IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v14y2021i1d10.1007_s40271-020-00450-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the Preferences of Patients and the General Public for Treatment Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Author

Listed:
  • Norah L. Crossnohere

    (The Ohio State University College of Medicine
    Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health)

  • Sarah Janse

    (The Ohio State University College of Medicine)

  • Ellen Janssen

    (World Trade Center Baltimore)

  • John F. P. Bridges

    (The Ohio State University College of Medicine
    Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health)

Abstract

Background Healthcare treatments and interventions are traditionally evaluated from the societal perspective, but a more patient-centric perspective has been proposed in recent years. We sought to compare preferences of patients and the general public for treatment outcomes of type 2 diabetes using both best–worst scaling (BWS) and rating approaches. Methods A survey evaluating the treatment priorities for type 2 diabetes was conducted in the United States. Members of the general public and patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited from a nationally sampled panel. Participants indicated the importance of seven potential treatment outcomes (hypoglycemic events, glycated hemoglobin [A1c], weight loss, mental health, functioning, glycemic stability, and cardiovascular health) using (1) BWS case 1 and (2) a rating task. Preference differences from BWS prioritizations were explored using mixed logistic regression (BWS preference weights were probability re-scaled so that the weightings of the seven items collectively summed to 100). The consistency of scale between samples was explored using heteroskedastic conditional logistic regression of BWS data. Spearman rank correlation was used to compare standardized BWS preference weights and rating scores for each group. Both groups evaluated the BWS and rating activities using debriefing questions. Results The public and patient samples included 314 and 313 respondents, respectively. The public was on average 16 years younger than patients (48 vs 64 years, P

Suggested Citation

  • Norah L. Crossnohere & Sarah Janse & Ellen Janssen & John F. P. Bridges, 2021. "Comparing the Preferences of Patients and the General Public for Treatment Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 89-100, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:14:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00450-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00450-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-020-00450-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-020-00450-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mooney, Gavin, 1994. "Editorial : What else do we want from our health services?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 151-154, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ryan, Mandy & Netten, Ann & Skatun, Diane & Smith, Paul, 2006. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome--An application to social care for older people," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 927-944, September.
    2. Brisson, M. & Edmunds, J., 2004. "Valuing the benefit of varicella vaccination: comparison of willingness to pay and quality-adjusted life-years," Working Papers 04/02, Department of Economics, City University London.
    3. Hall, Jane, 1996. "Consumer utility, social welfare, and genetic testing. A response to "Genetic testing: an economic and contractarian analysis"," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 377-380, June.
    4. Goebbels, Adrienne F.G. & Lakerveld, Jeroen & Ament, André J.H.A. & Bot, Sandra D.M. & Severens, Johan L., 2012. "Exploring non-health outcomes of health promotion: The perspective of participants in a lifestyle behaviour change intervention," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 177-186.
    5. Mandy Ryan & Jenny Hughes, 1997. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Assess Women's Preferences for Miscarriage Management," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 261-273, May.
    6. Shiell, Alan, 1997. "Health outcomes are about choices and values: an economic perspective on the health outcomes movement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 5-15, January.
    7. Katherine Payne & Marion McAllister & Linda M. Davies, 2013. "Valuing The Economic Benefits Of Complex Interventions: When Maximising Health Is Not Sufficient," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 258-271, March.
    8. Mandy Ryan, 1996. "Using Consumer Preferences in Health Care Decision Making: The Application of Conjoint Analysis," Monograph 000420, Office of Health Economics.
    9. Robinson, Ray, 1999. "Limits to rationality: economics, economists and priority setting," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 13-26, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:14:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00450-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.