IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v17y2016i9d10.1007_s10198-015-0750-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What matters in type 2 diabetes mellitus oral treatment? A discrete choice experiment to evaluate patient preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Axel Mühlbacher

    (Hochschule Neubrandenburg
    Gesellschaft für empirische Beratung mbH)

  • Susanne Bethge

    (Hochschule Neubrandenburg)

Abstract

Aims The aim of this empirical study is to evaluate patient preferences for different characteristics of oral type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatment. As T2DM treatment requires strict adherence, patient needs and preferences should be taken into consideration. Methods Based on a qualitative and quantitative analysis, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was applied to identify patient preferences. Apart from six identical attributes (adjustment of glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c], prevention of hypoglycemia, risk of genital infection, risk of gastrointestinal problems, risk of urinary tract infection, and weight change), one continuous variable of either “additional healthy life years” (AHY) or “additional costs” attribute (AC) was included. The DCE was conducted using a fractional factorial design, and the statistical data analysis used random effect logit models. Results In total, N = 626 (N = 318 AHY + N = 308 AC) T2DM patients participated in the survey. The estimation revealed a clear dominance for prevention of hypoglycemia (coefficient 0.937) and adjustment of HbA1c (coefficient 0.541). The attributes, “additional healthy life years” (coefficient 0.458) or “additional costs” (coefficient 0.420), were in the middle rank and both of significant impact. The side effects, risk of genital infection (coefficient 0.301), risk of gastrointestinal problems (coefficient 0.296), and risk of urinary tract infection (coefficient 0.241) followed in this respective order. Possible weight change (coefficient 0.047) was of less importance (last rank) to the patients in this evaluation. Conclusions These survey results demonstrate how much a (hypothetical) T2DM oral treatment characteristic affects the treatment decision. The preference data can be used for risk–benefit assessment, cost-benefit assessment, and the establishment of patient-oriented evidence. Understanding how patients perceive and value different aspects of diabetes oral treatment is vital to the optimal design and evaluation of treatment options. The present results can be an additional source of information for design, assessment, and decision in T2DM treatment regimes. As such, more effective and efficient care of patients can be achieved, thereby increasing adherence.

Suggested Citation

  • Axel Mühlbacher & Susanne Bethge, 2016. "What matters in type 2 diabetes mellitus oral treatment? A discrete choice experiment to evaluate patient preferences," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(9), pages 1125-1140, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:17:y:2016:i:9:d:10.1007_s10198-015-0750-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-015-0750-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-015-0750-5
    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/s10198-015-0750-5?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. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    2. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    3. Sophia Rabe-Hesketh & Anders Skrondal & Andrew Pickles, 2004. "GLLAMM Manual," U.C. Berkeley Division of Biostatistics Working Paper Series 1160, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    4. Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard & Gillian Currie, 2012. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 41, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Rabe-Hesketh, Sophia & Skrondal, Anders & Pickles, Andrew, 2005. "Maximum likelihood estimation of limited and discrete dependent variable models with nested random effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 301-323, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Andrew Sadler & Christin Juhnke, 2021. "Personalized diabetes management: what do patients with diabetes mellitus prefer? A discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(3), pages 425-443, April.
    2. Jiat Ling Poon & Kristina S Boye & Vivian T Thieu & Kirsi Norrbacka & Syed W Hassan & Heather L Gelhorn, 2018. "Preferences for Attributes of Medications among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-Medication Class Comparison of Injection Therapies," Current Research in Diabetes & Obesity Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 6(5), pages 92-104, April.
    3. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Andrew Sadler & Yvonne Jordan, 2022. "Population preferences for non-pharmaceutical interventions to control the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: trade-offs among public health, individual rights, and economics," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(9), pages 1483-1496, December.
    4. Jiat Ling Poon & Kristina S Boye & Vivian T Thieu & Kirsi Norrbacka & Syed W Hassan & Heather L Gelhorn, 2018. "Preferences for Attributes of Medications among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-Medication Class Comparison of Injection Therapies," Current Research in Diabetes & Obesity Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 6(5), pages 1-13, April.
    5. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.

    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 Mühlbacher & Susanne Bethge, 2015. "Patients’ preferences: a discrete-choice experiment for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 657-670, July.
    2. Chen, Gang & Ratcliffe, Julie & Milte, Rachel & Khadka, Jyoti & Kaambwa, Billingsley, 2021. "Quality of care experience in aged care: An Australia-Wide discrete choice experiment to elicit preference weights," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    3. Brouwers, Jonas & Cox, Bianca & Van Wilder, Astrid & Claessens, Fien & Bruyneel, Luk & De Ridder, Dirk & Eeckloo, Kristof & Vanhaecht, Kris, 2021. "The future of hospital quality of care policy: A multi-stakeholder discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(12), pages 1565-1573.
    4. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    5. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    6. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    7. Rachel Milte & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Michelle Miller & Maria Crotty, 2018. "Taste, choice and timing: Investigating resident and carer preferences for meals in aged care homes," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 116-124, March.
    8. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    9. Krah, Kwabena & Michelson, Hope & Perge, Emilie & Jindal, Rohit, 2019. "Constraints to adopting soil fertility management practices in Malawi: A choice experiment approach," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Axel Mühlbacher & Uwe Junker & Christin Juhnke & Edgar Stemmler & Thomas Kohlmann & Friedhelm Leverkus & Matthias Nübling, 2015. "Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 613-628, July.
    11. Samare P. I. Huls & Emily Lancsar & Bas Donkers & Jemimah Ride, 2022. "Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2630-2647, December.
    12. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Donaldson, Cam & Currie, Gillian & Burgess, Leonie, 2013. "Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 74-82.
    13. Na-na Wang & Liang-guo Luo & Ya-ru Pan & Xue-mei Ni, 2019. "Use of discrete choice experiments to facilitate design of effective environmentally friendly agricultural policies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1543-1559, August.
    14. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    15. Joachim Marti & John Buckell & Johanna Catherine Maclean & Jody L. Sindelar, 2016. "To ‘Vape’ or Smoke? A Discrete Choice Experiment Among U.S. Adult Smokers," NBER Working Papers 22079, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Cleland, Jennifer & Porteous, Terry & Ejebu, Ourega-Zoé & Ryan, Mandy & Skåtun, Diane, 2022. "Won't you stay just a little bit longer? A discrete choice experiment of UK doctors’ preferences for delaying retirement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 60-68.
    17. V. Meusel & E. Mentzakis & P. Baji & G. Fiorentini & F. Paolucci, 2023. "Priority setting in the German healthcare system: results from a discrete choice experiment," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 411-431, September.
    18. de Bekker-Grob, E.W. & Donkers, B. & Bliemer, M.C.J. & Veldwijk, J. & Swait, J.D., 2020. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    19. Spinks, Jean & Mortimer, Duncan, 2015. "The effect of traffic lights and regulatory statements on the choice between complementary and conventional medicines in Australia: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 257-265.
    20. Fawsitt, Christopher G. & Bourke, Jane & Greene, Richard A. & McElroy, Brendan & Krucien, Nicolas & Murphy, Rosemary & Lutomski, Jennifer E., 2017. "What do women want? Valuing women’s preferences and estimating demand for alternative models of maternity care using a discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(11), pages 1154-1160.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Discrete choice experiment; Type 2 diabetes mellitus; Patient preferences; Oral treatment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I00 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - General - - - General
    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other
    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being

    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:eujhec:v:17:y:2016:i:9:d:10.1007_s10198-015-0750-5. 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.