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:Epilepsy is a common, serious condition. Fortunately, seizure risk decreases with increasing seizure-free time on antiseizure medications (ASMs). Eventually, patients may consider whether to stop ASMs, which requires weighing treatment benefit versus burden. We developed a questionnaire to quantify patient preferences relevant to ASM decision-making. Respondents rated how concerning they would finding relevant items (e.g., seizure risks, side effects, cost) on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, 0-100) and then repeatedly chose the most and least concerning item from subsets (best-worst scaling, BWS). We pretested with neurologists, then recruited adults with epilepsy who were seizure-free at least one year. Primary outcomes were recruitment rate, and qualitative and Likert-based feedback. Secondary outcomes included VAS ratings and best-minus-worst scores. Thirty-one of 60 (52%) contacted patients completed the study. Most patients felt VAS questions were clear (28; 90%), easy to use (27; 87%), and assessed preferences well (25; 83%). Corresponding results for BWS questions were 27 (87%), 29 (97%), and 23 (77%). Physicians suggested adding a 'warmup' question showing a completed example and simplifying terminology. Patients suggested ways to clarify instructions. Cost, inconvenience of taking medication, and laboratory monitoring were the least concerning items. Cognitive side effects and a 50% seizure risk in the next year were the most concerning items. Twelve (39%) of patients made at least one 'inconsistent choice' for example ranking a higher seizure risk as lower concern compared with a lower seizure risk, though 'inconsistent choices' represented only 3% of all question blocks. Our recruitment rate was favorable, most patients agreed the survey was clear, and we describe areas for improvement. 'Inconsistent' responses may lead us to collapse seizure probability items into a single 'seizure' category. Evidence regarding how patients weigh benefits and harms may inform care and guideline development.

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:PurposeTo quantify patients' preferences for glaucoma outcomes and use this information to prioritize outcomes that are important to patients.DesignA cross-sectional study using best-worst scaling object case (BWS).ParticipantsTwo 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.MethodsWe 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 outcomeOrdinal ranking of glaucoma outcomes based on preference weights.ResultsBetween 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".ConclusionsDetermining 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:BackgroundSmartphone apps have been beneficial in controlling and preventing the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is a gap in research surrounding the importance of smartphone app functions from a user's perspective. Although the insights and opinions of different stakeholders, such as policymakers and medical professionals, can influence the success of a public health policy, any strategy will face difficulty in achieving the expected effect if it is not based on a method that users can accept.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the importance of a hypothetical smartphone app's functions for managing health during a pandemic based on the perspective of user preferences.MethodsA cross-sectional and web-based survey using the best-worst scaling (BWS) method was used to investigate the general population's preferences for important smartphone app functions. Participants were recruited from a professional surveying company's web-based surveying panel. The attributes of the BWS questionnaire were developed based on a robust process, including literature review, interviews, and expert discussion. A balanced incomplete block design was used to construct the choice task to ensure the effectiveness of the research design. Count analysis, conditional logit model analysis, and mixed logit analysis were used to estimate preference heterogeneity among respondents.ResultsThe responses of 2153 participants were eligible for analysis. Nearly 55% (1192/2153) were female, and the mean age was 31.4 years. Most participants (1765/2153, 81.9%) had completed tertiary or higher education, and approximately 70% (1523/2153) were urban residents. The 3 most vital functions according to their selection were "surveillance and monitoring of infected cases," "quick self-screening," and "early detection of infected cases." The mixed logit regression model identified significant heterogeneity in preferences among respondents, and stratified analysis showed that some heterogeneities varied in respondents by demographics and COVID-19-related characteristics. Participants who preferred to use the app were more likely to assign a high weight to the preventive functions than those who did not prefer to use it. Conversely, participants who showed lower willingness to use the app tended to indicate a higher preference for supportive functions than those who preferred to use it.ConclusionsThis study ranks the importance of smartphone app features that provide health care services during a pandemic based on the general population's preferences in China. It provides empirical evidence for decision-makers to develop eHealth policies and strategies that address future public health crises from a person-centered care perspective. Continued use of apps and smart investment in digital health can help improve health outcomes and reduce the burden of disease on individuals and communities.