2型糖尿病治疗相关属性的缺点:一项系统综述。

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Shitong Xie, Xinran Liu, Meixuan Li, Jing Wu
{"title":"2型糖尿病治疗相关属性的缺点:一项系统综述。","authors":"Shitong Xie, Xinran Liu, Meixuan Li, Jing Wu","doi":"10.1007/s11136-025-03945-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To synthesize the literature on eliciting disutilities associated with treatment-related attributes in type 2 diabetes (T2DM).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, EconLit and CINAHL databases from inception to December, 2024. This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines, quality and risk of bias of the included studies were assessed using the NICE and ROBINS-I checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine studies involving 59 to 4060 participants were included and most studies (n=6) were conducted in the UK. The perspective of preference included T2DM patients (n=7) and the general public (n=3), with one study included both. Elicitation approaches used were time trade-off (n=5) and standard gamble (n=4). Eight treatment-related attributes were identified, including weight change (n=5), dosing frequency (n=4), gastrointestinal side effects (n=2), flexible dosing (n=2), administration requirement (i.e., reconstitution, waiting, and needle handling) (n=2), injection site reaction (n=1), fear of hypoglycemia (n=1), and HbA1c levels (n=1). For the attribute of weight change, the (dis)utility value ranged from -0.106 to 0.047. Respondents showed a preference for weekly over daily administration (range: 0.023 to 0.095), once-daily over multiple-daily (range: 0.015 to 0.123). The (dis)utility values for the rest of six attributes ranged from -0.04 to 0.034.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review provides evidence synthesize of published disutilities related to T2DM treatment-related attributes which have a nonnegligible effect. Weight change and dosing frequency were the most reported with the largest impact. Given the considerable heterogeneity in current studies, care should be taken in selecting appropriate estimates between different elicitation methods, populations and countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disutilities of treatment-related attributes for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Shitong Xie, Xinran Liu, Meixuan Li, Jing Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11136-025-03945-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To synthesize the literature on eliciting disutilities associated with treatment-related attributes in type 2 diabetes (T2DM).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, EconLit and CINAHL databases from inception to December, 2024. This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines, quality and risk of bias of the included studies were assessed using the NICE and ROBINS-I checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine studies involving 59 to 4060 participants were included and most studies (n=6) were conducted in the UK. The perspective of preference included T2DM patients (n=7) and the general public (n=3), with one study included both. Elicitation approaches used were time trade-off (n=5) and standard gamble (n=4). Eight treatment-related attributes were identified, including weight change (n=5), dosing frequency (n=4), gastrointestinal side effects (n=2), flexible dosing (n=2), administration requirement (i.e., reconstitution, waiting, and needle handling) (n=2), injection site reaction (n=1), fear of hypoglycemia (n=1), and HbA1c levels (n=1). For the attribute of weight change, the (dis)utility value ranged from -0.106 to 0.047. Respondents showed a preference for weekly over daily administration (range: 0.023 to 0.095), once-daily over multiple-daily (range: 0.015 to 0.123). The (dis)utility values for the rest of six attributes ranged from -0.04 to 0.034.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review provides evidence synthesize of published disutilities related to T2DM treatment-related attributes which have a nonnegligible effect. Weight change and dosing frequency were the most reported with the largest impact. Given the considerable heterogeneity in current studies, care should be taken in selecting appropriate estimates between different elicitation methods, populations and countries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-025-03945-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-025-03945-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:综合与2型糖尿病(T2DM)治疗相关属性相关的诱导效用的文献。方法:检索Medline、Embase、Cochrane Library、PsycINFO、EconLit、CINAHL数据库,检索时间自成立至2024年12月。本系统评价遵循PRISMA指南,采用NICE和ROBINS-I检查表对纳入研究的质量和偏倚风险进行评估。结果:纳入了9项研究,涉及59至4060名参与者,其中大多数研究(n=6)在英国进行。偏好视角包括T2DM患者(n=7)和普通大众(n=3),其中一项研究同时包括T2DM患者和普通大众。使用的启发方法是时间权衡(n=5)和标准赌博(n=4)。确定了8个治疗相关属性,包括体重变化(n=5)、给药频率(n=4)、胃肠道副作用(n=2)、灵活给药(n=2)、给药要求(即重构、等待和针头处理)(n=2)、注射部位反应(n=1)、对低血糖的恐惧(n=1)和HbA1c水平(n=1)。对于权重变化属性,(dis)效用值范围为-0.106 ~ 0.047。受访者表示,他们更喜欢每周给药而不是每天给药(范围:0.023至0.095),一天一次而不是多天(范围:0.015至0.123)。其余六个属性的(非)效用值范围从-0.04到0.034。结论:本综述提供了与T2DM治疗相关属性相关的已发表的不利因素的证据综合,这些不利因素具有不可忽视的影响。体重变化和给药频率被报道最多,影响最大。鉴于目前的研究具有相当大的异质性,在不同的引出方法、人口和国家之间选择适当的估计数时应小心谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Disutilities of treatment-related attributes for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review.

Objectives: To synthesize the literature on eliciting disutilities associated with treatment-related attributes in type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, EconLit and CINAHL databases from inception to December, 2024. This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines, quality and risk of bias of the included studies were assessed using the NICE and ROBINS-I checklist.

Results: Nine studies involving 59 to 4060 participants were included and most studies (n=6) were conducted in the UK. The perspective of preference included T2DM patients (n=7) and the general public (n=3), with one study included both. Elicitation approaches used were time trade-off (n=5) and standard gamble (n=4). Eight treatment-related attributes were identified, including weight change (n=5), dosing frequency (n=4), gastrointestinal side effects (n=2), flexible dosing (n=2), administration requirement (i.e., reconstitution, waiting, and needle handling) (n=2), injection site reaction (n=1), fear of hypoglycemia (n=1), and HbA1c levels (n=1). For the attribute of weight change, the (dis)utility value ranged from -0.106 to 0.047. Respondents showed a preference for weekly over daily administration (range: 0.023 to 0.095), once-daily over multiple-daily (range: 0.015 to 0.123). The (dis)utility values for the rest of six attributes ranged from -0.04 to 0.034.

Conclusions: This review provides evidence synthesize of published disutilities related to T2DM treatment-related attributes which have a nonnegligible effect. Weight change and dosing frequency were the most reported with the largest impact. Given the considerable heterogeneity in current studies, care should be taken in selecting appropriate estimates between different elicitation methods, populations and countries.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Quality of Life Research
Quality of Life Research 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
8.60%
发文量
224
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences. Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership. This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信