Preferences of diabetes patients and physicians: A feasibility study to identify the key indicators for appraisal of health care values

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Volumn 8, Issue , 2010, Pages

  Porzsolt, Franz ^a   Clouth, Johannes ^b   Deutschmann, Marc ^c   Hippler, Hans J ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ULM   (Germany)

^b LILLY DEUTSCHLAND GMBH   (Germany)

^c BIK MARPLAN Intermedia GmbH   (Germany)

^d SRH University of Applied Sciences   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HEMOGLOBIN A1C;

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; BODY WEIGHT; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DIABETIC PATIENT; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; OBESITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; PRODUCT PARAMETERS; WEIGHT GAIN; WEIGHT REDUCTION; WELLBEING;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; DIABETES MELLITUS; DISEASE MANAGEMENT; ENDOCRINOLOGY; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTICE; GERMANY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PREFERENCE; SELF-ASSESSMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 78049389285     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14777525     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-8-125     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Gray JM. Evidence-based policy making - is about taking decisions based on evidence and the needs and values of the population. BMJ 2004, 329:988-989. 10.1136/bmj.329.7473.988, 524535, 15514318.
2. Laurence C, Gialamas A, Yelland L, Bubner T, Ryan P, Willson K, Glastonbury B, Gill J, Shephard M, Beilby J, . for members of the PoCT Trial Management Committee A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the safety, clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness and satisfaction with point of care testing in a general practice setting - rationale, design and baseline characteristics. Trials 2008, 9:50. 10.1186/1745-6215-9-50, 2519057, 18681979, for members of the PoCT Trial Management Committee.
3. Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL. Fundamentals of Clinical Trials 1985, Boston: PSG, Inc, 2.
4. Godwin M, Ruhland L, Casson I, MacDonald S, Delva D, Birtwhistle R, Lam M, Seguin R. Pragmatic controlled clinical trials in primary care: the struggle between external and internal validity. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003, 3:28. 10.1186/1471-2288-3-28, 317298, 14690550.
5. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, Tunis S, Bergel E, Harvey I, Magid DJ, Chalkidou K. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:464-475. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.011, 19348971.
6. Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB. Evidence-Based Medicine. How to practice and teach EBM 2005, Edinburgh: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone.
7. Porzsolt F, Pressel H, Maute-Stephan C, KIndervater R, Geldmacher J, Meierkord S, Sigle JM, Eisemann M. Appraisal of healthcare: from patient value to societal benefit. J Publ Health 2009,
8. Pindyck RS, Rubinfeld DL. Microeconomics 2005, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 6.
9. Beresniak A, Russell AS, Haraoui B, Bessette L, Bombardier C, Duru G. Advantages and limitations of utility assessment methods in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2007, 34:2193-2200.
10. Kymes SM, Lee BS. Preference-based quality of life measures in people with visual impairment. Optom Vis Sci 2007, 84:809-816. 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181337638, 17700344.
11. Huang ES, Shook M, Jin L, Chin MH, Meltzer DO. The impact of patient preferences on the cost-effectiveness of intensive glucose control in older patients with new-onset diabetes. Diabetes Care 2006, 29:259-64. 10.2337/diacare.29.02.06.dc05-1443, 2292131, 16443870.
12. Kornmann M, Porzsolt F. Treatment preferences of physicians and lay persons: lessons from a study analysing neoadjuvant treatment of rectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26:2866-4868.
13. Phillips KA, Maddala T, Johnson FR. Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing. Health Serv Res 2002, 37:1681-1705. 10.1111/1475-6773.01115, 1464051, 12546292.
14. Ratcliffe J, Van Haselen R, Buxton M, Hardy K, Colehan J, Partridge M. Assessing patients' preferences for characteristics associated with homeopathic and conventional treatment of asthma: a conjoint analysis study. Thorax 2002, 57:503-508. 10.1136/thorax.57.6.503, 1746347, 12037224.
15. Ross M, Avery A, Foss A. Views of older people on cataract surgery options: an assessment of preferences by conjoint analysis. Qual Saf Health Care 2003, 12:13-17. 10.1136/qhc.12.1.13, 1743653, 12571339.
16. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000, 320:1530-1533. 10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1530, 1118112, 10834905.
17. Stiggelbout AM, de Vogel-Voogt E, Noordijk EM, Vliet Vlieland TP. Individual quality of life: adaptive conjoint analysis as an alternative for direct weighting?. Qual Life Res 2008, 17:641-649. 10.1007/s11136-008-9325-6, 2358934, 18398699.
18. Kahneman D, Tversky A. An analysis of decision under risk. Prospect theory Econometrica 1979, 47:263-291.
19. Ortendahl M. Shared decision-making based on different features of risk in the context of diabetes mellitus and rheumatoid arthritis. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2007, 3:1175-1180. 2387298, 18516269.
20. 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, 46:275-286. 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318158af40, 2659644, 18388842.
21. Montori VM, Gafni A, Charles C. A shared treatment decision-making approach between patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians: the case of diabetes. Health Expect 2006, 9:25-36. 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00359.x, 16436159.
22. Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung des Statistischen Bundesamts Das Erreichte nicht verspielen. 2007, Jahresgutachten, Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung des Statistischen Bundesamts., http://www.sachverstaendigenrat-wirtschaft.de/download/gutachten/jg07_ges.pdf
23. Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization, Institute of Medicine Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research 2009, Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization, Institute of Medicine.