Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Scoping Review
- First Online:
- 582 Downloads
As more studies report on patient preferences, techniques are needed to identify, assess and, eventually, synthesize results from a diverse set of methodologies. Data on patient preferences are valuable to decision makers in a variety of ways. Preferences for outcomes can be used to inform decision and cost-effectiveness models, while preferences for treatments can inform patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) and patient-centered care.
This project sought to identify and assess the literature reporting on the treatment preferences of adult patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition to cataloging the preference elicitation methods used, we developed and assessed a novel quality assessment checklist for preference-based studies.
PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and EconLit databases were searched to identify studies examining patient preferences for medications for type 2 diabetes studies published since inception of each database.
Study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions
The review protocol specified inclusion of studies reporting diabetes-treatment preferences among adults with type 2 diabetes, using a range of preference measurement methods. Studies were excluded if participants were not patients with type 2 diabetes and if treatments were not pharmacological therapies targeting glycemic control, or if no primary preference information was collected. Two investigators independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and articles sequentially to select studies for data abstraction based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.
Study appraisal and synthesis methods
Data on study country, year, number of respondents, preference elicitation method, number of attributes, subgroup analyses, and funding source were abstracted into standardized tables. A novel checklist (PREFS) was used to assess the data quality and validity across different types of preference studies by assessing the following: purpose of the study; respondent sampling; explanation of preference assessment methods; findings reported for total sample; and significance testing. Each item was scored, and an aggregate score was then calculated (ranging from 0 to 5).
Of the 2,100 unique citations, 61 met the inclusion criteria. The studies used conjoint analysis (n = 10), time trade-off (n = 6), standard gamble (n = 2), contingent valuation (n = 1), other stated preference methods (n = 39), and revealed preferences (n = 5). Sample sizes ranged from 27 to 14,033, with an average of 562 respondents, and two-thirds included a subgroup analysis. Most studies were conducted in one country, predominantly the USA (n = 27), UK (n = 14), Canada (n = 10), and Germany (n = 7), while 14 were conducted in multiple (2–18) countries across two or more countries. There was an increase in the annual rate of studies published over time from the time of the first publication in 1985 (p = < 0.01). Most (n = 52) studies were funded by pharmaceutical or device companies, with government, academic, association, and hospital sources also funding studies. One study met all five of the PREFS criteria and 12 met four; yet four studies met none of the criteria. The average was 27.
Currently, preferences reviews are limited by the mixed quality in the reporting of studies, the publication bias inherent in the literature, a lack of guidelines to conduct various methods, and the difficulty of synthesizing results from different studies. Our study is also limited by its focus on English language articles.
Conclusions and implications of key findings
This study provides the first systematic evaluation of the methods used in the broad existing body of research into patient preferences for type 2 diabetes medications and can serve as a primary source of information for decision makers. Future work is necessary to assess the utility of the results of reviews of preference information and to develop best-practice guidelines for the reporting of, and methods of conducting, preference studies and systematic reviews of such studies.
This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42012002285).
- 1.Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010) (USA). H. R. 3590. United States Government Printing Office, USA.Google Scholar
- 9.Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Patient-centered outcomes research (Internet). 2013. http://www.pcori.org/research-we-support/pcor/.
- 10.Hurtado MP, Swift EK, Corrigan J. Envisioning the national health care quality report. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2001.Google Scholar
- 12.Connor Gorber S, Singh H, Pottie K, Jaramillo A, Tonelli M. Process for guideline development by the reconstituted Canadian task force on preventive health care. CMAJ. 2012;184(14):1575–81.Google Scholar
- 13.Qaseem A, Snow V, Owens DK, Shekelle P, Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. The development of clinical practice guidelines and guidance statements of the American College of Physicians: summary of methods. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(3):194–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, Diamant M, Ferrannini E, Nauck M, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2012;35(6):1364–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Bridges J, Onukwugha E, Johnson F, Hauber A. Patient preference methods—a patient centered evaluation paradigm. ISPOR Connect. 2007;13(6):4–7.Google Scholar
- 19.Ajzen I. Attitude structure and behavior. In: Pratkanis AR, Breckler SJ, Greenwald AG, editors. Attitude structure and function. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1989. p. 241–74.Google Scholar
- 36.Parker SM, Clayton JM, Hancock K, Walder S, Butow PN, Carrick S, et al. A systematic review of prognostic/end-of-life communication with adults in the advanced stages of a life-limiting illness: patient/caregiver preferences for the content, style, and timing of information. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2007;34(1):81–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 51.Oliver RL, Linda G. Effect of satisfaction and its antecedents on consumer preference and intention. Adv Consum Res. 1981;8(1):88–93.Google Scholar
- 75.Del Prato S, Blonde L, Martinez L, Goke B, Woo V, Millward A, et al. The effect of the availability of inhaled insulin on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes failing on oral therapy: the evaluation of Exubera as a therapeutic option on insulin initiation and improvement in glycaemic control in clinical practice (EXPERIENCE) trial. Diabet Med. 2008;25(6):662–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 81.Barnett AH, Bowen Jones D, Burden AC, Janes JM, Sinclair A, Small M, et al. Multicentre study to assess quality of life and glycaemic control of type 2 diabetic patients treated with insulin compared with oral hypoglycaemic agents. Pract Diabetes Int. 1996;13(6):179–83.Google Scholar
- 83.Chan WB, Chow CC, Yeung VT, Chan JC, So WY, Cockram CS. Effect of insulin lispro on glycaemic control in Chinese diabetic patients receiving twice-daily regimens of insulin. Chin Med J (Engl). 2004;117(9):1404–7.Google Scholar
- 89.Hayes RP, Nakano M, Muchmore D, Schmitke J. Effect of standard (self-directed) training versus intensive training for Lilly/Alkermes human insulin inhalation powder delivery system on patient-reported outcomes and patient evaluation of the system. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2007;9(1):89–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 91.Israel-Bultman H, Hyllested-Winge J, Kolaczynski M, Steindorf J, Garon J. Comparison of preference for NovoPen® 4 with previous insulin pen treatments after 12 weeks in adult patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a multicenter observational study. Clin Ther. 2011;33(3):346–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 92.Korytkowski M, Bell D, Jacobsen C, Suwannasari R, FlexPen Study Team. A multicenter, randomized, open-label, comparative, two-period crossover trial of preference, efficacy, and safety profiles of a prefilled, disposable pen and conventional vial/syringe for insulin injection in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther. 2003;25(11):2836–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 93.Larbig M, Forst T, Forst S, Lorra B, König K, Fittkau T, et al. Evaluation of the insulin application system autopen 24®. Pract Diabetes Int. 2005;22(9):364–6a.Google Scholar
- 95.Llewelyn J, Martin J, Bates P. Patient acceptability and safety of a new 3.0 ml prefilled insulin pen in a clinical setting. Pract Diabetes Int. 1999;16(3):79–86.Google Scholar
- 97.Miwa T, Itoh R, Kobayashi T, Tanabe T, Shikuma J, Takahashi T, et al. Comparison of the effects of a new 32-gauge × 4-mm pen needle and a 32-gauge × 6-mm pen needle on glycemic control, safety, and patient ratings in Japanese adults with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012;14(12):1084–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 98.Niskanen L, Jensen LE, Rastam J, Nygaard-Pedersen L, Erichsen K, Vora JP. Randomized, multinational, open-label, 2-period, crossover comparison of biphasic insulin aspart 30 and biphasic insulin lispro 25 and pen devices in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther. 2004;26(4):531–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 104.Schwartz S, Hassman D, Shelmet J, Sievers R, Weinstein R, Liang J, et al. A multicenter, open-label, randomized, two-period crossover trial comparing glycemic control, satisfaction, and preference achieved with a 31 gauge × 6 mm needle versus a 29 gauge × 12.7 mm needle in obese patients with diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther. 2004;26(10):1663–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 112.Sucic M, Galic E, Cabrijan T, Ivandic A, Petrusic A, Wyatt J, et al. Patient acceptance and reliability of new humulin/humalog 3.0 ml prefilled insulin pen in ten Croatian diabetes centres. Med Sci Monit. 2002;8(3):PI21–6.Google Scholar