Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20838770›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2011

Patient preferences for osteoporosis in Spain: a discrete choice experiment.

J Darbà, G Restovic, L Kaskens, M A Balbona, A Carbonell, P Cavero, M Jordana, C Prieto, A Molina, I Padró

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
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, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Patient preferences for hospital quality: case study of iran.Iranian Red Crescent medical journal · 2013
    Article
  16. Patient weighting of osteoporosis medication attributes across racial and ethnic groups: a study of osteoporosis medication preferences 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 · 2013
    Article
  17. Health technology assessment in osteoporosis.Calcified tissue international · 2013
    Review
  18. Incorporating patients' preferences into medical decision making.Medical care research and review : MCRR · 2013
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

J DarbàDepartment of Economics, Universitat de Barcelona, Diagonal 690, 08034 Barcelona, Spain. darba@ub.edu
G Restovic
L Kaskens
M A Balbona
A Carbonell
P Cavero
M Jordana
C Prieto
A Molina
I Padró

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledIn Spain, various treatments are available to prevent osteoporotic fractures. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to investigate the importance of different treatment aspects and its influence on patients' preferences. All attributes included as type and place of drug administration as well as costs showed to be significant predictors of choice. Spanish osteoporosis patients have well-defined preferences and accept trade-offs among attributes.

introductionThis study was designed to identify patient preferences for different aspects of osteoporosis treatments in Spain.

methodsMain attributes of severe osteoporosis treatments were determined by literature review and consultations with nurses. The discrete choice experiment included three attributes: type of drug administration, place of administration, plus a cost attribute in order to estimate willingness to pay for improvements in attribute levels. A pilot study with 50 patients was performed to identify the areas of misunderstanding. One hundred sixty-six patients with a diagnosis of osteoporosis and severe osteoporosis were presented with pairs of hypothetical treatment profiles with different type of administration levels, places of administration and costs. Questions to collect socio-demographic and disease-related treatment data were also included. Data were analysed using a random effects probit model.

resultsAll attributes had the expected polarity and were significant predictors of choice. Patients were willing to pay 183 euro/month to have a subcutaneous injection once per day rather than an intravenous injection once per year. Patients with osteoporosis were willing to pay 121 euro/month to have medical support when administering the drug treatment at home rather than being admitted several hours to a hospital for drug administration.

conclusionSpanish osteoporosis patients have well-defined preferences among treatment attributes and are willing to accept trade-offs among attributes. Participants indicated that they are willing to accept self medication with medical support rather than being hospitalised for several hours. The perspective of the patients should be taken into account when making treatment decisions.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAgedAged, 80 and overBone Density Conservation AgentsChoice BehaviorDrug Administration ScheduleDrug CostsFemaleHealth ExpendituresHumansInjections, IntravenousInjections, SubcutaneousMaleMiddle AgedOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesBone Density Conservation Agents

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.