Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30497536›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2018

Quantified patient preferences for lifestyle intervention programs for diabetes prevention-a protocol for a systematic review.

Charalabos-Markos Dintsios, Nadja Chernyak, Benjamin Grehl, Andrea Icks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Charalabos-Markos DintsiosInstitute for Health Services Research and Health Economics, Centre for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40255, Düsseldorf, Germany. dintsios@hhu.de.ORCID 0000-0003-3469-092X
Nadja ChernyakInstitute for Health Services Research and Health Economics, Centre for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40255, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Benjamin GrehlInstitute for Health Services Research and Health Economics, Centre for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40255, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Andrea IcksInstitute for Health Services Research and Health Economics, Centre for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40255, Düsseldorf, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 20-70% participation of diabetes patients in lifestyle interventions (LSI) worldwide seems to be rather sub-optimal, in spite of all intents of such interventions to delay further progress of the disease. Positive effects through LSI are expected in particular for patients who suffer less from diabetes-related limitations or other chronic diseases. Seeing that diabetes prevalence and with it mortality are increasing, LSI have become an inherent part of diabetes treatment standards. Various qualitative studies have been carried out to identify participation barriers for LSI. However, these have not resulted in more detailed knowledge about the relative importance of factors with an inhibiting impact on participation. Since it cannot be assumed that all of the influencing factors have equivalent values, it is necessary to investigate their individual importance with regard to a positive or negative decision about participating. There are no systematic reviews on patient preferences for LSI programs in diabetes prevention. As a result, the main objectives of this systematic review are to (i) identify existing patient preference elicitation studies related to LSI for diabetic patients, (ii) summarize the methods applied and findings, and (iii) appraise the reporting and methodological quality of such studies.

methodsWe will perform systematic literature searches to identify suitable studies from 14 electronic databases. Retrieved study records will be included based on predefined eligibility criteria as defined in this protocol. We will run abstract and full-text screenings and then extract data from all selected studies by filling in a predefined data extraction spreadsheet. We will undertake a descriptive, narrative synthesis of findings to address the study objectives, since no pooling for quantified preferences is for methodological reasons implementable. We will pay special attention to aspects of methodological quality of preference elicitation by applying established evaluation criteria of the ISPOR and some own developed criteria for different elicitation techniques. All critical stages within the screening, data extraction, and synthesis processes will be conducted by two pairs of authors. This protocol adheres to PRISMA and PRISMA-P standards. DISCUSSION: The proposed systematic review will provide an overview of the methods used and current practice in the elicitation and quantification of patients' preferences for diabetes prevention lifestyle interventions. Furthermore, the methodological quality of the identified studies will be appraised as well. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018086988.

Indexed as

Healthy LifestylePatient PreferenceDiabetes MellitusDietExerciseHumansSystematic Reviews as TopicAnalytic hierarchy processConjoint analysisDiabetes mellitusDiscrete choice analysisMulti-criteria decision analysisPatient preferencesPreference elicitationPreferences weightsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30497536
PMCPMC6264623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.