ArticleJournal of diabetes and metabolic disorders2022
Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Australia: a discrete choice experiment.
Article in Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The influence of culture and religion on the self-management of type 2 diabetes in South Asian migrants: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Variation in Attribute Prioritization and Design of Discrete Choice Experiments Across Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Patient Preference: A Systematic Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Review
- Client preferences in noncommunicable diseases management in Australia: A scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Development of Transdermal Drug Delivery Approaches to Combat Diabetes: An Update.Current drug metabolism · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Australia has a high proportion of migrants, with an increasing migration rate from India. Type 2 diabetes is a chronic condition common amongst the Indian population. The decision to initiate and continue medication therapy (conventional or ayurvedic medicine) is complex and is influenced by a wide range of factors. Objective: To determine preferences for conventional vs. ayurvedic medicines in Indian migrants with diabetes, and to identify the factors that may influence their preferences. Methods: A discrete choice experiment was conducted with participants in Australia who were migrants from India with type 2 diabetes (n=141). Each respondent evaluated eight choice tasks consisting of eight attributes describing medicines and outcomes of medication taking; and were asked to choose 'conventional', or 'ayurvedic' medicine. A mixed multinomial logit model was used to estimate preferences. Results: Overall, respondents' preference to initiate a medicine was negative for both conventional (β=-2.33164, p<0.001) and ayurvedic medicines (β=-3.12181, p<0.001); however, significant heterogenicity was noted in participants' preferences (SD: 2.33122, p<0.001). Six significant attributes were identified to influence preferences. In decreasing rank order: occurrence of hypoglycaemic events (relative importance, RI=24.33%), weight change (RI=20.00%), effectiveness of medicine (RI=17.91%), instructions to take with food (RI=17.05%), side effects (RI=13.20%) and formulation (RI=7.49%). Respondents preferred to initiate a medicine despite potential side effects. Conclusions: There was a greater preference for conventional medicine, though neither were preferred. Medicine attributes and medication-taking outcomes influenced people's preferences for an antidiabetic medicine. It is important to identify individual preferences during healthcare consultations to ensure optimal medication-taking.
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.