Modeling the Information Preferences of Parents of Children with Mental Health Problems: A Discrete Choice Conjoint Experiment
- 716 Downloads
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.
KeywordsConjoint analysis Children’s mental health information Parent preferences
- 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.
- Andrews, J. N., Swank, P. R., Foorman, B., & Fletcher, J. M. (1995). Effects of educating parents about ADHD. The ADHD Report, 3, 12–13.Google Scholar
- 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).Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cunningham, C. E., Pettingill, P. & Boyle, M. H. (2007). The brief child and family phone interview version 3: Interviewer’s manual. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://bcfpi.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/bcfpi/downloads.html.
- 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.Google Scholar
- House of Commons Health Committee. (2003). Patient and public involvement in the NHS. London England: The Stationary Office Limited. from http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmhealth/697/697.pdf.
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Orme, B. K. (2006). Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. Madison: Research.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The use of multiple strategies in judgment and choice. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. (2003). Achieving the promise: Transforming mental health care in America (Final Report No. SMA 03-3832) from http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/reports/FinalReport/toc.html.
- Sawtooth Software Inc. (2004a). The CBC latent class technical paper (version 3)., 1–20. Retrieved November 16, 2007, from http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/education/techpap.html.
- Sawtooth Software Inc. (2004b). The CBC/HB system for hierarchical Bayes estimation version 4.0 technical paper. Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series, 1–31. http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/download/techpap/hbtech.pdf.