Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39359865›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2024

Patient preferences for the provision of NHS medicines helpline services: a discrete choice experiment.

Ben Ashby, Matthew D Jones

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Ben AshbyInstitute for Mathematical Innovation, University of Bath, Bath, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-3628-4052
Matthew D JonesDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Bath, Bath, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2617-4098

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Patient medicines helpline services (PMHS) can reduce harm and improve medicines adherence and patient satisfaction after hospital discharge. There is little evidence of which PMHS attributes are most important to patients. This would enable PMHS providers to prioritise their limited resources to maximise patient benefit. Methods: Patient preferences for PMHS attributes were measured using a discrete choice experiment. Seven attributes were identified from past research, documentary analysis and stakeholder consultation. These were used to produce a D-efficient design with two blocks of ten choice sets incorporated into an online survey. Adults in the UK who took more than one medicine were eligible to complete the survey and were recruited via the Research for the Future database. Preferences were estimated using conditional logistic regression. Associations between participant characteristics and preferences were investigated with latent class models. Results: 460 participants completed the survey. The most valued attributes were weekend opening (willingness-to-pay, WTP: £11.20), evening opening (WTP: £8.89), and receiving an answer on the same day (WTP: £9.27). Alternative contact methods, immediate contact with a pharmacist and helpline location were valued less. Female gender and full-time work were associated with variation in preferences. For one latent class containing 27% of participants, PMHS location at the patient's hospital was the most valued attribute. Discussion: PMHS providers should prioritise extended opening hours and answering questions on the same day. Limitations include a non-representative sample in terms of ethnicity, education and geography, and the exclusion of people without internet access.

Indexed as

Discrete choice experimentdrug informationhospital dischargemedicines helplinemedicines informationpatient dischargepatient preferences

Identifiers

PMID39359865
PMCPMC11445913

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.