Don't Forget the Caregivers! A Discrete Choice Experiment Examining Caregiver Views of Integrated Youth Services.

Lisa D Hawke, Lehana Thabane, Leanne Wilkins, Steve Mathias, Srividya Iyer, Joanna Henderson
Author Information
  1. Lisa D Hawke: Margaret and Wallace McCain Centre for Child, Youth and Family Mental Health, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. ORCID
  2. Lehana Thabane: Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. ORCID
  3. Leanne Wilkins: Margaret and Wallace McCain Centre for Child, Youth and Family Mental Health, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.
  4. Steve Mathias: Foundry, Vancouver, BC, Canada. ORCID
  5. Srividya Iyer: McGill University; ACCESS Open Minds (Youth Mental Health Services Research Network), Montreal, QC, Canada. ORCID
  6. Joanna Henderson: Margaret and Wallace McCain Centre for Child, Youth and Family Mental Health, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Joanna.Henderson@camh.ca. ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The design and implementation of community-based integrated youth service hubs (IYSHs) is burgeoning around the world. This collaborative model of care aims to address barriers in youth service access by designing services that meet the needs of youth and caregivers. However, heterogeneity across models requires a better understanding of the preferences for key service characteristics.
METHOD: A discrete choice experiment was conducted among 274 caregivers of youth aged 14-29 years with mental health challenges. The experiment consisted of 12 attributes with four levels each, representing different service components; additional measures were collected, including demographics and burden assessments. Utility values were calculated, representing the degree of preference for a given level of an attribute. Latent class analysis was conducted to understand subgroups with different service preferences, identifying three latent classes with differing IYSH service preferences.
RESULTS: The largest class (n = 173, 63.1%), entitled 'Comprehensive, Integrative Service Access', strongly valued practical aspects of service design, such as rapid access and support for a wide range of needs. The 'Service Process Features' class (n = 67, 24.5%) expressed a relative prioritization of process features of service access, while the smaller 'Caregiver Involvement' (n = 34, 12.4%) class most highly prioritized caregiver involvement in their youths' services. Similar demographic characteristics and caregiver burden were found across classes, although participants in the Caregiver Involvement latent class were supporting younger youth.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers have diverse youth service preferences and relative priorities that should be taken into account when designing services. System designers and service providers are encouraged to take caregivers' preferences and priorities into account, alongside youth priorities, whether designing service delivery models or an individual service plan for a youth.

References

  1. Healthc Manage Forum. 2019 Mar;32(2):51-55 [PMID: 30799661]
  2. J Ment Health. 2010 Oct;19(5):422-35 [PMID: 20836689]
  3. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2020 Apr 17;29:e115 [PMID: 32299531]
  4. Int J Integr Care. 2020 Aug 17;20(3):8 [PMID: 32874167]
  5. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011 May;20(2):112-9 [PMID: 21541100]
  6. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2012 Winter;35(3):251-7 [PMID: 22246124]
  7. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2008 Jul;35(3):334-46 [PMID: 18512157]
  8. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2019 Jun;13 Suppl 1:68-70 [PMID: 31243906]
  9. Health Expect. 2018 Dec;21(6):1013-1023 [PMID: 29707865]
  10. Healthc Manage Forum. 2020 Nov;33(6):282-287 [PMID: 32613867]
  11. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 2004 Aug;(99):1-8 [PMID: 15460504]
  12. Community Ment Health J. 2014 Aug;50(6):703-10 [PMID: 24682636]
  13. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Apr 27;19(1):257 [PMID: 31029109]
  14. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017 Jun;26(6):623-647 [PMID: 28054223]
  15. Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):403-13 [PMID: 21669364]
  16. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Nov 28;18(1):901 [PMID: 30486805]
  17. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2018 Feb;32(1):152-163 [PMID: 29413065]
  18. Asia Pac Psychiatry. 2016 Mar;8(1):3-22 [PMID: 26238088]
  19. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2015 Jul;20(3):436-57 [PMID: 24711585]
  20. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2016 Mar;51(3):319-26 [PMID: 26687237]
  21. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2007 Jul;20(4):359-64 [PMID: 17551351]
  22. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 2013 Jan;54:s30-5 [PMID: 23288499]
  23. Curr Opin Psychol. 2021 Feb;37:44-48 [PMID: 32829003]
  24. BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Aug 14;20(1):409 [PMID: 32795285]
  25. Can J Psychiatry. 2013 Sep;58(9):529-37 [PMID: 24099501]
  26. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2015 Oct;22(8):561-9 [PMID: 25977175]
  27. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2016 Dec;25(6):526-535 [PMID: 27406035]
  28. J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208 [PMID: 31078660]
  29. Med J Aust. 2007 Oct 1;187(S7):S68-70 [PMID: 17908032]
  30. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2019 Jul 23;13:52 [PMID: 31367230]
  31. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2014 Apr;21(3):241-8 [PMID: 23682756]
  32. World Hosp Health Serv. 2005;41(2):12-6, 40-3 [PMID: 16104453]
  33. Implement Sci. 2018 Jul 26;13(1):98 [PMID: 30045735]
  34. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2018 Oct;53(10):1005-1038 [PMID: 30136192]
  35. Med J Aust. 2017 Nov 20;207(10):S5-S18 [PMID: 29129182]
  36. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2019 Jun;13 Suppl 1:48-55 [PMID: 31243909]
  37. Health Soc Care Community. 2012 Mar;20(2):181-9 [PMID: 21929697]

Grants

  1. /CIHR

MeSH Term

Adolescent
Caregivers
Humans
Latent Class Analysis
Mental Health

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0serviceyouthpreferencesclassaccessdesigningservicesprioritiesdesignneedscaregiversacrossmodelscharacteristicsexperimentconducted12representingdifferentburdenlatentclassesrelativecaregiverCaregiveraccountBACKGROUND:implementationcommunity-basedintegratedhubsIYSHsburgeoningaroundworldcollaborativemodelcareaimsaddressbarriersmeetHoweverheterogeneityrequiresbetterunderstandingkeyMETHOD:discretechoiceamong274aged14-29 yearsmentalhealthchallengesconsistedattributesfourlevelscomponentsadditionalmeasurescollectedincludingdemographicsassessmentsUtilityvaluescalculateddegreepreferencegivenlevelattributeLatentanalysisunderstandsubgroupsidentifyingthreedifferingIYSHRESULTS:largestn = 173631%entitled'ComprehensiveIntegrativeServiceAccess'stronglyvaluedpracticalaspectsrapidsupportwiderange'ServiceProcessFeatures'n = 67245%expressedprioritizationprocessfeaturessmaller'CaregiverInvolvement'n = 344%highlyprioritizedinvolvementyouths'SimilardemographicfoundalthoughparticipantsInvolvementsupportingyoungerDISCUSSIONANDCONCLUSIONS:CaregiversdiversetakenSystemdesignersprovidersencouragedtakecaregivers'alongsidewhetherdeliveryindividualplanForgetCaregivers!DiscreteChoiceExperimentExaminingViewsIntegratedYouthServices

Similar Articles

Cited By