ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2014
Prescription medicines: decision-making preferences of patients who receive different levels of public subsidy.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measuring the burden of treatment for chronic disease: implications of a scoping review of the literature.BMC medical research methodology · 2017Article
- Editorial. Health Expectations.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the relative importance of medicine attributes and decision-making preferences of patients with higher or lower levels of insurance coverage in a publicly funded health care system. DESIGN AND
settingCross-sectional telephone survey of randomly selected regular medicine users aged ≥18 years in the Hunter Valley, NSW, Australia. MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED: Questions about 27 medicine attributes and active involvement in decisions to start a new medicine.
resultsAfter adjustment, there were few differences between the 408 concession card holders (high insurance) and 410 general beneficiaries (low insurance) in their assessment of the importance of medicine attributes. For both groups, the explanation of treatment options, establishing the need for the medicine, and medicine efficacy and safety were the most important considerations. Medicine costs, the treatment burden and medicine familiarity were less important; the views of family and friends ranked lowest. There was a statistically significantly greater influence of the regular doctor for the concession card holders than general beneficiaries (93.6 vs. 84%, adjusted OR 2.80, 95% CI 1.31, 5.99). Concession card holders were more likely to favour doctors having more say in the decision-making process (crude OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.28, 2.24), and more likely to report the most recent treatment decision being made by the doctor alone, compared with general beneficiaries (61.2 vs. 40.3%).
conclusionMedicine need, efficacy and safety are viewed as paramount for most patients, irrespective of insurance status. While patients report the importance of participation in treatment decisions, delegation of decision making to the doctor was common in practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.