Advertisement

A Comparison of Methods for Capturing Patient Preferences for Delivery of Mental Health Services to Low-Income Hispanics Engaged in Primary Care

  • Patricia M. HermanEmail author
  • Maia Ingram
  • Charles E. Cunningham
  • Heather Rimas
  • Lucy Murrieta
  • Kenneth Schachter
  • Jill Guernsey de Zapien
  • Scott C. Carvajal
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Consideration of patient preferences regarding delivery of mental health services within primary care may greatly improve access and quality of care for the many who could benefit from those services.

Objectives

This project evaluated the feasibility and usefulness of adding a consumer-products design method to qualitative methods implemented within a community-based participatory research (CBPR) framework.

Research Design

Discrete-choice conjoint experiment (DCE) added to systematic focus group data collection and analysis.

Subjects

Focus group data were collected from 64 patients of a Federally-Qualified Health Center (FQHC) serving a predominantly low-income Hispanic population. A total of 604 patients in the waiting rooms of the FQHC responded to the DCE.

Measures

The DCE contained 15 choice tasks that each asked respondents to choose between three mental health services options described by the levels of two (of eight) attributes based on themes that emerged from focus group data.

Results

The addition of the DCE was found to be feasible and useful in providing distinct information on relative patient preferences compared with the focus group analyses alone. According to market simulations, the package of mental health services guided by the results of the DCE was preferred by patients.

Conclusions

Unique patterns of patient preferences were uncovered by the DCE and these findings were useful in identifying pragmatic solutions to better address the mental health service needs of this population. However, for this resource-intensive method to be adopted more broadly, the scale of the primary care setting and/or scope of the issue addressed have to be relatively large.

Keywords

Focus Group Mental Health Service Choice Task Conjoint Analytic Importance Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the partnership of the Sunset Community Health Center in carrying out this research, and the Sunset Community Health Workers who participated in research activities.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This work was supported through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Pilot Project Program award (1IP2PI000275-01). The participation of Dr. Cunningham and Ms. Rimas was supported by the Jack Laidlaw Chair in Patient-Centered Health Care. Lucy Murrieta is an employee of the FQHC that was the subject of this research. With the exception of Ms. Murrieta’s employment status, all authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, with respect to this research. Our study received exempt approval from the University of Arizona Institutional Review Board. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Croghan TW, Brown JD. Integrating mental health treatment into the patient-centered medical home. Rockville (MD): Mathematical Policy Research; 2009.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kessler R, Stafford D. Primary care is the de facto mental health system. New York: Springer; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caldwell A, Couture A, Nowotny H. Closing the mental health gap: eliminating disparities in treatment for Latinos. Kansas City: Mattie Rhodes Center; 2008.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arcury TA, Quandt SA. Delivery of health services to migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Annu Rev Public Health. 2007;28:345–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Surgeon General. Mental health: culture, race, ethnicity. A supplement to mental health: a report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miranda J, Cooper LA. Disparities in care for depression among primary care patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(2):120–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang PS, Lane M, Olfson M, Pincus HA, Wells KB, Kessler RC. Twelve-month use of mental health services in the United States: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62(6):629–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    González HM, Vega WA, Williams DR, Tarraf W, West BT, Neighbors HW. Depression care in the United States: too little for too few. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67(1):37–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grant R. A bridge between public health and primary care. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(Suppl 3):S304.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the twenty-first century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Chapter 5. Patient centeredness: national healthcare disparities report, 2010. Rockville : Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berry LL, Beckham D, Dettman A, Mead R. Toward a strategy of patient-centered access to primary care. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89(10):1406–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sorel E, Everett A. Psychiatry and primary care integration: challenges and opportunities. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2011;23(1):28–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lin P, Campbell DG, Chaney EF, Liu C-F, Heagerty P, Felker BL, et al. The influence of patient preference on depression treatment in primary care. Ann Behav Med. 2005;30(2):164–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cunningham CE, Deal K, Rimas H, Campbell H, Russell A, Henderson J, et al. Using conjoint analysis to model the preferences of different patient segments for attributes of patient-centered care. Patient. 2008;1(4):317–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fraenkel L, Gulanski B, Wittink D. Patient treatment preferences for osteoporosis. Arthritis Care Res. 2006;55(5):729–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marshall D, Bridges JF, Hauber B, Cameron R, Donnalley L, Fyie K, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health: how are studies being designed and reported? Patient. 2010;3(4):249–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Osman L, McKenzie L, Cairns J, Friend J, Godden D, Legge J, et al. Patient weighting of importance of asthma symptoms. Thorax. 2001;56(2):138–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320(7248):1530.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dwight-Johnson M, Lagomasino IT, Aisenberg E, Hay J. Using conjoint analysis to assess depression treatment preferences among low-income Latinos. Psychiatric Serv. 2004;55(8):934–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dwight-Johnson M, Lagomasino IT, Hay J, Zhang L, Tang LQ, Green JM, et al. Effectiveness of collaborative care in addressing depression treatment preferences among low-income Latinos. Psychiatric Serv. 2010;61(11):1112–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Okumura Y, Sakamoto S. Depression treatment preferences among Japanese undergraduates: using conjoint analysis. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2012;58(2):195–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wittink MN, Cary M, TenHave T, Baron J, Gallo JJ. Towards patient-centered care for depression. Patient. 2010;3(3):145–57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wittink MN, Morales KH, Cary M, Gallo JJ, Bartels SJ. Towards personalizing treatment for depression. Patient. 2013;6(1):35–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bell RA, Paterniti DA, Azari R, Duberstein PR, Epstein RM, Rochlen AB, et al. Encouraging patients with depressive symptoms to seek care: a mixed methods approach to message development. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(2):198–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zimmermann TM, Clouth J, Elosge M, Heurich M, Schneider E, Wilhelm S, et al. Patient preferences for outcomes of depression treatment in Germany: a choice-based conjoint analysis study. J Affect Disord. 2013;148(2):210–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Orme BK. Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. 2nd ed. Madison: Research Publishers; 2010.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ryan M, Scott D, Reeves C, Bate A, Van Teijlingen E, Russell E, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:1–186.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Phillips KA, Johnson FR, Maddala T. Measuring what people value: a comparison of “attitude” and “preference” surveys. Health Serv Res. 2002;37(6):1659–79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Payne J, Bettman J, Johnson E. The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hsee CK, Loewenstein GF, Blount S, Bazerman MH. Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: a review and theoretical analysis. Psychol Bull. 1999;125(5):576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bridges J, Onukwugha E, Johnson F, Hauber A. Patient preference methods: a patient centered evaluation paradigm. ISPOR Connect. 2007;13(6):4–7.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bridges J. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(4):213–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19(1):173–202.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ingram M, Murrietta L, de Zapien JG, Herman PM, Carvajal SC. Community health workers as focus group facilitators: A participatory action research method to improve behavioral health services for farmworkers in a primary care setting. Action Res. 2015;13(1):48–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ingram M, Schachter KA, Guernsey de Zapien J, Herman PM, Carvajal SC. Using participatory methods to enhance patient-centred mental health care in a federally qualified community health center serving a Mexican American farmworker community. Health Expect. doi: 10.1111/hex.12284 (Epub 10 Oct 2014).
  37. 37.
    Bergold J, Thomas S. Participatory research methods: a methodological approach in motion. FORUM: Qual Soc Res. 2012;13(1):30.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cheraghi-Sohi S, Bower P, Mead N, McDonald R, Whalley D, Roland M. What are the key attributes of primary care for patients? Building a conceptual ‘map’of patient preferences. Health Expect. 2006;9(3):275–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lenk PJ, DeSarbo WS, Green PE, Young MR. Hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis: recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs. Mark Sci. 1996;15(2):173–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sawtooth Software I. The CBC/HB system for hierarchical Bayes estimation version 5.0 technical paper. Sequim: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 2009.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Halme M, Kallio M. Estimation methods for choice-based conjoint analysis of consumer preferences. Eur J Oper Res. 2011;214(1):160–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Orme BK. SSI Web V6.6 software for web interviewing and conjoint analysis. Sequim: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 2009.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Orme B, Huber J. Improving the value of conjoint simulations. Mark Res. 2000;12(4):12–20.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Huber J, Orme BK, Miller R. Dealing with product similarity in conjoint simulations. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F, editors. Conjoint measurement: methods and applications. 4th ed. New York: Springer; 2007. p. 347–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Herman PM, Ingram M, Rimas H, Carvajal S, Cunningham CE. Patient preferences of a low-income Hispanic population for mental health services in primary care. Adm Policy Ment Health (Epub 26 Sep 2015).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Carvajal SC, Rosales C, Rubio-Goldsmith R, Sabo S, Ingram M, McClelland DJ, et al. The border community and immigration stress scale: a preliminary examination of a community responsive measure in two southwest samples. J Immigr Minor Health. 2013;15(2):427–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wilkinson S. Focus groups in health research exploring the meanings of health and illness. J Health Psychol. 1998;3(3):329–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Caruso EM, Rahnev DA, Banaji MR. Using conjoint analysis to detect discrimination: revealing covert preferences from overt choices. Soc Cogn. 2009;27(1):128–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia M. Herman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maia Ingram
    • 2
  • Charles E. Cunningham
    • 3
  • Heather Rimas
    • 4
  • Lucy Murrieta
    • 5
  • Kenneth Schachter
    • 2
  • Jill Guernsey de Zapien
    • 2
  • Scott C. Carvajal
    • 6
  1. 1.RAND CorporationSanta MonicaUSA
  2. 2.University of Arizona, Zuckerman College of Public HealthTucsonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, Jack Laidlaw Chair in Patient-Centered Health Care, Faculty of Health Sciences, Michael G. DeGroote School of MedicineMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  4. 4.Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral NeurosciencesMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  5. 5.Sunset Community Health CenterYumaUSA
  6. 6.Arizona Prevention Research CenterUniversity of Arizona, Zuckerman College of Public HealthTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations