Preferences of People with Type 2 Diabetes for Diabetes Care: a Discrete Choice Experiment

Overview

Journal Diabet Med

Specialty Endocrinology

Date 2019 Apr 20

PMID 31001855

Citations 13

Authors

D F L Hertroijs

A M J Elissen

M C G J Brouwers

M Hiligsmann

N C Schaper

D Ruwaard

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aims: Limited knowledge exists on the preferences of people with Type 2 diabetes towards diabetes care. Consequently, these care preferences cannot yet be considered in the development of tailored diabetes care approaches. Therefore, this study aimed to assess care preferences and their determinants in people with Type 2 diabetes.

Methods: A discrete choice experiment was conducted to elicit people's preferences. People with Type 2 diabetes, treated in 30 Dutch primary care practices, were asked to choose repeatedly between two hypothetical diabetes care packages, which differed in six attributes: role division in daily diabetes care planning, lifestyle education method, type of medication management support, consultation frequency, emotional support and time spend on self-management. A mixed-logit model was used to estimate the relative importance of the included attributes. Preference heterogeneity among people with different person- and disease-related characteristics was investigated.

Results: In total, 288 participants completed the experiment. They preferred to plan their daily diabetes care together with a healthcare provider, to receive individual lifestyle education, medication and emotional support from a healthcare provider, one consultation visit every 3 months and to spend less time on self-management. Participants did not prefer to receive emotional support from a psychologist. Heterogeneity in preferences could partly be explained by differences in sex, education level and glucose-lowering drug use.

Conclusion: People with Type 2 diabetes show a preference for traditional care models. Emotional support was identified by participants as the most important attribute. It is therefore important to adequately guide them when changes in diabetes care organization are implemented.

Citing Articles

Powerful together with diabetes, a group-based self-management intervention for patients with type 2 diabetes from lower educational groups: study protocol for a hybrid type 2 evaluation.

Horreh B, van Nassau F, Landais L, Vissenberg C, Van Dongen J, van der Ploeg H BMJ Open. 2025; 15(1):e087767.

PMID: 39788779 PMC: 11751900. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087767.

Patient perspectives about treatment preferences for obesity with complications.

Craig H, Alsaeed D, Norris S, Holian J, Kennedy C, Feldman A Obes Sci Pract. 2024; 10(1):e720.

PMID: 38263990 PMC: 10804341. DOI: 10.1002/osp4.720.

Identifying patient preferences for diabetes care: A protocol for implementing a discrete choice experiment in Samoa.

Rivara A, Galarraga O, Selu M, Arorae M, Wang R, Faasalele-Savusa K PLoS One. 2023; 18(12):e0295845.

PMID: 38134044 PMC: 10745180. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295845.

Supporting professionals to implement integrated, person-centered care for people with chronic conditions: the TARGET pilot study.

Smeets R, Hertroijs D, Ruwaard D, Spoorenberg S, Elissen A Scand J Prim Health Care. 2023; 41(4):377-391.

PMID: 37665602 PMC: 11001371. DOI: 10.1080/02813432.2023.2250392.

Feasibility and acceptability of 'low-intensity mental health support via a telehealth-enabled network' for adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: the LISTEN pilot study.

Holloway E, Gray S, Halliday J, Harrap B, Hines C, Skinner T Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2023; 9(1):133.

PMID: 37501203 PMC: 10373371. DOI: 10.1186/s40814-023-01367-2.

References

Mangham L, Hanson K, McPake B . How to do (or not to do) ... Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy Plan. 2008; 24(2):151-8. DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czn047. View

Purnell T, Joy S, Little E, Bridges J, Maruthur N . Patient preferences for noninsulin diabetes medications: a systematic review. Diabetes Care. 2014; 37(7):2055-62. PMC: 4067391. DOI: 10.2337/dc13-2527. View

Weiner J . Doctor-patient communication in the e-health era. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2012; 1(1):33. PMC: 3461429. DOI: 10.1186/2045-4015-1-33. View

Kleefstra N, Landman G, van Hateren K, Meulepas M, Romeijnders A, Rutten G . Dutch diabetes prevalence estimates (DUDE-1). J Diabetes. 2015; 8(6):863-865. DOI: 10.1111/1753-0407.12370. View

Salampessy B, Veldwijk J, Schuit A, van den Brekel-Dijkstra K, Neslo R, de Wit G . The Predictive Value of Discrete Choice Experiments in Public Health: An Exploratory Application. Patient. 2015; 8(6):521-9. PMC: 4662963. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-015-0115-2. View

Fortney J, Burgess Jr J, Bosworth H, Booth B, Kaboli P . A re-conceptualization of access for 21st century healthcare. J Gen Intern Med. 2011; 26 Suppl 2:639-47. PMC: 3191218. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-011-1806-6. View

Uchendu C, Blake H . Effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy on glycaemic control and psychological outcomes in adults with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabet Med. 2016; 34(3):328-339. DOI: 10.1111/dme.13195. View

Hertroijs D, Elissen A, Brouwers M, Schaper N, Kohler S, Popa M . A risk score including body mass index, glycated haemoglobin and triglycerides predicts future glycaemic control in people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017; 20(3):681-688. PMC: 5836941. DOI: 10.1111/dom.13148. View

Inzucchi S, Bergenstal R, Buse J, Diamant M, Ferrannini E, Nauck M . 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. PMC: 3357214. DOI: 10.2337/dc12-0413. View

10.

Brinkhues S, Dukers-Muijrers N, Hoebe C, van der Kallen C, Dagnelie P, Koster A . Socially isolated individuals are more prone to have newly diagnosed and prevalent type 2 diabetes mellitus - the Maastricht study. BMC Public Health. 2017; 17(1):955. PMC: 5735891. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-017-4948-6. View

11.

Street Jr R, Elwyn G, Epstein R . Patient preferences and healthcare outcomes: an ecological perspective. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2012; 12(2):167-80. DOI: 10.1586/erp.12.3. View

12.

Bernhardsson S, Larsson M, Johansson K, Oberg B . "In the physio we trust": A qualitative study on patients' preferences for physiotherapy. Physiother Theory Pract. 2017; 33(7):535-549. DOI: 10.1080/09593985.2017.1328720. View

13.

Seuring T, Archangelidi O, Suhrcke M . The Economic Costs of Type 2 Diabetes: A Global Systematic Review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015; 33(8):811-31. PMC: 4519633. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-015-0268-9. View

14.

Ellis K, Mulnier H, Forbes A . Perceptions of insulin use in type 2 diabetes in primary care: a thematic synthesis. BMC Fam Pract. 2018; 19(1):70. PMC: 5964885. DOI: 10.1186/s12875-018-0753-2. View

15.

Boyle E, Saunders R, Drury V . A qualitative study of patient experiences of Type 2 Diabetes care delivered comparatively by General Practice Nurses and Medical Practitioners. J Clin Nurs. 2016; 25(13-14):1977-86. DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13219. View

16.

Hertroijs D, Elissen A, Brouwers M, Hiligsmann M, Schaper N, Ruwaard D . Preferences of people with Type 2 diabetes for diabetes care: a discrete choice experiment. Diabet Med. 2019; 37(11):1807-1815. PMC: 7586937. DOI: 10.1111/dme.13969. View

17.

Henderson C, Noblett J, Parke H, Clement S, Caffrey A, Gale-Grant O . Mental health-related stigma in health care and mental health-care settings. Lancet Psychiatry. 2015; 1(6):467-82. DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(14)00023-6. View

18.

Lancsar E, Louviere J . Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008; 26(8):661-77. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004. View

19.

Nouwen A, Winkley K, Twisk J, Lloyd C, Peyrot M, Ismail K . Type 2 diabetes mellitus as a risk factor for the onset of depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetologia. 2010; 53(12):2480-6. PMC: 2974923. DOI: 10.1007/s00125-010-1874-x. View

20.

Watson V, Becker F, De Bekker-Grob E . Discrete Choice Experiment Response Rates: A Meta-analysis. Health Econ. 2016; 26(6):810-817. DOI: 10.1002/hec.3354. View