Is There Any Difference in Preferences Between Patients and Physicians? Evidence From Anti-Hyperglycemic Medications Choices for Type 2 Diabetes.

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q2 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Yuliang Xiang, Liu Liu, Jing Liu, Xiong Ke, Yanfeng Ren, Shiyi Bao, Fuming Li, Shimeng Liu, Yingyao Chen
{"title":"Is There Any Difference in Preferences Between Patients and Physicians? Evidence From Anti-Hyperglycemic Medications Choices for Type 2 Diabetes.","authors":"Yuliang Xiang, Liu Liu, Jing Liu, Xiong Ke, Yanfeng Ren, Shiyi Bao, Fuming Li, Shimeng Liu, Yingyao Chen","doi":"10.1111/1753-0407.70220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study aimed to explore differences in preferences between Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) and physicians when selecting anti-hyperglycemic medications.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) involving 1784 patients (face-to-face surveys) and 168 physicians (online questionnaires) across eastern, central, and western China. Seven treatment attributes were assessed: HbA1c reduction, hypoglycemia risk, cardiovascular benefits, gastrointestinal adverse events, weight change, mode of administration, and monthly out-of-pocket cost. Preference heterogeneity was explored using latent class model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients placed the greatest importance on monthly out-of-pocket cost, treatment efficacy, and hypoglycemia risk, whereas physicians prioritized hypoglycemia risk, cardiovascular benefits, and treatment efficacy. Notably, physicians tended to overestimate patients' willingness to pay for treatment benefits. Specifically, patients were willing to pay 277 CNY (39 USD) for cardiovascular benefits, whereas physicians estimated that patients would be willing to pay 864 CNY (121 USD). Latent class analysis identified substantial heterogeneity in both groups. In particular, the largest patient subgroup was strongly cost-sensitive, with preferences driven primarily by financial burden, whereas no directly corresponding physician subgroup was observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients and physicians differ in how they prioritize diabetes medication attributes, especially regarding efficacy, cardiovascular benefit, and cost. Shared decision-making should account for these differences to support value-concordant, patient-centered diabetes care.</p>","PeriodicalId":189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Diabetes","volume":"18 4","pages":"e70220"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13083033/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Diabetes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.70220","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to explore differences in preferences between Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) and physicians when selecting anti-hyperglycemic medications.

Materials and methods: We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) involving 1784 patients (face-to-face surveys) and 168 physicians (online questionnaires) across eastern, central, and western China. Seven treatment attributes were assessed: HbA1c reduction, hypoglycemia risk, cardiovascular benefits, gastrointestinal adverse events, weight change, mode of administration, and monthly out-of-pocket cost. Preference heterogeneity was explored using latent class model.

Results: Patients placed the greatest importance on monthly out-of-pocket cost, treatment efficacy, and hypoglycemia risk, whereas physicians prioritized hypoglycemia risk, cardiovascular benefits, and treatment efficacy. Notably, physicians tended to overestimate patients' willingness to pay for treatment benefits. Specifically, patients were willing to pay 277 CNY (39 USD) for cardiovascular benefits, whereas physicians estimated that patients would be willing to pay 864 CNY (121 USD). Latent class analysis identified substantial heterogeneity in both groups. In particular, the largest patient subgroup was strongly cost-sensitive, with preferences driven primarily by financial burden, whereas no directly corresponding physician subgroup was observed.

Conclusion: Patients and physicians differ in how they prioritize diabetes medication attributes, especially regarding efficacy, cardiovascular benefit, and cost. Shared decision-making should account for these differences to support value-concordant, patient-centered diabetes care.

病人和医生的偏好有什么不同吗?2型糖尿病抗高血糖药物选择的证据
目的:本研究旨在探讨中国2型糖尿病(T2D)患者和医生在选择降糖药物方面的差异。材料和方法:我们进行了一项离散选择实验(DCE),涉及中国东部、中部和西部的1784名患者(面对面调查)和168名医生(在线问卷调查)。评估了七个治疗属性:HbA1c降低、低血糖风险、心血管益处、胃肠道不良事件、体重变化、给药模式和每月自付费用。使用潜在类别模型探讨偏好异质性。结果:患者最重视的是每月自付费用、治疗效果和低血糖风险,而医生优先考虑的是低血糖风险、心血管益处和治疗效果。值得注意的是,医生倾向于高估患者为治疗福利付费的意愿。具体来说,患者愿意支付277元人民币(39美元)的心血管福利,而医生估计患者愿意支付864元人民币(121美元)。潜在分类分析发现两组存在显著的异质性。特别是,最大的患者亚组对费用非常敏感,其偏好主要由经济负担驱动,而没有观察到直接对应的医生亚组。结论:患者和医生对糖尿病药物属性的优先排序存在差异,特别是在疗效、心血管益处和成本方面。共同决策应考虑到这些差异,以支持价值一致、以患者为中心的糖尿病护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Diabetes
Journal of Diabetes ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.20%
发文量
94
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Diabetes (JDB) devotes itself to diabetes research, therapeutics, and education. It aims to involve researchers and practitioners in a dialogue between East and West via all aspects of epidemiology, etiology, pathogenesis, management, complications and prevention of diabetes, including the molecular, biochemical, and physiological aspects of diabetes. The Editorial team is international with a unique mix of Asian and Western participation. The Editors welcome submissions in form of original research articles, images, novel case reports and correspondence, and will solicit reviews, point-counterpoint, commentaries, editorials, news highlights, and educational content.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书