Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37796918›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2023

Patient preferences and cost-benefit of hypertension and hyperlipidemia collaborative management model between pharmacies and primary care in Portugal: A discrete choice experiment alongside a trial (USFarmácia®).

Suzete Costa, José Guerreiro, Inês Teixeira, Dennis K Helling, Céu Mateus, João Pereira

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Discrete Choice Experiments to Advance Cardiovascular Health.European journal of preventive cardiology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Suzete CostaNOVA National School of Public Health (ENSP), Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4521-5473
José GuerreiroCentre for Health Evaluation & Research (CEFAR), Infosaúde, Associação Nacional das Farmácias, Lisboa, Portugal.
Inês TeixeiraCentre for Health Evaluation & Research (CEFAR), Infosaúde, Associação Nacional das Farmácias, Lisboa, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-3873-7158
Dennis K HellingSkaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, United States of America.
Céu MateusHealth Economics at Lancaster, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.
João PereiraNOVA National School of Public Health (ENSP), Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Lancaster University · GBUniversidade Nova de Lisboa · PTUniversity of Lisbon · PTUniversity of Montana · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about patient preferences and the value of pharmacy-collaborative disease management with primary care using technology-driven interprofessional communication under real-world conditions. Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) are useful for quantifying preferences for non-market services.

objectives1) To explore variation in patient preferences and estimate willingness-to-accept annual cost to the National Health Service (NHS) for attributes of a collaborative intervention trial between pharmacies and primary care using a trial exit DCE interview; 2) to incorporate a DCE into an economic evaluation using cost-benefit analysis (CBA).

methodsWe performed a DCE telephone interview with a sample of hypertension and hyperlipidemia trial patients 12 months after trial onset. We used five attributes (levels): waiting time to get urgent/not urgent medical appointment (7 days/45 days; 48 hrs./30 days; same day/15 days), model of pharmacy intervention (5-min. counter basic check; 15-min. office every 3 months for BP and medication review of selected medicines; 30-min. office every 6 months for comprehensive measurements and medication review of all medicines), integration with primary care (weak; partial; full), chance of having a stroke in 5 years (same; slightly lower; much lower), and annual cost to the NHS (0€; 30€; 51€; 76€). We used an experimental orthogonal fractional factorial design. Data were analyzed using conditional logit. We subtracted the estimated annual incremental trial costs from the mean WTA (Net Benefit) for CBA.

resultsA total of 122 patients completed the survey. Waiting time to get medical appointment-on the same day (urgent) and within 15 days (non-urgent)-was the most important attribute, followed by 30-minute pharmacy intervention in private office every 6 months for point-of-care measurements and medication review of all medicines, and full integration with primary care. The cost attribute was not significant. Intervention patients were willing to accept the NHS annual cost of €877 for their preferred scenario. The annual net benefit per patient is €788.20 and represents the monetary value of patients' welfare surplus for this model.

conclusionsThis study is the first conducted in Portugal alongside a pharmacy collaborative trial, incorporating DCE into CBA. The findings can be used to guide the design of pharmacy collaborative interventions with primary care with the potential for reimbursement for uncontrolled or at-risk chronic disease patients informed by patient preferences. Future DCE studies conducted in community pharmacy may provide additional contributions.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials (ISRCTN): ISRCTN13410498, retrospectively registered on 12 December 2018.

Indexed as

HyperlipidemiasHypertensionPharmaciesCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansPatient PreferencePortugalPrimary Health CareState Medicine

Identifiers

PMID37796918
PMCPMC10553278
OpenAlexW4387362660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.