software Inc. (2008). CBC 6.0 technical paper. Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series, 1, 1–27.
Vermunt, J. K. (2010). Latent class modeling with covariates: two improved three-step approaches. Political Analysis, 18, 450–469. CrossRef
Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2005a). Latent GOLD® choice 4.0 user’s manual. Belmont: Statistical Innovations Inc.
Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2005b). Technical guide for latent GOLD 4.0: Basic and advanced. Belmont: Statistical Innovations Inc.
Waschbusch, D. A., Cunningham, C. E., Pelham, W. E., Jr., Rimas, H., Greiner, A. R., Gnagy, E. M., et al. (2011). A discrete choice conjoint experiment to evaluate preferences for treatment of young, medication naive children with ADHD. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40, 546–561. PubMedCrossRef
Yang, C. C., & Yang, C. C. (2007). Separating latent classes by information criteria. Journal of Classification, 24(2), 183–203. CrossRef
- The Interim Service Preferences of Parents Waiting for Children’s Mental Health Treatment: A Discrete Choice Conjoint Experiment
Charles E. Cunningham
- Springer US