Patients’ and physicians’ preferences for type 2 diabetes mellitus treatments in Spain and Portugal: A discrete choice experiment

Patient Preference and Adherence

Volumn 9, Issue , 2015, Pages 1443-1458

  Morillas, Carlos ^a   Feliciano, Rosa ^b   Catalina, Pablo Fernández ^c   Ponte, Carla ^d   Botella, Marta ^e   Rodrigues, João ^f   Esmatjes, Enric ^g   Lafita, Javier ^h   Lizán, Luis ⁱ   Llorente, Ignacio ^j   Morales, Cristóbal ^k   Navarro Pérez, Jorge ^l   Orozco Beltran, Domingo ^m   Paz, Silvia ⁱ   de Arellano, Antonio Ramirez ⁿ   Cardoso, Cristina ⁿ   Causadias, Maribel Tribaldos ⁱ  

^a HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO DR PESET   (Spain)

^b USF são Domingos   (Portugal)

^c HOSPITAL MONTECELO   (Spain)

^d USF Porta do sol   (Portugal)

^e HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO PRÍNCIPE DE ASTURIAS   (Spain)

^f USF serra da lousã ^*  (Portugal)

^g HOSPITAL CLÍNIC   (Spain)

^h Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra   (Spain)

ⁱ UNIVERSITAT JAUME I   (Spain)

^j HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO NUESTRA SEÑORA DE CANDELARIA   (Spain)

^k HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO VIRGEN MACARENA   (Spain)

^l UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

^m Unidad Docente de Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria   (Spain)

ⁿ NOVO NORDISK A S   (Denmark)

more..

Author keywords

Cardiovascular risk; Diabetes; Discrete choice model; HbA1c; Hypoglycemia; Preferences; Weight; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ANTIDIABETIC AGENT; HEMOGLOBIN A1C;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CONTROLLED STUDY; DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH; DRUG ADMINISTRATION ROUTE; EXPLORATORY RESEARCH; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; HYPOGLYCEMIA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NAUSEA; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PORTUGAL; RISK REDUCTION; SPAIN; WEIGHT GAIN;

EID: 84945190764     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1177889X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S88022     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in diabetes – 2014. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(Suppl 1):S14–S80.
2. Valdés S, Rojo-Martínez G, Soriguer F. Evolution of prevalence of type 2 diabetes in adult Spanish population. Med Clin (Barc). 2007;129(9):352–355
3. Soringer F, Goday A, Bosch-comas A, Bordiu E, et al. Prevalence of diabetes mellitus and impaired glucose regulation in Spain: the Di@bet.es Study. Diabetologia. 2012;55:88–93
4. Observatório Nacional da Diabetes. Diabetes: Factos e Números 2012. Available from: http://www.ulsm.min-saude.pt/ResourcesUser/Documentos/i018361.pdf. Accessed: November, 2013
5. Guariguata L, Whiting DR, Hambleton I, Beagley J, Linnenkamp U, Shaw JE. Global estimated of diabetes prevalence for 2013 and projections for 2035. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014;103:137–149
6. Kahn SE, Cooper ME, Del Prato S. Pathophysiology and treatment of type 2 diabetes: perspectives on the past, present and future. Lancet. 2014;383:1068–1083
7. García Pérez LE, Alvarez M, Dilla T, Gil-Guillen V, Orozco Beltran D. Adherence to therapies in patients with Type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Ther. 2013;4:175–798
8. Larkin A, Hoffman C, Stevens A, Douglas A, Bloomgarden Z. Determinants of adherence to diabetes treatment. J Diabetes. Epub 2015 Jan 7
9. Lizán L, Comellas M, Paz S, Poveda JL, Meletiche DM, Polanco C. Treatment adherence and other patient reported outcomes as cost determinant in multiple sclerosis: a review of the literature. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:1653–1664
10. 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
11. Poulos C, Gonzalez JM, Lee L, et al. Physicians preferences for extra glycemic effects of type 2 diabetes treatments. Diabetes Ther. 2013;4:443–459
12. Mühlbacher AC, Juhnke C. Patient preferences versus physicians’ judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:163–180
13. Johnson FR, Hauber B, Ozdemir S, Stiegel CA, Hass S, Sands BE. Are gastroenterologists less tolerant of treatment risk than patients? Benefit-risk preferences in Crohn’s disease management. J Manag Care Pharm. 2010;16(8):606–628
14. American Diabetes Association. Strategies for improving care. Sec 1 in Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes 2015. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(Suppl 1):S5–S7
15. Viney R, Lancsar E, Louviere J. Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2002;2(4):89–96
16. 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
17. Scott A. Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: an application in health care. J Econ Psychol. 2002;23:383–398
18. Johnson FR, Mohamed AF, Özdemir S, Marchall DA, Phillips KA. How does cost matter in health care Discrete Choice Experiments? Health Econ. 2011;20:323–330
19. Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in heath economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21:145–172
20. Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint Analysis applications I Health: a Checklist of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14:403–413
21. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org
22. Aristides M, Weston AR, FitzGerald P, Le Reun C, Manidakis 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):442–454
23. Bogelund 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):2175–2183
24. 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):917–923
25. Jendle J, Ridderstrale M, Torfvitt O, Ericsson A, Larsen S. Willingness-to-pay for benefits associated with basal insulin treatment of type 2 diabetes. J Med Econ. 2012;15(2):261–263
26. Jendle J, Torffvit O, Ridderstrale M, et al. Willingness to pay for diabetes drug therapy in type 2 diabetes patients: based on LEAD clinical programme results. J Med Econ. 2012;15(Suppl 2):1–5
27. Mohamed AF, Zhang J, Johnson FR, et al. Avoidance of weight gain is important for oral type 2 diabetes treatments in Sweden and Germany: patients preferences. Diabetes Metab. 2013;39:397–403
28. Van Everdingen YM, Waarts E. The effect of national culture on the adoption of innovations. Mark Letters. 2003;14(3):217–232
29. Javidan M, House RJ, Dorfman PW, et al. Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: a comparative review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s approaches. J Int Bus Stud. 2006;37:897–914
30. Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16:3–13
31. Aizaki H. Basic functions for supporting an implementation of choice experiments in R. J Stat Softw. 2012;50(2):1–24
32. Bech M, Kjaer T, Laurdsen J. Does the number of choice set matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2011;20:273–286
33. National Institute of Statistics of Spain (population, 2012). Population by Reference Date, Sex and Age. Available from: www.ine.es. Accessed: November, 2013
34. National Institute of Statistics of Portugal (Censos, 2011). População residente, segundo a dimensão dos lugares, população isolada, embarcada, corpo diplomático e sexo, por idade (ano a ano). Available from: http://censos.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpidCENSOS&xpgidcensos_quadros_populacao
35. Interactive Consultation NHS. Available from: http://www.msssi.gob.es/estadEstudios/estadisticas/sisInfSanSNS/home.htm. Accessed: November, 2013
36. Administraçao Central do Sistema de Saúde. Estudo de necessidade previsionais de recursos humanos em saúde – Médicos, Lisboa: Administraçao Central do Sistema de Saúde; 2009. Available from: http://www.acss.min-saude.pt/Portals/0/Relat%C3%B3rio%20Final_M%C3%A9dicos.pdf. Accessed: November, 2013
37. de Bekker-Grob E, Donkers B, Jonker MF, Stolk EA. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare. A practical guide. Patient. 2015. Epub 2015 Mar 1. doi:10.1007/s40271-015-0118-z
38. World Health Organization. How to Construct a Discrete Choice Experiment for Health Workforce Recruitment and Retention in Remote and Rural Areas: A User Guide with Case Studies. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012. Available from: http://www.capacityplus.org/files/resources/discrete-choice-experiment-user-guide.pdf
39. Croissant Y. mlogit: Multinomial Logit Model. Cran R project.org; 2011. Available from: http://CRAN.R-project.org/packagemlogit. Accessed: July, 2014
40. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P, editor. Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press; 1974:105–142
41. Trope Y, Liberman N. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol Rev. 2010;117(2):440–463
42. Löckenhoff CE. Age, time and decision making: from processing speed to global time horizons. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2011;1235:44–56
43. Klein S, Sheard NF, Pi-Sunyer X, et al. Weight management through lifestyle modification for the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes: rationale and strategies. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(8):2067–2073.
44. Mandeville KL, Lagarde M, Hanson K. The use of discrete choice experiments to inform health workforce policy: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:367.
45. Hole AR. A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Econ. 2007;16:827–840.
46. Guimaraes C, Marra CA, Gill S, et al. A discrete choice experiment evaluation of patient’s preferences for different risk, benefit and delivery attributes of insulin therapy for diabetes management. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:433–440.
47. Brame R, Paternoster R, Mazerolle P, Piquero A. Testing for the equality of Maximum likelihood regression coefficients between two independent equations. J Quant Criminol. 1998;14(3):245–261.
48. Paternoster R, Brame R, Mazerolle P, Piquero A. Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology. 1998;36(4):859–866.
49. International conference on harmonization of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use. ICH harmonized tripartite guideline: guideline for good clinical practice E6(R1). 1996. Available at: http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E6/E6_R1_Guideline.pdf. Accessed: January, 2015.
50. Hauber AB, Han S, Yang JC, et al. Effect of pill burden on dosing preferences, willingness to pay and likely adherence among patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients Prefer Adherence. 2013;7:937–949.
51. Evans M, Jensen HH, Bogelubd M, et al. Flexible insulin dosing improves health related quality of life (HRQOL): a time trade off survey. J Med Econ. 2013;16(11):1357–1365.
52. Shafiee G, Mohajeri-Teharani M, Pajouhi M, Larijani B. The importance of hypoglycemia in diabetic patients. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2012;11:17.
53. Lorber D. Importance of cardiovascular disease and risk management in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Metab Syndrome Obes. 2014;7:169–183.
54. Wilding JPH. The importance of weight management in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Int J Clin Pract. 2014;68:682–691.
55. Matza LS, Yurgin N, Boye KS, Malley K, Shorr JM. Obese versus non obese patients with type 2 diabetes: patient-reported outcomes and utility of weight change. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23(9):2051–2062.
56. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect Theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47(2):263–192.
57. Deal K, Keshavjee K, Troyan S, Kyba R, Holbrook AM. Physicians and patients willingness to pay for electronic cardiovascular disease management. Int J Med Inform. 214;83:517–528.
58. Mol PGM, Arnardottir AH, Straus SMJ, et al. Understanding drug preferences, different perspectives. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcp.12566/pdf
59. Hauber B, Gonzalez JM, Groothuis-Outdshoorn KGM, et al. Conjoint analysis statistical analysis: an ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Draft for review. Available from: http://www.ispor.org/taskforces/documents/ISPOR-Conjoint-Analysis-Statistical-Analysis-GRP-TF-Report-DRAFT-for-REVIEW.pdf
60. Clark MD, Determan D, Petrou S, Moro D, Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Phamaco Economics. 2014;32:883–902.