Youth Perspectives on Integrated Youth Services: A Discrete Choice Conjoint Experiment

Abstract

Objective Integrated youth services (IYS) are an emerging model of care offering a broad range of mental health and social services for youth in one location. This study aimed to determine the IYS service characteristics most important to youth, as well as to determine whether different classes of youth have different service preferences, and if so, what defines these classes. Methods Ontario youth aged 14–29 years with mental health challenges were recruited to participate in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey. The DCE contained 12 attributes, each represented by 4 levels representing core characteristics of IYS models. To supplement the DCE questions, demographic information was collected and a mental health screener was administered. Preferences were examined, latent class analyses were conducted, and latent classes were compared. Results As a whole, participants endorsed the IYS model of service delivery. Among 274 youth, there were three latent classes: 1) the Focused Service (37.6%) latent class prioritized efficient delivery of mental health services. 2) The Holistic Services (30.3%) latent class prioritized a diverse array of mental health and social services delivered in a timely fashion. 3) The Responsive Services (32.1%) latent class prioritized services that matched the individual needs of the youth being served. Differences between classes were observed based on sociodemographic and clinical variables. Conclusions IYS is an acceptable model of care, in that it prioritizes components that reflect youth preferences. The differences in preference profiles of different groups of youth point to the need for flexible models of service delivery. Service design initiatives should take these preferences into account, designing services that meet the needs and preferences of a broad range of youth. Working locally to co-design services with the youth in the target population who wish to be engaged will help meet the needs of youth.

A mixed methods analysis of youth mental health intervention feasibility and acceptability in a North American city: Perspectives from Seattle, Washington

“…Such interventions cannot solely rely on the feedback and input of mental health professionals, advocates, and policymakers, but also equally benefit from engaging young people. Consistent with our study, the researchers suggested co-designing interventions with the youth in the target population [ 55 ]. The citiesRISE platform could play an instrumental role connecting young people and key stakeholders, establishing a systematic way to engage youth in shaping implementation of interventions in Seattle [ 17 ].…”

“…For instance, social and criminal justice actions such as reducing youth incarceration could change the trajectory of life for youth at risk for justice involvement and improve mental health in the long-term. A recent study on integrated youth services as an emerging model of care pointed to the need for flexible models of service delivery [ 55 ]. Such interventions cannot solely rely on the feedback and input of mental health professionals, advocates, and policymakers, but also equally benefit from engaging young people.…”

Integrated Youth Service Preferences of Caregivers of Justice-Involved Youth: A Discrete Choice Conjoint Experiment

“…Data gathered from an Ontario-wide DCE has examined the IYS service preferences of youth, caregivers, and stakeholder groups [19][20][21]. Most relevant to the current data analysis are findings from the Hawke and colleagues [20] study examining the IYS service preferences of Ontario caregivers that found three caregiver latent classes.…”

Youth not engaged in education, employment, or training: a discrete choice experiment of service preferences in Canada

“…They force participants to make trade-offs, identifying the importance of different service attributes [ 32 , 33 ]. Previous findings generated from DCE studies have been useful in informing service design and delivery, resource allocation, and policies, including the preferred design of IYS services [ 34 – 37 ].…”