The Patient Perspective of Diabetes Care: A Systematic Review of Stated Preference Research

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 7 - Trang 283-300 - 2014
Lill-Brith von Arx1,2, Trine Kjær1
1Center for Health Economic Research (COHERE), University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark
2Department of Epidemiology, Novo Nordisk A/S, Søborg, Denmark

Tóm tắt

The importance of understanding the perspective of patients towards their own care is increasingly recognized, both in clinical practice and in pharmaceutical drug development. Stated preference methods to assess the preference of patients towards different aspects of diabetes treatment have now been applied for over a decade. Our goal was to examine how stated preference methods are applied in diabetes care, and to evaluate the value of this information in developing the patient perspective in clinical and policy decisions. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. The information sources were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis, Current Contents, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EconLit. Three contingent valuation studies and 11 discrete choice experiments were retrieved. The majority of studies were conducted from 2009 onwards, but some date back to 1998. The reasons provided for applying the stated preference methods were to help differentiate between products, or to enable inclusion of the patient’s perspective in treatment decisions. The main aspects of treatment examined were related to glucose control, adverse events, and drug administration. The majority of patients preferred glucose control over avoiding minor hypoglycemic events. Patient willingness to pay was above $US100/month for glucose control, avoiding immediate health hazards such as nausea, and oral or inhaled drug administration. Preference towards drug administration was highly associated with previous experience with injectable diabetes medicine. The ability of a drug to lower glucose levels plays a decisive role in the choice between alternative treatments. Future research should strive to develop questionnaire designs relevant for the decision context of the study. That is, if the aim is to foster shared decision making, in clinical practice or drug development, this should guide the study design. Furthermore, concise reporting of all study dimensions—from the qualitative prework to the analysis stage—is warranted.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Mitka M. Monitoring glycemic control in diabetes: new standardized reference measure a useful tool. JAMA. 2007;298(19):2252.

Davis S, Alonso MD. Hypoglycemia as a barrier to glycemic control. J Diabetes Complicat. 2004;18(1):60–8.

Finfer S, Chittock DR, Su SY, Blair D, Foster D, Dhingra V, et al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1283–97.

American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes: 2014. Diabetes Care 2014;37 Suppl 1:S14–80.

Nathan DM, Kuenen J, Borg R, Zheng H, Schoenfeld D, Heine RJ. Translating the A1C assay into estimated average glucose values. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(8):1473–8.

Jordan JL, Ellis SJ, Chambers R. Defining shared decision making and concordance: are they one and the same? Postgrad Med J. 2002;78(921):383–4.

Snow R, Humphrey C, Sandall J. What happens when patients know more than their doctors? Experiences of health interactions after diabetes patient education: a qualitative patient-led study. BMJ Open. 2013;3(11):e003583.

Golin CE, DiMatteo MR, Gelberg L. The role of patient participation in the doctor visit. Implications for adherence to diabetes care. Diabetes Care. 1996;19(10):1153–64.

Gabbay M, Shiels C, Bower P, Sibbald B, King M, Ward E. Patient-practitioner agreement: does it matter? Psychol Med. 2003;33(2):241–51.

Cvengros JA, Christensen AJ, Hillis SL, Rosenthal GE. Patient and physician attitudes in the health care context: attitudinal symmetry predicts patient satisfaction and adherence. Ann Behav Med. 2007;33(3):262–8.

Muhlbacher AC, Juhnke C. Patient preferences versus physicians’ judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(3):163–80.

Chin MH, Drum ML, Jin L, Shook ME, Huang ES, Meltzer DO. Variation in treatment preferences and care goals among older patients with diabetes and their physicians. Med Care. 2008;46(3):275–86.

Porzsolt F, Clouth J, Deutschmann M, Hippler HJ. Preferences of diabetes patients and physicians: a feasibility study to identify the key indicators for appraisal of health care values. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:125.

Zulman DM, Kerr EA, Hofer TP, Heisler M, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Patient-provider concordance in the prioritization of health conditions among hypertensive diabetes patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(5):408–14.

Casparie AF, van der Waal MA. Differences in preferences between diabetic patients and diabetologists regarding quality of care: a matter of continuity and efficiency of care? Diabet Med. 1995;12(9):828–32.

van der Waal MA, Casparie AF, Lako CJ. Quality of care: a comparison of preferences between medical specialists and patients with chronic diseases. Soc Sci Med. 1996;42(5):643–9.

Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet. 2000;355(9220):2037–40.

Hanley B, Truesdale A, King A, Elbourne D, Chalmers I. Involving consumers in designing, conducting, and interpreting randomised controlled trials: questionnaire survey. BMJ. 2001;322(7285):519–23.

Basch E. Toward patient-centered drug development in oncology. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(5):397–400.

Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, Leidy NK, Marquis P, Revicki D, et al. Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the patient-reported outcomes (PRO) harmonization group meeting at the food and drug administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health. 2003;6(5):522–31.

Hareendran A, Gnanasakthy A, Winnette R, Revicki D. Capturing patients’ perspectives of treatment in clinical trials/drug development. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33(1):23–8.

Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, et al. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd; 2002.

de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.

Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320(7248):1530–3.

Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(1):55–64.

Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.

Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a users guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.

Louviere JJ, Woodworth G. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J Market Res 1983;20:350–67.

Lin PJ, Cangelosi MJ, Lee DW, Neumann PJ. Willingness to pay for diagnostic technologies: a review of the contingent valuation literature. Value Health. 2013;16(5):797–805.

Oremus M, Tarride JE. A systematic review of the use of contingent valuation in Alzheimer’s disease research. Dementia. 2008;7(4):461–80.

Diener A, O’Brien B, Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ. 1998;7(4):313–26.

Ahola AJ, Groop PH. Barriers to self-management of diabetes. Diabet Med. 2013;30(4):413–20.

Patrick AR, Fischer MA, Choudhry NK, Shrank WH, Seeger JD, Liu J, et al. Trends in insulin initiation and treatment intensification among patients with type 2 diabetes. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(2):320–7.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006–12.

Guimaraes C, Marra CA, Gill S, Simpson S, Meneilly G, Queiroz RH, et al. A discrete choice experiment evaluation of patients’ preferences for different risk, benefit, and delivery attributes of insulin therapy for diabetes management. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:433–40.

Guimaraes C, Marra CA, Colley L, Gill S, Simpson S, Meneilly G, et al. Socioeconomic differences in preferences and willingness-to-pay for insulin delivery systems in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11(9):567–73.

Guimaraes C, Marra CA, Colley L, Gill S, Simpson SH, Meneilly GS, et al. A valuation of patients’ willingness-to-pay for insulin delivery in diabetes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(3):359–66.

van Gils PF, Lambooij MS, Flanderijn MH, van den Berg M, de Wit GA, Schuit AJ, et al. Willingness to participate in a lifestyle intervention program of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a conjoint analysis. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2011;5:537–46.

van Gils PF, Lambooij MS, Struijs JN, Flanderijn MH, van den Berg M, van den Berg B. Factors influencing valuation of- and willingness to participate in-A lifestyle intervention: an exploratory conjoint analysis with diabetes type 2 patients. Value Health. 2010;13(7):A296.

Schiotz M, Bogelund M, Almdal T, Willaing I. Discrete choice as a method for exploring education preferences in a Danish population of patients with type 2 diabetes. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;87(2):217–25.

Chang K. Comorbidities, quality of life and patients’ willingness to pay for a cure for type 2 diabetes in Taiwan. Public Health. 2010;124(5):284–94.

Yen SH. Characterising patients’ preferences for information in doctor-patient interactions. Malays J Econ Stud. 2006;43(1–2):1–18.

Jacobsson F, Johannesson M, Borgquist L. Is altruism paternalistic? Econ J. 2007;117(520):761–81.

Chen TT, Chung KP, Huang HC, Man LN, Lai MS. Using discrete choice experiment to elicit doctors’ preferences for the report card design of diabetes care in Taiwan—a pilot study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16(1):14–20.

Taylor S, Hourihan F, Krass I, Armour C. Measuring consumer preference for models of diabetes care delivered by pharmacists. Pharm Pract. 2009;7(4):195–204.

Basoglu N, Daim TU, Topacan U. Determining patient preferences for remote monitoring. J Med Syst. 2012;36(3):1389–401.

Hoerger TJ, Johnson FR, Manjunath R, Mansfield C, Clayton LJ, Zhang P. High-risk individuals’ stated preferences and willingness-to-pay for diabetes risk-reduction programs. Diabetes. 2005;54(Suppl. 1):A611.

Al-Haddad M, Ibrahim MMI, Sulaiman SAS, Shafie AA, Maarup N. Cost benefit analysis of the diabetes self management program at a university health centre in Malaysia. J Clin Diagn Res. 2010;4(3):2521–30.

Bamer JC. Patient willingness to pay for diabetes disease state management programs. J Manag Pharm Care. 2001;1(2):85–95.

Cairns JA, Van Der Pol MM. The estimation of marginal time preference in a UK-wide sample (TEMPUS) project. Health Technol Assess 2000;4(1):i-iv, 1–83.

Sadri H. Contingent valuation of inhaled insulin: a canadian perspective. J Med Econ. 2007;10(4):475–87.

Hauber AB, Johnson FR, Sauriol L, Lescrauwaet B. Risking health to avoid injections: preferences of Canadians with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(9):2243–5.

Aristides M, Weston AR, FitzGerald P, Reun CL, Maniadakis N. Patient preference and willingness-to-pay for Humalog Mix25 relative to humulin 30/70: a multicountry application of a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2004;7(4):442–54.

Bøgelund M, Vilsboll T, Faber J, Henriksen JE, Gjesing RP, Lammert M. Patient preferences for diabetes management among people with type 2 diabetes in Denmark—a discrete choice experiment. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27(11):2175–83.

Jendle J, Torffvit O, Ridderstrale M, Lammert M, Ericsson A, Bogelund M. Willingness to pay for health improvements associated with anti-diabetes treatments for people with type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26(4):917–23.

Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Johnson FR, Falvey H. Treatment preferences and medication adherence of people with Type 2 diabetes using oral glucose-lowering agents. Diabet Med. 2009;26(4):416–24.

Davey P, Grainger D, MacMillan J, Rajan N, Aristides M, Dobson M. Economic-evaluation of insulin lispro versus neutral (regular) insulin therapy using a willingness-to-pay approach. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13(3):347–58.

Casciano R, Malangone E, Ramachandran A, Gagliardino JJ. A quantitative assessment of patient barriers to insulin. Int J Clin Pract. 2011;65(4):408–14.

Gelhorn HL, Stringer SM, Brooks A, Thompson C, Monz BU, Boye KS, et al. Preferences for medication attributes among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United Kingdom. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2013;15(9):802–9.

Pinto SL, Holiday-Goodman M, Black CD, Lesch D. Identifying factors that affect patients’ willingness to pay for inhaled insulin. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2009;5(3):253–61.

Sadri H, MacKeigan LD, Leiter LA, Einarson TR. Willingness to pay for inhaled insulin: a contingent valuation approach. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(12):1215–27.

Lloyd A, Nafees B, Barnett AH, Heller S, Ploug UJ, Lammert M, et al. Willingness to pay for improvements in chronic long-acting insulin therapy in individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther. 2011;33(9):1258–67.

Polster M, Zanutto E, McDonald S, Conner C, Hammer M. A comparison of preferences for two GLP-1 products—liraglutide and exenatide—for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. J Med Econ. 2010;13(4):655–61.

Marshall D, Bridges JF, Hauber B, Cameron R, Donnalley L, Fyie K, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—how are studies being designed and reported?: an update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient. 2010;3(4):249–56.

Alsahli M, Gerich JE. Hypoglycemia. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2013;42(4):657–76.

Walker EA, Usher JA. Understanding and enhancing adherence in adults with diabetes. Curr Diab Rep. 2003;3(2):141–8.

Chatterjee JS. From compliance to concordance in diabetes. J Med Ethics. 2006;32(9):507–10.

Tests of Glycemia in Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(suppl 1):s106–8.

Iqbal N, Morgan C, Maksoud H, Idris I. Improving patients’ knowledge on the relationship between HbA1c and mean plasma glucose improves glycaemic control among persons with poorly controlled diabetes. Ann Clin Biochem. 2008;45(5):504–7.

Hanas R, John G, On behalf of the International. Consensus statement on the worldwide standardization of the hemoglobin A1C measurement. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(8):1903–4.

Eichler HG, Abadie E, Breckenridge A, Flamion B, Gustafsson LL, Leufkens H, et al. Bridging the efficacy-effectiveness gap: a regulator’s perspective on addressing variability of drug response. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(7):495–506.

Evans M, Khunti K, Mamdani M, Galbo-Jorgensen CB, Gundgaard J, Bogelund M, et al. Health-related quality of life associated with daytime and nocturnal hypoglycaemic events: a time trade-off survey in five countries. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:90.

Currie CJ, Morgan CL, Poole CD, Sharplin P, Lammert M, McEwan P. Multivariate models of health-related utility and the fear of hypoglycaemia in people with diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22(8):1523–34.

Polonsky WH, Davis CL, Jacobson AM, Anderson BJ. Correlates of hypoglycemic fear in type I and type II diabetes mellitus. Health Psychol. 1992;11(3):199–202.

Garber AJ. Long-acting glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists: a review of their efficacy and tolerability. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(Supplement 2):S279–84.

Hermansen K, Mortensen LS. Bodyweight changes associated with antihyperglycaemic agents in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Drug Saf. 2007;30(12):1127–42.

Russell-Jones D, Khan R. Insulin-associated weight gain in diabetes–causes, effects and coping strategies. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2007;9(6):799–812.

Larkin ME, Capasso VA, Chen CL, Mahoney EK, Hazard B, Cagliero E, et al. Measuring psychological insulin resistance: barriers to insulin use. Diabetes Educ. 2008;34(3):511–7.

Fu AZ, Qiu Y, Radican L. Impact of fear of insulin or fear of injection on treatment outcomes of patients with diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(6):1413–20.

Peyrot M, Rubin RR, Lauritzen T, Skovlund SE, Snoek FJ, Matthews DR, et al. Resistance to insulin therapy among patients and providers: results of the cross-national diabetes attitudes, wishes, and needs (DAWN) study. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(11):2673–9.

Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL, Swait J, Williams M, Louviere J. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol Econ. 1996;18(3):243–53.

Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary D, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Rhainds M, et al. Introducing patients’ and the public’s perspectives to health technology assessment: a systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(1):31–42.

Hansen HP, Draborg E, Kristensen FB. Exploring qualitative research synthesis: the role of patients’ perspectives in health policy design and decision making. Patient. 2011;4(3):143–52.

Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, Hansen HP, Lo SA, Mossman J, et al. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(3):334–40.

Bridges JF, Jones C. Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(1):30–5.

Knottnerus JA, Tugwell P. The patients’ perspective is key, also in research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(6):581–3.

Bridges JF. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(4):213–24.

Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1–186.

Coast J, McDonald R, Baker R. Issues arising from the use of qualitative methods in health economics. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2004;9(3):171–6.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Tập 7

283-300

Thông tin tác giả