Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30288034›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2018

Time preference, outcome expectancy, and self-management in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Florian M Karl, Rolf Holle, Lars Schwettmann, Annette Peters, Michael Laxy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Florian M KarlInstitute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum München (GmbH), German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany, florian.karl@helmholtz-muenchen.de.
Rolf HolleInstitute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum München (GmbH), German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany, florian.karl@helmholtz-muenchen.de.
Lars SchwettmannInstitute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum München (GmbH), German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany, florian.karl@helmholtz-muenchen.de.
Annette PetersGerman Center for Diabetes Research (DZD), Neuherberg, Germany, florian.karl@helmholtz-muenchen.de.
Michael LaxyInstitute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum München (GmbH), German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany, florian.karl@helmholtz-muenchen.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient self-management is crucial to prevent complications and mortality in type 2 diabetes. From an economic perspective, time preference predicts short-sighted decision making and thus might help to explain non-adherence to self-anagement recommendations. However, recent studies on this association have shown mixed results. PURPOSE: In this study, we tested whether the combination of time preference and outcome expectancy can improve the predictions of self-management behavior. PATIENTS AND

methodsData from 665 patients with type 2 diabetes were obtained from the cross-sectional KORA (Cooperative Health Research in the Region of Augsburg) GEFU 4 study. Time preference and outcome expectancy were measured by one question each, which were answered on a 4-point Likert scale. Their association with six self-managing behaviors was tested in logistic and linear regression analyses. Likewise, we examined the association between self-management and the interaction of outcome expectancy and time preference.

resultsA high time preference was associated with a significantly lower sum of self-management behaviors (β=-0.29, 95% CI [-0.54, -0.04]). Higher outcome expectancy was associated with a higher self-management score (β=0.21, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.45]). The interaction model showed that low time preference was only associated with better self-management when combined with a high outcome expectancy (β=0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.39] vs β=0.27, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.63]).

conclusionTime preference and outcome expectancy are interrelated predictors of patient self-management and could be used to identify and to intervene on patients with a potentially poor self-management.

Indexed as

adherencebehavioral economicshealth behaviortemporal discounting

Identifiers

PMID30288034
PMCPMC6163016

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.