Towards patient-centered care for depression: Conjoint methods to tailor treatment based on preferences

Patient

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 145-157

  Wittink, Marsha N ^a   Cary, Mark ^a   TenHave, Thomas ^a   Baron, Jonathan ^b   Gallo, Joseph J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

adverse drug reactions; antidepressants, therapeutic use; conjoint analysis; counselling; depression, treatment

Indexed keywords

ANTIDEPRESSANT AGENT;

AGED; ARTICLE; COUNSELING; DEPRESSION; DIZZINESS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MENTAL HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; NAUSEA; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT CARE; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION;

EID: 77954157316     PISSN: 11781653     EISSN: 11781661     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11530660-000000000-00000     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2001
2. Committee on Crossing the Quality Chasm: Adaptation to Mental Health and Addictive Disorders. Improving the quality of care for mental and substance-use conditions: quality chasm series. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006
3. Bridging science and service: a report by the National Advisory Mental Health Council's Clinical Treatment and Services Research Workgroup. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health, 1998 [online]. Available from URL: http://wwwapps.nimh.nih.gov/ ecb/archives/nimhbridge.pdf [Accessed 2010 Mar 24]
4. Cooper LA, Gonzales JJ, Gallo JJ, et al. The acceptability of treatment for depression among African-American and White primary care patients. Med Care 2003; 41: 479-489
5. Glass C, Arnkoff D, Shapiro S. Expectations and p. Psychotherapy 2001; 38: 455-461
6. Swift J, Callahan J. The impact of client treatment p on outcome: a meta-analysis. J Clin Psychol 2009; 65 (4): 368-381
7. Ryan P, Lauver DR. The efficacy of tailored interventions. J Nurs Scholarsh 2002; 34: 331-337
8. Bogner HR, Lin JY, Morales KH. Patterns of early adherence to the antidepressant citalopram among primary care patients: the PROSPECT study. Int J Psychiatry Med 2006; 36 (1): 103-119
9. Nutting PA, Rost K, Dickinson M, et al. Barriers to initiating depression treatment in primary care practice. J Gen Int Med 2002; 17: 103-111
10. Switzer J, WittinkM, Karsch BB, et al. "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps": a response to depression in older adults. Qual Health Res 2006; 16 (9): 1207-1216
11. Wittink MN, Dahlberg B, Biruk C, et al. How older adults combine medical and experiential notions of depression. Qual Health Res 2008 Sep; 18 (9): 1174-1183
12. Thompson J, Scott N. Counseling service features: elders' p and utilization. Clin Gerontol 1991; (11): 39-46
13. Dwight-Johnson M, Unützer J, Sherbourne C, et al. Can quality improvement programs for depression in primary care address patient p for treatment? Med Care 2001; 39 (9): 934-944
14. Bedi N, Chilvers C, Churchill R, et al. Assessing effectiveness of treatment of depression in primary care: partially randomised preference trial. Br J Psychiatry 2000; 177: 312-318
15. Rokke PD, Tomhave JA, Jocic Z. The role of client choice and target selection in self-management therapy for depression in older adults. Psychol Aging 1999 Mar; 14 (1): 155-169
16. Luce D, Tukey J. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J Math Psychol 1964; 1: 1-27
17. Anderson N. Functional measurement and psycho-physical judgement. Psychology Rev 1977; 77: 153-170
18. Louviere JJ. Conjoint analysis modelling of stated p: a review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity. J Transport Econ Policy 1988; 22 (1): 9-119
19. Wardman M. A comparison of revealed preference and stated preference models. J Transport Econ Policy 1988; 22: 71-91
20. Opaluch J, Swallow S, Weaver T, et al. Evaluating impacts from noxious facilities: including public p in current siting mechanisms. J Environ Econ Manage 1993; (24): 41-59
21. Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Williams M. Combining revealed preference and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J Environ Econ Manage 1994; 6: 271-292
22. Train K, Sonnier G. Mized logit with bounded distributions of correlated partworths. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A, editors. Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics. Dordrecht: Springer, 2005
23. Wittink DR, Cattin P. Commercial use of conjoint analysis: an update. J Market 1981; 53: 91-96
24. Green PE, Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. J Market 1990; 54 (4): 3-19
25. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit p for health care. BMJ 2000 Jun 3; 320 (7248): 1530-1533
26. Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2 (1): 55-64
27. Bridges J, Kinter E, Kidane L, et al. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1982-2007. Patient 2008; 1 (4): 273-282
28. Ross M-A, Avery AJ, Foss AJE. Views of older people on cataract surgery options: an assessment of p by conjoint analysis. Qual Saf Health Care 2003; 12: 13-17
29. Meister H, Lausberg I, Kiessling J. Identifying the needs of elderly, hearing-impaired persons: the importance and utility of hearing aid attributes. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2002; 259 (10): 531-534
30. Ratcliffe J, Buxton M, McGarry T, et al. Patients' p for characteristics associated with treatments for osteoarthritis. Rheumatology 2004; 43: 337-345
31. van den Berg B, Van Dommelen P, Stam P, et al. P and choices for care and health insurance. Soc Sci Med 2008 Jun; 66 (12): 2448-2459
32. Oudhoff JP, Timmermans DR, Knol DL, et al. Prioritising patients on surgical waiting lists: a conjoint analysis study on the priority judgments of patients, surgeons, occupational physicians, and general practitioners. Soc Sci Med 2007 May; 64 (9): 1863-1875
33. Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women's p for miscarriage management. Health Econ 1998; 6 (3): 261-273
34. Flach SD, Diener A. Eliciting patients' p for cigarette and alcohol cessation: an application of conjoint analysis. Addict Behav 2004; 29: 791-799
35. Shumway M, Saunders T, Shern D, et al. P for schizophrenia treatment outcomes among public policy makers, consumers, families, and providers. Psychiatr Serv 2003; 54: 1124-1128
36. Dwight-Johnson M, Lagomasino IT, Aisenberg E, et al. Using conjoint analysis to assess depression treatment p among low-income latinos. Psychiatr Serv 2004; 55 (8): 934-936
37. Cooper LA, Brown C, Thi Vu H, et al. Primary care patients' opinions regarding the importance of various aspects of care for depression. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2000; 22 (3): 163-173
38. Jonathan Baron's questionnaire studies [online]. Available from URL: http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~baron/q.htm [Accessed 2010 Apr 23]
39. Baron J. Thinking and deciding. 3rd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000
40. Gurmankin AD, Baron J, Hershey JC, et al. The role of physicians' recommendations in medical treatment decisions. Med Decis Making 2002; 22: 262-271
41. Gurmankin LA, Baron J. How bad is a 10%chance of losing a toe? Judgments of probabilistic conditions by doctors and laypeople. Mem Cognit 2005; 33 (8): 1399-1406
42. Baron J, Asch DA, Fagerlin A, et al. Effect of assessment method on the discrepancy between judgments of health disorders people have and do not have: a web study. Med Decis Making 2003 Sep-Oct; 23 (5): 422-434
43. Gurmankin AD, Baron J, Armstrong K. Intended message versus message received in hypothetical physician risk communications: exploring the gap. Risk Anal 2004; 24: 1337-1347
44. Kuhfeld W. Marketing research methods for SAS: experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. SAS 9.1 ed. Cary (NC): SAS Institute Inc., 2005
45. Schulberg HC, Katon W, Simon GE, et al. Treating major depression in primary care: an update of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Practice Guidelines. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1998; 55: 1121-1127
46. Johnson R, Orme B. How many questions should you ask in choice-based conjoint studies? [Sawtooth Software research paper series]. Beaver Creek (CO): Sawtooth Software Inc., Advanced Research Techniques Forum, 1996
47. Train K. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003
48. Marshall P, Bradlow ET. A unified approach to conjoint analysis models. J Am Stat Assoc 2002; 97: 674-682
49. Gum A, Areán P, Hunkeler E, et al. Depression treatment p in older primary care patients. Gerontologist 2006; 46: 14-22
50. Jaycox L, Asarnow J, Sherbourne C, et al. Adolescent primary care patients' p for depression treatment. Adm Policy Ment Health 2006; 33 (2): 198-207 (Pubitemid 351839223)
51. Givens J. Ethnicity and p for depression treatment. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2007; 29: 254-263
52. Wind J, Green P, Shifflet D, et al. Courtyard by Marriott: designing a hotel facility with consumer-based marketing models. Interfaces 1989; 19 (Jan-Feb): 25-47
53. Vavra T, Green P, Krieger A. Evaluating EZ-pass. Mark Res 1999; 11: 5-16
54. Chakraborty G, Ettenson R, Gaeth G. How consumers choose health insurance. J Health Care Mark 1994; 14 (1): 21-33
55. Cunningham CE, Buchanan D, Deal K. Modelling patientcentered children's health services using choice-based conjoint hierarchical Bayes. Paper presented at 10th Annual Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings; 2004 Apr 15-17; San Antonio (TX)
56. Cunningham CE, Deal K, Rimas H, et al. Modeling the information p of parents of children with mental health problems: a discrete choice conjoint experiment. J Abnorm Psychol 2008; 36 (36): 1123-1138