Parents of children with disability: Mental health outcomes and utilization of mental health services

Preferences for Neurodevelopmental Follow-Up Care for Children: A Discrete Choice Experiment

INTRODUCTION

Identifying and addressing neurodevelopmental delays in children can be challenging for families and the healthcare system. Delays in accessing services and early interventions are common. The design and delivery of these services, and associated outcomes for children, may be improved if service provision aligns with families' needs and preferences for receiving care. The aim of this study is to identify families' preferences for neurodevelopmental follow-up care for children using an established methodology.

METHODS

We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to elicit families' preferences. We collected data from families and caregivers of children with neurodevelopmental needs. The DCE process included four stages. In stage 1, we identified attributes and levels to be included in the DCE using literature review, interviews, and expert advice. The finalised attributes were location, mode of follow-up, out-of-pocket cost per visit, mental health counselling for parents, receiving educational information, managing appointments, and waiting time. In stage 2, we generated choice tasks that contained two alternatives and a 'neither' option for respondents to choose from, using a Bayesian d-efficient design. These choice tasks were compiled in a survey that also included demographic questions. We conducted pre- and pilot tests to ensure the functionality of the survey and obtain priors. In stage 3, the DCE survey was administered online. We received 301 responses. In stage 4, the analysis was conducted using a latent class model. Additionally, we estimated the relative importance of attributes and performed a scenario analysis.

RESULTS

Two latent classes were observed. More families with full-time employees, higher incomes, postgraduate degrees, and those living in metropolitan areas were in class 1 compared with class 2. Class 1 families preferred accessing local public health clinics, face-to-face follow-up, paying AUD100 to AUD500, mental health support, group educational activities, health service-initiated appointments, and waiting < 3 months. Class 2 families disliked city hospitals when compared with private, preferred paying AUD100 or no cost, and had similar preferences regarding mental health support and wait times as class 1. However, no significant differences were noted in follow-up modality, receiving educational information, and appointment management. The relative importance estimation suggested that location was most important for class 1 (28%), whereas for class 2, cost accounted for nearly half of the importance when selecting an alternative. The expected uptake of follow-up care, estimated under three different hypothetical scenarios, may increase by approximately 24% for class 2 if an 'ideal' scenario taking into account preferences was implemented.

CONCLUSION

This study offers insights into aspects that may be prioritised by health services and policymakers to improve the design and delivery of neurodevelopmental follow-up care for children. The findings may enhance the organisation and functioning of existing care programmes; and therefore, improve the long-term outcomes of children with neurodevelopmental needs and their families.

Mitochondrial replacement techniques for treating infertility

Mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs) usually aim to prevent the genetic transmission of maternally inherited mitochondrial diseases. Until now, only the UK and Australia have implemented specific legal regulations of MRTs. In both countries, clinical trials on these techniques are only permissible for cases with a high risk of severe mitochondrial disease in the offspring. However, these techniques can also be applied to treat infertility, especially for older women with impaired oocyte quality. In some countries without legal regulation of these techniques, MRTs are already offered for this purpose. Yet, this application of MRTs has received insufficient attention in the bioethical literature so far.In this paper, I examine whether there are ethical reasons to prohibit trials on MRTs in the context of infertility when they are permitted for preventing mitochondrial disease. Allowing MRTs in one context but not the other might be justified either because their application in the context of mitochondrial disease (1) is supported by a more convincing evidence base, (2) has a higher potential benefit or (3) has a lower risk. I compare both applications of MRTs with respect to these three factors. I conclude that there is no convincing reason to prohibit clinical trials on MRTs for infertility when they are permitted in the context of mitochondrial disease.