Dataset Information

Self-Reported Preferences for Help-Seeking and Barriers to Using Mental Health Supports Among Internal Medicine Residents: Exploratory Use of an Econometric Best-Worst Scaling Framework for Gathering Physician Wellness Preferences.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Burnout interventions are limited by low use. Understanding resident physician preferences for burnout interventions may increase utilization and improve the assessment of these interventions.

Objective

This study aims to use an econometric best-worst scaling (BWS) framework to survey internal medicine resident physicians to establish help-seeking preferences for burnout and barriers to using wellness supports by quantifying selections for 7 wellness support options and 7 barriers.

Methods

Internal medicine resident physicians at our institution completed an anonymous web-based BWS survey during the 2020-2021 academic year. This cross-sectional study was analyzed with multinomial logistic regression and latent class modeling to determine the relative rank ordering of factors for seeking support for burnout and barriers to using wellness supports. Analysis of variance with Tukey honest significant difference posthoc test was used to analyze differences in mean utility scores representing choice for barriers and support options.

Results

Of the 163 invited residents, 77 (47.2% response rate) completed the survey. Top-ranking factors for seeking wellness supports included seeking informal peer support (best: 71%; worst: 0.6%) and support from friends and family (best: 70%; worst: 1.6%). Top-ranking barriers to seeking counseling included time (best: 75%; worst: 5%) and money (best: 35%; worst: 21%).

Conclusions

Overall, our findings suggest that low utilization of formal mental health support is reflective of resident preferences to seek help informally and that increasing utilization will require addressing pragmatic barriers of time and cost. Assessing physician preferences for wellness-related initiatives may contribute to understanding the low utilization of formal mental health services among physicians, which can be determined using a BWS framework.

SUBMITTER: Wu A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8529465 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Food safety is a global public health issue, which often arises from asymmetric information between consumers and suppliers. With the development of information technology in human life, building a food traceability information sharing platform is viewed as one of the best ways to overcome the trust crisis and resolve the problem of information asymmetry in China. However, among the myriad information available from the food supply chain, there is a lack of knowledge on consumer preference. Based on the best-worst scaling approach, this paper investigated consumer preferences for vegetable, pork, and dairy product traceability information. Specifically, this paper measured the relative importance that consumers place on the traceable information. The results indicate that consumers have varying priorities for information in different cases. "Pesticide/veterinary use," "picking/slaughtering date," and "fertilizer/feed use" are the most preferred traceable information for Chinese consumers in the case of vegetables, while "picking/slaughtering date" and "history of illness and taking protective measures" are the most preferred information in the case of pork. In the case of dairy products, consumers prefer "processing information," "environmental information of the origin," and "traceable tag certification information" most. The results of this study call for the direct involvement of the Chinese government in the food safety information sharing system as following. First, given consumers' diverse preferences, different types of traceable information should be recorded into the information sharing platform depending on food types. Second, the government could promote the step-by-step construction of such a platform based on the priority of consumers' preferences. Third, new technology should be applied to guarantee the reliability of traceable information. Finally, local preferences in terms of the way consumers receive and understand information should be taken into consideration.

Project description:Purpose:To quantify patients' preferences for glaucoma outcomes and use this information to prioritize outcomes that are important to patients. Design:A cross-sectional study using best-worst scaling object case (BWS). Participants:Two hundred seventy-four participants newly diagnosed with ocular hypertension or mild to moderate open angle glaucoma from three private practices and one academic medical center in the United States. Methods:We designed a preference-elicitation survey based on findings from 25 semi-structured, qualitative interviews with patients with glaucoma (reported elsewhere). The survey asked participants to rate the importance of 13 glaucoma outcomes on a Likert scale as a warm-up exercise followed by completion of 13 BWS tasks. For each task, we presented participants a subset of four outcomes from the possible thirteen, and participants chose the most important and least important outcome. Outcomes included in the survey pertain to maintaining ability to perform vision-dependent activities of daily living (e.g., driving), maintaining visual function and perception (e.g., depth perception), minimizing need to take glaucoma drops, not experiencing ocular surface symptoms (e.g., red eyes, teary eyes), and having adequate control of intraocular pressure (IOP). We administered the survey online and analyzed response patterns using conditional logistic regression to determine the relative importance of different outcomes. Main outcome:Ordinal ranking of glaucoma outcomes based on preference weights. Results:Between September 1, 2017 and February 28, 2018, we invited 1035 patients to complete our survey, among whom 274 (26%) responded. Most participants were older than 65 years of age (146/274, 53%) and currently on IOP-lowering drops (179/274, 65%). Participants identified that outcomes with the largest relative importance weight were having "adequate IOP control" and ability to "drive a car during the day," and the outcomes with the smallest relative importance weights were "maintaining appearance of the eye" and "reducing the number of IOP-lowering drops". Conclusions:Determining the relative importance of glaucoma outcomes to patients can help researchers design studies that may better inform clinical and regulatory decision-making. Although IOP is an outcome that researchers often measure in glaucoma clinical trials, patients also prioritized outcomes related to the ability to perform vision-dependent activities such as driving.

Project description:BackgroundOlder people with hypertension and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) receive complex treatments and face challenging trade-offs. Patients' preferences for different health outcomes can impact multiple treatment decisions. Since evidence about outcome preferences is especially scarce among people with MCC our aim was to elicit preferences of people with MCC for outcomes related to hypertension, and to determine how these outcomes should be weighed when benefits and harms are assessed for patient-centered clinical practice guidelines and health economic assessments.MethodsWe sent a best-worst scaling preference survey to a random sample identified from a primary care network of Kaiser Permanente (Colorado, USA). The sample included individuals age 60 or greater with hypertension and at least two other chronic conditions. We assessed average ranking of patient-important outcomes using conditional logit regression (stroke, heart attack, heart failure, dialysis, cognitive impairment, chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury, fainting, injurious falls, low blood pressure with dizziness, treatment burden) and studied variation across individuals.ResultsOf 450 invited participants, 217 (48%) completed the survey, and we excluded 10 respondents who had more than two missing choices, resulting in a final sample of 207 respondents. Participants ranked stroke as the most worrisome outcome and treatment burden as the least worrisome outcome (conditional logit parameters: 3.19 (standard error 0.09) for stroke, 0 for treatment burden). None of the outcomes were always chosen as the most or least worrisome by more than 25% of respondents, indicating that all outcomes were somewhat worrisome to respondents. Predefined subgroup analyses according to age, self-reported life-expectancy, degree of comorbidity, number of medications and antihypertensive treatment did not reveal meaningful differences.ConclusionsAlthough some outcomes were more worrisome to patients than others, our results indicate that none of the outcomes should be disregarded for clinical practice guidelines and health economic assessments.