IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v17y2024i5d10.1007_s40271-024-00694-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the Preferences and Willingness-to-Pay for Oral Antidiabetic Drugs Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Ling-Hsiang Chuang

    (Umeå University
    GongJing Healthcare (Nanjing) Co. Ltd)

  • Huanlan Zhang

    (GongJing Healthcare (Nanjing) Co. Ltd)

  • Tianqi Hong

    (McMaster University)

  • Shitong Xie

    (Tianjin University
    Tianjin University)

Abstract

Purpose To quantify the preferences for an oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in China. Methods A discrete choice experiment (DCE) with hypothetical OAD profiles was performed among patients with T2DM recruited from both online and offline sources. Each patient completed 12 DCE choice tasks. The attributes, elicited through mixed methods, include blood glucose level decrease, blood glucose level stability, frequency of medication, gastrointestinal side effects, dose adjustment and out-of-pocket expense. The conditional logit regression model was used to analyze the data. Patients’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) was also calculated. Subgroup analyses based on patient characteristics were also conducted. Results A total of 741 respondents were included in the analysis sample, covering 456 respondents online and 285 offline. The result showed that all attributes and levels were statistically significant, except one level “dose adjustment required for patients with hepatic or renal insufficiency” in the attribute of dose adjustment. WTP results showed that patients were willing to pay 12.06 and 23.20 yuan, respectively to reduce the frequency of medication from “once per day” and “three times per day” to “once every 2 weeks”, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that the frequency of medication (once versus two to three times per day) had the largest impact and influenced most coefficient estimates. Conclusion The results suggest that Chinese patients with T2DM prioritized better efficacy, less frequency of medication, lower gastrointestinal side effects, no dose adjustment required for patients with hepatic or renal insufficiency, and less out-of-pocket expense of OAD treatment.

Suggested Citation

  • Ling-Hsiang Chuang & Huanlan Zhang & Tianqi Hong & Shitong Xie, 2024. "Evaluating the Preferences and Willingness-to-Pay for Oral Antidiabetic Drugs Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 17(5), pages 565-574, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:17:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00694-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00694-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-024-00694-7
    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/s40271-024-00694-7?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. F. Reed Johnson & Ateesha F. Mohamed & Semra Özdemir & Deborah A. Marshall & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2011. "How does cost matter in health‐care discrete‐choice experiments?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 323-330, March.
    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. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Anika Kaczynski & Peter Zweifel & F. Reed Johnson, 2016. "Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Axel Mühlbacher & Peter Zweifel & Anika Kaczynski & F. Johnson, 2015. "Experimental measurement of preferences in health care using best-worst scaling (BWS): theoretical and statistical issues," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Caplan, Arthur J. & Akhundjanov, Sherzod B. & Toll, Kristopher, 2021. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for residential amenities," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    4. Regier, Dean A. & Watson, Verity & Burnett, Heather & Ungar, Wendy J., 2014. "Task complexity and response certainty in discrete choice experiments: An application to drug treatments for juvenile idiopathic arthritis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 40-49.
    5. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    6. Scott D. Grosse & Jamison Pike & Rieza Soelaeman & J. Mick Tilford, 2019. "Quantifying Family Spillover Effects in Economic Evaluations: Measurement and Valuation of Informal Care Time," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 461-473, April.
    7. John Buckell & David A Hensher & Stephane Hess, 2021. "Kicking the habit is hard: A hybrid choice model investigation into the role of addiction in smoking behavior," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 3-19, January.
    8. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    9. Axel Mühlbacher & Anika Kaczynski & Peter Zweifel & F. Johnson, 2015. "Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, December.
    10. Phillips Kathryn A. & Sakowski Julie Ann & Liang Su-Ying & Ponce Ninez A., 2013. "Economic Perspectives on Personalized Health Care and Prevention," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 23-52, June.
    11. Genie, Mesfin G. & Ryan, Mandy & Krucien, Nicolas, 2021. "To pay or not to pay? Cost information processing in the valuation of publicly funded healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    12. Zhang, Jing & Reed Johnson, F. & Mohamed, Ateesha F. & Hauber, A. Brett, 2015. "Too many attributes: A test of the validity of combining discrete-choice and best–worst scaling data," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 1-13.
    13. Yi Qian & Jorge Arellano & A. Brett Hauber & Ateesha F. Mohamed & Juan Marcos Gonzalez & Guy Hechmati & Francesca Gatta & Stacey Harrelson & Cynthia Campbell-Baird, 2016. "Patient, Caregiver, and Nurse Preferences for Treatments for Bone Metastases from Solid Tumors," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(4), pages 323-333, August.
    14. Adele Diederich & Joffre Swait & Norman Wirsik, 2012. "Citizen Participation in Patient Prioritization Policy Decisions: An Empirical and Experimental Study on Patients' Characteristics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-10, May.
    15. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Peter Zweifel & Anika Kaczynski & F. Reed Johnson, 2016. "Experimental measurement of preferences in health care using best-worst scaling (BWS): theoretical and statistical issues," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, December.
    16. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, 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:17:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00694-7. 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.