Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29502237›Full record

ArticleThe patient2018

Patient Preferences for Managing Insomnia: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Janet M Y Cheung, Delwyn J Bartlett, Carol L Armour, Bandana Saini, Tracey-Lea Laba

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Plant Extracts for Sleep Disturbances: A Systematic Review.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020
    Review
  12. 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

5 authors.

Janet M Y CheungFaculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Pharmacy and Bank Building A15, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. janet.cheung@sydney.edu.au.
Delwyn J BartlettCIRUS, Centre for Integrated Research and Understanding of Sleep, The Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Carol L ArmourClinical Management Group, The Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Bandana SainiFaculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Pharmacy and Bank Building A15, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Tracey-Lea LabaThe George Institute for Global Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 571421
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the rapid development of effective treatments, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological, insomnia management remains suboptimal at the practice interface. Patient preferences play a critical role in influencing treatment outcomes. However, there is currently a mismatch between patient preferences and clinician recommendations, partly perpetuated by a limited understanding of the patients' decision-making process.

objectivesThe aim of our study was to empirically quantify patient preferences for treatment attributes common to both pharmacological and non-pharmacological insomnia treatments.

methodAn efficient dual-response discrete choice experiment was conducted to evaluate patient treatment preferences for managing insomnia. The sample included 205 patients with self-reported insomnia and an Insomnia Severity Index ≥ 14. Participants were presented with two unlabelled hypothetical scenarios with an opt-out option across 12 choice sets. Data were analyzed using a mixed multinomial logit model to investigate the influence of five attributes (i.e. time, onset of action, maintainability of improved sleep, length of treatment, and monthly cost) on treatment preferences.

resultsTreatments were preferentially viewed if they conferred long-term sleep benefits (p < 0.05); had an ongoing, as opposed to a predefined, duration of treatment course (p < 0.05); required some, as opposed to no, additional time commitment (p < 0.05); and had lower monthly out-of-pocket treatment costs (p < 0.001). However, treatment onset of action had no influence on preference. Age, help-seeking status, concession card status and fatigue severity significantly influenced treatment preference.

conclusionParticipants' prioritization of investing time in treatment and valuing the maintainability of therapeutic gains suggests a stronger inclination towards non-pharmacological treatment, defying current assumptions that patients prefer 'quick-fixes' for managing insomnia.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorDecision MakingAdultFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPatient PreferenceSleep Initiation and Maintenance DisordersSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID29502237

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.