Dataset Information

Mental health service preferences of patients and providers: a scoping review of conjoint analysis and discrete choice experiments from global public health literature over the last 20 years (1999-2019).

ABSTRACT:

Background

In designing, adapting, and integrating mental health interventions, it is pertinent to understand patients' needs and their own perceptions and values in receiving care. Conjoint analysis (CA) and discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are survey-based preference-elicitation approaches that, when applied to healthcare settings, offer opportunities to quantify and rank the healthcare-related choices of patients, providers, and other stakeholders. However, a knowledge gap exists in characterizing the extent to which DCEs/CA have been used in designing mental health services for patients and providers.

Methods

We performed a scoping review from the past 20 years (2009-2019) to identify and describe applications of conjoint analysis and discrete choice experiments. We searched the following electronic databases: Pubmed, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science to identify stakehold,er preferences for mental health services using Mesh terms. Studies were categorized according to pertaining to patients, providers and parents or caregivers.

Results

Among the 30 studies we reviewed, most were published after 2010 (24/30, 80%), the majority were conducted in the United States (11/30, 37%) or Canada (10/30, 33%), and all were conducted in high-income settings. Studies more frequently elicited preferences from patients or potential patients (21/30, 70%) as opposed to providers. About half of the studies used CA while the others utilized DCEs. Nearly half of the studies sought preferences for mental health services in general (14/30, 47%) while a quarter specifically evaluated preferences for unipolar depression services (8/30, 27%). Most of the studies sought stakeholder preferences for attributes of mental health care and treatment services (17/30, 57%).

Conclusions

Overall, preference elicitation approaches have been increasingly applied to mental health services globally in the past 20 years. To date, these methods have been exclusively applied to populations within the field of mental health in high-income countries. Prioritizing patients' needs and preferences is a vital component of patient-centered care - one of the six domains of health care quality. Identifying patient preferences for mental health services may improve quality of care and, ultimately, increase acceptability and uptake of services among patients. Rigorous preference-elicitation approaches should be considered, especially in settings where mental health resources are scarce, to illuminate resource allocation toward preferred service characteristics especially within low-income settings.

SUBMITTER: Larsen A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8214295 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care is a key element of health care systems and addresses the main health problems of the population. Due to the demographic change, primary care even gains in importance. The knowledge of the patients' preferences can help policy makers as well as physicians to set priorities in their effort to make health care delivery more responsive to patients' needs. Our objective was to describe which aspects of primary care were included in preference studies and which of them were the most preferred aspects.MethodsIn order to elicit the preferences for primary care, a systematic literature search was conducted. Two researchers searched three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and PsycINFO) and conducted a narrative synthesis. Inclusion criteria were: focus on primary health care delivery, discrete choice experiment as elicitation method, and studies published between 2006 and 2015 in English language.ResultsWe identified 18 studies that elicited either the patients' or the population's preferences for primary care based on a discrete choice experiment. Altogether the studies used 16 structure attributes, ten process attributes and four outcome attributes. The most commonly applied structure attribute was "Waiting time till appointment", the most frequently used process attribute was "Shared decision making / professional's attention paid to your views". "Receiving the 'best' treatment" was the most commonly applied outcome attribute. Process attributes were most often the ones of highest importance for patients or the population. The attributes and attribute levels used in the discrete choice experiments were identified by literature research, qualitative research, expert interviews, or the analysis of policy documents.ConclusionsThe results of the DCE studies show different preferences for primary health care. The diversity of the results may have several reasons, such as the method of analysis, the selection procedure of the attributes and their levels or the specific research question of the study. As the results of discrete choice experiments depend on many different factors, it is important for a better comprehensibility of the studies to transparently report the steps undertaken in a study as well as the interim results regarding the identification of attributes and levels.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To review studies eliciting patient and healthcare provider preferences for healthcare interventions using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to (1) review the methodology to evaluate similarities, differences, rigour of designs and whether comparisons are made at the aggregate level or account for individual heterogeneity; and (2) quantify the extent to which they demonstrate concordance of patient and healthcare provider preferences. METHODS:A systematic review searching Medline, EMBASE, Econlit, PsycINFO and Web of Science for DCEs using patient and healthcare providers. INCLUSION CRITERIA:peer-reviewed; complete empiric text in English from 1995 to 31July 2015; discussing a healthcare-related topic; DCE methodology; comparing patients and healthcare providers. DESIGN:Systematic review. RESULTS:We identified 38 papers exploring 16 interventions in 26 diseases/indications. Methods to analyse results, determine concordance between patient and physician values, and explore heterogeneity varied considerably between studies. The majority of studies we reviewed found more evidence of mixed concordance and discordance (n=28) or discordance of patient and healthcare provider preferences (n=12) than of concordant preferences (n=4). A synthesis of concordance suggested that healthcare providers rank structure and outcome attributes more highly than patients, while patients rank process attributes more highly than healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS:Discordant patient and healthcare provider preferences for different attributes of healthcare interventions are common. Concordance varies according to whether attributes are processes, structures or outcomes, and therefore determining preference concordance should consider all aspects jointly and not a binary outcome. DCE studies provide excellent opportunities to assess value concordance between patients and providers, but assessment of concordance was limited by a lack of consistency in the approaches used and consideration of heterogeneity of preferences. Future DCEs assessing concordance should fully report the framing of the questions and investigate the heterogeneity of preferences within groups and how these compare.

Project description:BackgroundPatients and their families play an important role in efforts to improve health service safety.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to understand the safety partnership preferences of patients and their families.MethodWe used a discrete choice conjoint experiment to model the safety partnership preferences of 1,084 patients or those such as parents acting on their behalf. Participants made choices between hypothetical safety partnerships composed by experimentally varying 15 four-level partnership design attributes.ResultsParticipants preferred an approach to safety based on partnerships between patients and staff rather than a model delegating responsibility for safety to hospital staff. They valued the opportunity to participate in point of service safety partnerships, such as identity and medication double checks, that might afford an immediate risk reduction. Latent class analysis yielded two segments. Actively engaged participants (73.3%) comprised outpatients with higher education, who anticipated more benefits to safety partnerships, were more confident in their ability to contribute, and were more intent on participating. They were more likely to prefer a personal engagement strategy, valued scientific evidence, preferred a more active approach to safety education, and advocated disclosure of errors. The passively engaged segment (26.7%) anticipated fewer benefits, were less confident in their ability to contribute, and were less intent on participating. They were more likely to prefer an engagement strategy based on signage. They preferred that staff explain why they thought patients should help make care safer and decide whether errors were disclosed. Inpatients, those with immigrant backgrounds, and those with less education were more likely to be in this segment.ConclusionHealth services need to communicate information regarding risks, ask about partnership preferences, create opportunities respecting individual differences, and ensure a positive response when patients raise safety concerns.