ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Client preferences in noncommunicable diseases management in Australia: A scoping review.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Noncommunicable diseases (NCD) are the leading causes of mortality in Australia. Understanding clients' preferences is essential to implement effective care models that revitalize utilization of services. This study aims to review existing evidence on client preferences of service delivery among people with NCD in Australia. We followed PRISMA extension for scoping review. Articles conducted with discrete choice experiment were included. Clients with NCD in general or one of the five major diseases: cardiac diseases, diabetes, cancer, chronic respiratory diseases, and mental health disorders. We used the Differentiated Service Delivery Framework to synthesize the findings. Clients expressed a preference for better-trained health workers to handle sample collection and referrals rather than doing it themselves. For polygenic cancer testing, clients preferred primary care physicians over genetic specialists. There was a preference for a model of care that engaged clients in the decision-making process, safe, comprehensive, effective, and affordable services delivered closer to the community, and exhibited shorter waiting times to receive care. Clients preferred face-to-face presence for anxiety and depression screening, polygenic testing for cancer, and follow-up care for breast cancer survivor. Clients preferred less frequent follow-up appointments except those with NCD that needs close follow-up. Clients need a health system that prioritizes patient-centered and community-based models that enhance accessibility, affordability, and safety. Reducing wait times, offering flexible follow-ups and face-to-face services may improve patient satisfaction, trust, and treatment adherence. Failing to align services with patient preferences may lead to lower engagement and reduce healthcare effectiveness.
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.