ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020
How to Implement Adherence-Promoting Programs in Clinical Practice? A Discrete Choice Experiment on Physicians' Preferences.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Preferences, Adherence, and Satisfaction: Three Years of Treatment Experiences of People with Multiple Sclerosis.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Interventions to support adherence to oral anticancer therapies: research challenges, lessons learned, and strategies to overcome them from Australia and Switzerland.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- Using nominal group technique among resident physicians to identify key attributes of a burnout prevention program.PloS one · 2022Article
- Reimbursed medication adherence enhancing interventions in 12 european countries: Current state of the art and future challenges.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
- Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals.Health economics review · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to examine physicians' preferences regarding adherence-promoting programs (APPs), and to investigate which APP characteristics influence the willingness of physicians to implement these in daily practice. MATERIALS AND
methodsA discrete choice experiment was conducted among general practitioners, cardiologists, neurologists and ophthalmologists in Germany. The design considered five attributes with two or three attribute levels each: validation status of the APP; possibility for physicians to receive a certificate; type of intervention; time commitment per patient and quarter of the year to carry out the APP; reimbursement for APP participation, per included patient and quarter of the year.A multinomial logit model was run to estimate physicians' utility for each attribute and to evaluate the influence of different levels on the probability of choosing a specific APP. The relative importance of the attributes was compared between different pre-defined subgroups.
resultsIn total, 222 physicians were included in the analysis. The most important characteristics of APPs were time commitment to carry out the program (34.8% importance), reimbursement (33.3%), and validation status of the program (23.7%). The remaining attributes (type of intervention: 3.6%; possibility to receive a certificate: 4.7%) were proven to be less important for a physician's decision to participate in an APP. Physicians on average preferred APP alternatives characterized by little time commitment (β=1.456, p<0.001), high reimbursement for work (β=1.392, p<0.001), "positive validation status" (β=0.990, p<0.001), the "possibility to get a certificate" (β=0.197, p<0.001), and the provision of "tools for both physicians and patients" (β=0.150, p<0.001).
conclusionFor the majority of the physicians participating in this survey, the willingness to implement an APP is determined by the associated time commitment and reimbursement. Considering physicians' preferences regarding different APP features in the promoting process of these programs may enhance physicians' participation and engagement.
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.