ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2020
A Multinational European Study of Patient Preferences for Novel Diagnostics to Manage Antimicrobial Resistance.
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Social determinants of health and antimicrobial resistance in the UK: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2026Article
- What Next for the Science of Patient Preference? Interoperability, Standardization, and Transferability.The patient · 2025Review
- Pricing, Procurement and Reimbursement Policies for Incentivizing Market Entry of Novel Antibiotics and Diagnostics: Learnings from 10 Countries Globally.Applied health economics and health policy · 2024Review
- Authors' Reply to Hays: "A Multinational European Study of Patient Preferences for Novel Diagnostics to Manage Antimicrobial Resistance".Applied health economics and health policy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNovel diagnostics are needed to manage antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Patient preferences are important in determining whether diagnostic tests are successful in practice, but there are few data describing the test attributes which matter most to patients. We elicited patients' preferences for attributes of diagnostic tests that could be used to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use in primary care across seven European countries.
methodsWe used an online stated preference survey, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The DCE explored how patients make trade-offs between three key attributes of diagnostic tests: the speed that results were available, confidence in the test results, and how convenient it is to take the test. Individuals were eligible to complete the survey if they had taken antibiotics within the last 2 years and were resident in Germany, Italy, Spain, France, Greece, the Netherlands or the United Kingdom (UK).
resultsIn total, 988 respondents completed the survey. The DCE responses illustrated that speed was the least important attribute in most countries. Responses from Germany and the Netherlands indicated that confidence was most important in these countries. Responses from the UK, France, Spain and Italy showed convenience as the most important attribute in these countries. Two attributes, confidence and convenience, were jointly favoured by respondents in Greece.
conclusionPatients in different European countries do not have the same preferences for the attributes of diagnostic tests to manage AMR in primary care. Failure to account for such differences during test development could reduce test uptake, result in continued overuse of antibiotics, and hamper marketisation.
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.