Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24691766›Full record

SynthesisThe patient2014

The patient perspective of diabetes care: a systematic review of stated preference research.

Lill-Brith von Arx, Trine Kjeer

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The patient, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Barriers to effective management of type 2 diabetes in primary care: qualitative systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Crossing the deintensification chasm for older adults with diabetes.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Patient Preferences for Pharmacological Diabetes Treatment Among People with Diabetes in Spain: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Contingent Valuation Studies in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Health Economic Review.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2018
    Review
  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

2 authors.

Lill-Brith von ArxCenter for Health Economic Research (COHERE), University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230, Odense M, Denmark, lbwr@sam.sdu.dk.
Trine Kjeer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe importance of understanding the perspective of patients towards their own care is increasingly recognized, both in clinical practice and in pharmaceutical drug development. Stated preference methods to assess the preference of patients towards different aspects of diabetes treatment have now been applied for over a decade.

objectiveOur goal was to examine how stated preference methods are applied in diabetes care, and to evaluate the value of this information in developing the patient perspective in clinical and policy decisions.

methodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. The information sources were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis, Current Contents, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EconLit.

resultsThree contingent valuation studies and 11 discrete choice experiments were retrieved. The majority of studies were conducted from 2009 onwards, but some date back to 1998. The reasons provided for applying the stated preference methods were to help differentiate between products, or to enable inclusion of the patient's perspective in treatment decisions. The main aspects of treatment examined were related to glucose control, adverse events, and drug administration. The majority of patients preferred glucose control over avoiding minor hypoglycemic events. Patient willingness to pay was above $US100/month for glucose control, avoiding immediate health hazards such as nausea, and oral or inhaled drug administration. Preference towards drug administration was highly associated with previous experience with injectable diabetes medicine.

conclusionsThe ability of a drug to lower glucose levels plays a decisive role in the choice between alternative treatments. Future research should strive to develop questionnaire designs relevant for the decision context of the study. That is, if the aim is to foster shared decision making, in clinical practice or drug development, this should guide the study design. Furthermore, concise reporting of all study dimensions-from the qualitative prework to the analysis stage-is warranted.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPatient PreferenceBlood GlucoseDiabetes MellitusDrug Administration RoutesDrug Administration ScheduleFinancing, PersonalHumansHypoglycemiaHypoglycemic AgentsPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient ParticipationBlood GlucoseHypoglycemic 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.