MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1882392783 · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201400306

Preferences for Early Intervention Mental Health Services: A Discrete-Choice Conjoint Experiment

2015· article· en· W1882392783 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mackenzie Becker, Bruce K. Christensen, Charles E. Cunningham, Ivana Furimsky, Heather Rimas, Fiona Wilson, Lisa Jeffs, Peter Bieling, Victoria Madsen, Yvonne Y. S. Chen, Stephanie Mielko, Robert B. Zipursky

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric Services · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsMultiple Sclerosis Society of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMental healthRespondentReferralIntervention (counseling)Service (business)Conjoint analysisMental illnessNursingMedicinePsychologyLatent class modelFamily medicinePsychiatryPreferenceMarketingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Early intervention services (EISs) for mental illness may improve outcomes, although treatment engagement is often a problem. Incorporating patients' preferences in the design of interventions improves engagement. A discrete-choice conjoint experiment was conducted in Canada to identify EIS attributes that encourage treatment initiation. METHODS: Sixteen four-level attributes were formalized into a conjoint survey, completed by patients, family members, and mental health professionals (N=562). Participants were asked which EIS option people with mental illness would contact. Latent-class analysis identified respondent classes characterized by shared preferences. Randomized first-choice simulations predicted which hypothetical options, based on attributes, would result in maximum utilization. RESULTS: Participants in the conventional-service class (N=241, 43%) predicted that individuals would contact traditional services (for example, hospital location and staffed by psychologists or psychiatrists). Membership was associated with being a patient or family member and being male. Participants in the convenient-service class (N=321, 57%) predicted that people would contact services promoting easy access (for example, self-referral and access from home). Membership was associated with being a professional. Both classes predicted that people would contact services that included short wait times, direct contact with professionals, patient autonomy, and psychological treatment information. The convenient-service class predicted that people would use an e-health model, whereas the conventional-service class predicted that people would use a primary care or clinic-hospital model. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of a range of services may maximize EIS use. Professionals may be more apt to adopt EISs in line with their beliefs regarding patient preferences. Considering several perspectives is important for service design.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric ServicesSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207