Diabetes patient preferences for glucose-monitoring technologies: Results from a discrete choice experiment in Poland and the Netherlands

2Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Smith, I. P., Whichello, C. L., Veldwijk, J., Rutten-Van Mölken, M. P. M. H., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C. G. M., Vos, R. C., … De Wit, G. A. (2023). Diabetes patient preferences for glucose-monitoring technologies: Results from a discrete choice experiment in Poland and the Netherlands. BMJ Open Diabetes Research and Care, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2022-003025

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free