环境影响在医疗保健提供者选择治疗哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病的吸入器中的作用:一个离散选择实验。

IF 2.6 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
I G Arslan, M Vervloet, E W de Bekker-Grob, K Hek, B J Knottnerus, C Wagner, L van Eikenhorst
{"title":"环境影响在医疗保健提供者选择治疗哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病的吸入器中的作用:一个离散选择实验。","authors":"I G Arslan, M Vervloet, E W de Bekker-Grob, K Hek, B J Knottnerus, C Wagner, L van Eikenhorst","doi":"10.1186/s12875-025-02941-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), often prescribed for the treatment of COPD and asthma have a high global warming potential (GWP) compared to dry powder inhalers (DPIs) and soft-mist inhalers. Despite calls to switch from high to DPIs or soft-mist inhalers, prescriptions of pMDIs have increased in recent years. Understanding healthcare providers' preferences can help develop strategies to promote prescribing low GWP inhalers. This study aimed to determine healthcare providers' preferences when prescribing inhalers for asthma and COPD, including its GWP (i.e. environmental impact).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey containing a discrete choice experiment was conducted. Primary care providers were repetitively asked to choose between scenarios of inhalers that differed in five attributes: multidose or unidose system (i.e. ease of use), reduction in number of exacerbations, side effects, out of pocket costs and GWP. A multinomial logit model was used to determine the relative importance of the attributes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 76 healthcare providers (general practitioners (GPs), nurse specialists and nurse practitioners) completed the survey. On average, the attribute 'reduction in number of exacerbations' was most important in their choice for inhalers, followed by, 'side effects', 'GWP', 'out of pocket costs', and 'multidose or unidose system'. Healthcare providers were willing to accept a high GWP inhaler instead of a low GWP inhaler when the inhaler reduced the number of exacerbations and were willing to opt for low GWP inhaler with higher out of pocket costs instead of a high GWP inhaler with lower out of pocket costs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Healthcare providers valued clinical factors (i.e. reduction in number of exacerbations and low side effects) as most important when choosing inhalers for their patients with COPD or asthma, however GWP was also an important driver of choice. Understanding these preferences can support strategies to support sustainable inhalers for COPD and asthma, contributing to climate change mitigation. For example by enhancing the provision of information regarding inhaler GWP, while ensuring that clinical effectiveness remains the primary focus.</p>","PeriodicalId":72428,"journal":{"name":"BMC primary care","volume":"26 1","pages":"278"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12406421/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The role of environmental impact in healthcare providers' choices of inhalers for treatment of asthma and COPD: a discrete choice experiment.\",\"authors\":\"I G Arslan, M Vervloet, E W de Bekker-Grob, K Hek, B J Knottnerus, C Wagner, L van Eikenhorst\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12875-025-02941-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), often prescribed for the treatment of COPD and asthma have a high global warming potential (GWP) compared to dry powder inhalers (DPIs) and soft-mist inhalers. Despite calls to switch from high to DPIs or soft-mist inhalers, prescriptions of pMDIs have increased in recent years. Understanding healthcare providers' preferences can help develop strategies to promote prescribing low GWP inhalers. This study aimed to determine healthcare providers' preferences when prescribing inhalers for asthma and COPD, including its GWP (i.e. environmental impact).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey containing a discrete choice experiment was conducted. Primary care providers were repetitively asked to choose between scenarios of inhalers that differed in five attributes: multidose or unidose system (i.e. ease of use), reduction in number of exacerbations, side effects, out of pocket costs and GWP. A multinomial logit model was used to determine the relative importance of the attributes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 76 healthcare providers (general practitioners (GPs), nurse specialists and nurse practitioners) completed the survey. On average, the attribute 'reduction in number of exacerbations' was most important in their choice for inhalers, followed by, 'side effects', 'GWP', 'out of pocket costs', and 'multidose or unidose system'. Healthcare providers were willing to accept a high GWP inhaler instead of a low GWP inhaler when the inhaler reduced the number of exacerbations and were willing to opt for low GWP inhaler with higher out of pocket costs instead of a high GWP inhaler with lower out of pocket costs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Healthcare providers valued clinical factors (i.e. reduction in number of exacerbations and low side effects) as most important when choosing inhalers for their patients with COPD or asthma, however GWP was also an important driver of choice. Understanding these preferences can support strategies to support sustainable inhalers for COPD and asthma, contributing to climate change mitigation. For example by enhancing the provision of information regarding inhaler GWP, while ensuring that clinical effectiveness remains the primary focus.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72428,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC primary care\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"278\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12406421/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC primary care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-025-02941-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-025-02941-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:与干粉吸入器(dpi)和软雾吸入器相比,常用于治疗COPD和哮喘的加压计量吸入器(pmdi)具有较高的全球变暖潜势(GWP)。尽管人们呼吁从高剂量吸入器转向dpi或软雾吸入器,但pmdi的处方近年来有所增加。了解医疗保健提供者的偏好可以帮助制定策略,促进处方低GWP吸入器。本研究旨在确定医疗保健提供者在为哮喘和COPD处方吸入器时的偏好,包括其GWP(即环境影响)。方法:采用离散选择实验进行问卷调查。初级保健提供者被反复要求在五个不同属性的吸入器方案之间进行选择:多剂量或单剂量系统(即易用性)、减少恶化次数、副作用、自付费用和全球潜能值。使用多项逻辑模型来确定属性的相对重要性。结果:共有76名医疗服务提供者(全科医生、专科护士和执业护士)完成了调查。平均而言,在选择吸入器时,“减少恶化次数”是最重要的因素,其次是“副作用”、“全球潜能值”、“自付费用”和“多剂量或单剂量系统”。当高GWP吸入器减少急性发作次数时,医疗保健提供者愿意接受高GWP吸入器而不是低GWP吸入器,并且愿意选择低GWP吸入器而不是高GWP吸入器,后者的自付费用较高。结论:在为COPD或哮喘患者选择吸入器时,医疗保健提供者将临床因素(即减少急性发作次数和低副作用)视为最重要的因素,然而GWP也是选择的重要驱动因素。了解这些偏好可以支持支持COPD和哮喘可持续吸入器的战略,有助于减缓气候变化。例如,加强提供有关吸入器全球潜能值的信息,同时确保临床有效性仍然是首要重点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The role of environmental impact in healthcare providers' choices of inhalers for treatment of asthma and COPD: a discrete choice experiment.

The role of environmental impact in healthcare providers' choices of inhalers for treatment of asthma and COPD: a discrete choice experiment.

The role of environmental impact in healthcare providers' choices of inhalers for treatment of asthma and COPD: a discrete choice experiment.

Background: Pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), often prescribed for the treatment of COPD and asthma have a high global warming potential (GWP) compared to dry powder inhalers (DPIs) and soft-mist inhalers. Despite calls to switch from high to DPIs or soft-mist inhalers, prescriptions of pMDIs have increased in recent years. Understanding healthcare providers' preferences can help develop strategies to promote prescribing low GWP inhalers. This study aimed to determine healthcare providers' preferences when prescribing inhalers for asthma and COPD, including its GWP (i.e. environmental impact).

Methods: A survey containing a discrete choice experiment was conducted. Primary care providers were repetitively asked to choose between scenarios of inhalers that differed in five attributes: multidose or unidose system (i.e. ease of use), reduction in number of exacerbations, side effects, out of pocket costs and GWP. A multinomial logit model was used to determine the relative importance of the attributes.

Results: A total of 76 healthcare providers (general practitioners (GPs), nurse specialists and nurse practitioners) completed the survey. On average, the attribute 'reduction in number of exacerbations' was most important in their choice for inhalers, followed by, 'side effects', 'GWP', 'out of pocket costs', and 'multidose or unidose system'. Healthcare providers were willing to accept a high GWP inhaler instead of a low GWP inhaler when the inhaler reduced the number of exacerbations and were willing to opt for low GWP inhaler with higher out of pocket costs instead of a high GWP inhaler with lower out of pocket costs.

Conclusions: Healthcare providers valued clinical factors (i.e. reduction in number of exacerbations and low side effects) as most important when choosing inhalers for their patients with COPD or asthma, however GWP was also an important driver of choice. Understanding these preferences can support strategies to support sustainable inhalers for COPD and asthma, contributing to climate change mitigation. For example by enhancing the provision of information regarding inhaler GWP, while ensuring that clinical effectiveness remains the primary focus.

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
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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