ArticleThe patient2023
Patients' Preferences for Connected Insulin Pens: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes.
Article in The patient, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 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
- Insulin pens and the digital ecosystem.Diabetologia · 2026Review
- 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2026.Diabetes care · 2026Review
- 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
- 2025 Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diabetes Management in Korea: Recommendation of the Korean Diabetes Association.Diabetes & metabolism journal · 2025Article
- 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2025.Diabetes care · 2025Review
- Connected Insulin Pens and Pen Caps: Expanding Diabetes Technology Access and Adoption.Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2025Article
- Review
- Eliciting Older Cancer Patients' Preferences for Follow-Up Care to Inform a Primary Healthcare Follow-Up Model in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2024Article
- Physician Perceptions of Dose Escalation for Type 2 Diabetes Medications in the United States.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2024Article
- Out of Sight, Out of Mind: A Call to Action for the Treatment of Hypoglycemia.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2024Article
- 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024.Diabetes care · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study quantified how people with diabetes value the unique features of connected insulin pens and related mobile apps, and the underlying reasons for preferring connected versus non-connected insulin pens.
methodsA discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in the USA and UK to elicit preferences of adults (≥ 18 years) with type 1 or 2 diabetes for attributes of insulin pens. Attributes included device type, dosing support, glucose monitoring, additional app features, and data sharing. Relative attribute importance (RAI) scores were calculated to capture the relative importance of an attribute. Predicted choice probabilities were obtained to compare different profiles for connected and non-connected insulin pens.
resultsThe DCE was completed by 540 participants (58.9% male; 90.7% Caucasian; mean age, 58.3 years; 69.4% type 2 diabetes). Participants most valued the possibility of using a connected insulin pen with dosing support and automated dose logging (RAI = 39.9%), followed by automatic transfer of glucose levels (RAI = 29.0%), additional features of tracking diet and physical activity (RAI = 14.6%), data sharing (RAI = 13.6%), and device type (RAI = 2.9%). All profiles of connected insulin pens were preferred over a non-connected pen (p < 0.001), and pen profiles with advanced features were preferred over those without (p < 0.001). Preferences differed by age but not diabetes type, country of residence, or insulin regimen.
conclusionPeople with diabetes in the USA and UK prefer connected over non-connected insulin pens due largely to the availability of automated logging of dose and glucose levels.
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.