Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18193329›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2008

Patients' preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete choice experiment.

E W de Bekker-Grob, M L Essink-Bot, W J Meerding, H A P Pols, B W Koes, E W Steyerberg

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
14.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Recommendations on screening for primary prevention of fragility fractures.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2023
    Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Determining patient preferences for the medical management of osteoporosis using conjoint analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Health state utilities associated with treatment process for oral and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021
    Article
  20. Health-related quality of life after traumatic brain injury: deriving value sets for the QOLIBRI-OS for Italy, The Netherlands and The United Kingdom.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

E W de Bekker-GrobDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands. e.debekker@erasmusmc.nl
M L Essink-Bot
W J Meerding
H A P Pols
B W Koes
E W Steyerberg
Erasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledActive case finding for osteoporosis is used to identify patients at high fracture risk who may benefit from preventive drug treatment. We investigated the relative weight that women place on various aspects of preventive drugs in a discrete choice experiment. Our patients said they were prepared to take preventive drugs even if side effects were expected.

introductionActive case finding for osteoporosis is used to identify patients who may benefit from preventive drugs. We aimed to elicit the relative weight that patients place on various aspects of preventive drug treatment for osteoporosis.

methodsWe designed a discrete choice experiment, in which women had to choose between drug profiles that differed in five treatment attributes: effectiveness, side effects (nausea), total treatment duration, route of drug administration, and out-of-pocket costs. We included 120 women aged 60 years and older, identified by osteoporosis case finding in 34 general practices in the Netherlands. A conditional logit regression model was used to analyse the relative importance of treatment attributes, the trade-offs that women were willing to make between attributes, and their willingness to pay.

resultsAll treatment attributes proved to be important for women's choices. A reduction of the relative 10-year risk of hip fracture by 40% or more by the drug was considered to compensate for nausea as a side effect. Women were prepared to pay an out-of-pocket contribution for the currently available drug treatment (bisphosphonate) if the fracture risk reduction was at least 12%.

conclusionsWomen identified by active osteoporosis case finding stated to be prepared to take preventive drugs, even if side effects were expected and some out-of-pocket contribution was required.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAgedAged, 80 and overBone Density Conservation AgentsFemaleFractures, BoneHip FracturesHumansMiddle AgedOsteoporosisPatient ComplianceRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesBone Density Conservation Agents

Identifiers

PMID18193329
PMCPMC2440927
OpenAlexW2097383052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.