Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36960182›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2023

Preferred Conversation Topics with Respect to Treatment Decisions Among Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes.

Anna Tichler, Dorijn F L Hertroijs, Dirk Ruwaard, Martijn C G J Brouwers, Mickaël Hiligsmann, Judith D de Jong, Arianne M J Elissen

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06410768 (Evaluating the Feasibility of a Future Trial-based Economic Evaluation of a Multistage Shared Decision-making Program for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus), which is not on this 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.

NCT06410768 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Evaluating the Feasibility of a Future Trial-based Economic Evaluation of a Multistage Shared Decision-making Program for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorMaastricht University Medical CenterRan2024 to 2025Enrolled40ConditionsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Armsmultistage shared decision-making program
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

7 authors.

Anna TichlerDepartment of Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7747-0946
Dorijn F L HertroijsDepartment of Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9904-7252
Dirk RuwaardDepartment of Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4887-8413
Martijn C G J BrouwersCare and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8229-3331
Mickaël HiligsmannDepartment of Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4274-9258
Judith D de JongDepartment of Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9549-9005
Arianne M J ElissenDepartment of Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9795-8095

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Greater knowledge of individuals' needs and preferences can enhance shared decision-making, which is associated with improved quality of decisions and increased satisfaction. This study aimed to identify and prioritize the attributes (ie conversation topics) that individuals with type 2 diabetes find it most important to discuss with their healthcare provider regarding treatment decisions. Patients and Methods: First, small group interviews were organized with adults with type 2 diabetes (N=8) treated in primary care to identify the attributes that they find important to discuss regarding treatment decisions. A five-step nominal group technique was applied during the interviews. An object best-worst scaling (BWS) survey was subsequently distributed to individuals with self-reported diabetes participating in the Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel of the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (N=600) to determine the relative importance score (RIS) of the identified attributes. A higher RIS indicates a higher level of perceived importance. Subgroup and latent class analyses were performed to explore whether individuals' demographic and disease characteristics influenced their attribute preferences. Results: A total of 21 attributes were identified during three small group interviews with individuals with type 2 diabetes. Respondents in the BWS survey (N=285) viewed "quality of life" (RIS=11.97), "clinical outcomes" (RIS=10.40), "long-term diabetes complications" (RIS=9.83) and "short-term adverse medication" (RIS=7.72) as the most important in the decision-making process for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Some differences in attribute preferences were identified according to demographic and disease characteristics. Conclusion: In general, individuals with type 2 diabetes not only want to discuss the biological effects of treatments, but also the impact of treatment on their quality of life. Healthcare providers should be aware that attributes are viewed differently by different individuals. This emphasizes the need for tailor-made healthcare decisions, which means eliciting and responding to individual preferences in the decision-making process.

Indexed as

diabetes type 2patient preferencesperson-centered careshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID36960182
PMCPMC10029372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.