ArticleThe patient2016
A Comparison of Methods for Capturing Patient Preferences for Delivery of Mental Health Services to Low-Income Hispanics Engaged in Primary Care.
Article in The patient, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Using discrete choice experiments to develop and deliver patient-centered psychological interventions: a systematic review.Health psychology review · 2021Pooled it
- Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- Application of discrete choice experiments to enhance stakeholder engagement as a strategy for advancing implementation: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2017Pooled it
- Review
- The Public's Preferences for Psychological Interventions During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- 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).BMC health services research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConsideration 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.
objectivesThis 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
designDiscrete-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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionsUnique 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26689700What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.