RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Diabetes patient preferences for glucose-monitoring technologies: results from a discrete choice experiment in Poland and the Netherlands
JF BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
JO BMJ Open Diab Res Care
FD American Diabetes Association
SP e003025
DO 10.1136/bmjdrc-2022-003025
VO 11
IS 1
A1 Smith, Ian P
A1 Whichello, Chiara L
A1 Veldwijk, Jorien
A1 Rutten-van Mölken, Maureen P M H
A1 Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C G M
A1 Vos, Rimke C
A1 de Bekker-Grob, Esther W
A1 de Wit, G Ardine
YR 2023
UL http://drc.bmj.com/content/11/1/e003025.abstract
AB Introduction New glucose-monitoring technologies have different cost–benefit profiles compared with traditional finger-prick tests, resulting in a preference-sensitive situation for patients. This study aimed to assess the relative value adults with diabetes assign to device attributes in two countries.Research design and methods Adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes from the Netherlands (n=226) and Poland (n=261) completed an online discrete choice experiment. Respondents choose between hypothetical glucose monitors described using seven attributes: precision, effort to check, number of finger pricks required, risk of skin irritation, information provided, alarm function and out-of-pocket costs. Panel mixed logit models were used to determine attribute relative importance and to calculate expected uptake rates and willingness to pay (WTP).Results The most important attribute for both countries was monthly out-of-pocket costs. Polish respondents were more likely than Dutch respondents to choose a glucose-monitoring device over a standard finger prick and had higher WTP for a device. Dutch respondents had higher WTP for device improvements in an effort to check and reduce the number of finger pricks a device requires.Conclusion Costs are the primary concern of patients in both countries when choosing a glucose monitor and would likely hamper real-world uptake. The costs-benefit profiles of such devices should be critically reviewed.Data are available upon reasonable request.