Cargando…
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)
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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8214295/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34144685 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06499-w |
_version_ | 1783710034341920768 |
---|---|
author | Larsen, Anna Tele, Albert Kumar, Manasi |
author_facet | Larsen, Anna Tele, Albert Kumar, Manasi |
author_sort | Larsen, Anna |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06499-w. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8214295 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82142952021-06-23 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) Larsen, Anna Tele, Albert Kumar, Manasi BMC Health Serv Res Research Article 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06499-w. BioMed Central 2021-06-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8214295/ /pubmed/34144685 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06499-w Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Larsen, Anna Tele, Albert Kumar, Manasi 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) |
title | 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) |
title_full | 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) |
title_fullStr | 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) |
title_full_unstemmed | 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) |
title_short | 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) |
title_sort | 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) |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8214295/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34144685 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06499-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT larsenanna mentalhealthservicepreferencesofpatientsandprovidersascopingreviewofconjointanalysisanddiscretechoiceexperimentsfromglobalpublichealthliteratureoverthelast20years19992019 AT telealbert mentalhealthservicepreferencesofpatientsandprovidersascopingreviewofconjointanalysisanddiscretechoiceexperimentsfromglobalpublichealthliteratureoverthelast20years19992019 AT kumarmanasi mentalhealthservicepreferencesofpatientsandprovidersascopingreviewofconjointanalysisanddiscretechoiceexperimentsfromglobalpublichealthliteratureoverthelast20years19992019 |