↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Patient preferences in Italy: health state utilities associated with attributes of weekly injection devices for treatment of type 2 diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Patient preferences in Italy: health state utilities associated with attributes of weekly injection devices for treatment of type 2 diabetes
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, June 2018
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s159620
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louis S Matza, Kristina S Boye, Jessica B Jordan, Kirsi Norrbacka, Raffaella Gentilella, Amara R Tiebout, Chantelle Browne, Marco Orsini Federici, Giovanni Biricolti, Katie D Stewart

Abstract

Several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are administered as weekly injections for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). These medications vary in their injection processes, and a recent study in the UK found that these differences had an impact on patient preference and health state utilities. The purpose of this study was to replicate the UK study in Italy to examine preferences of an Italian patient sample, while allowing for comparison between utilities in the UK and Italy. Participants with T2D in Italy valued health states in time trade-off interviews. All health states had the same description of T2D, but differed in description of the treatment process. As in the original UK study, the first health state described an oral treatment regimen, while additional health states added a weekly injection. The injection health states differed in three injection-related attributes: requirements for reconstituting the medication, waiting during medication preparation, and needle handling. Interviews were completed by 238 patients (58.8% male; mean age = 60.2 years; 118 from Milan, 120 from Rome). The oral treatment health state had a mean (SD) utility of 0.90 (0.10). The injection health states had significantly (p < 0.0001) lower utilities, which ranged from 0.87 (requirements for reconstitution, waiting, and handling) to 0.89 (weekly injection with none of these requirements). Differences in health state utility scores suggest that each administration requirement was associated with a disutility (ie, negative utility difference): -0.006 (reconstitution), -0.006 (needle handling), -0.011 (reconstitution, needle handling), and -0.022 (reconstitution, waiting, needle handling). Disutilities associated with the injection device characteristics were similar to those reported with the UK sample. Results suggest that injection device attributes may be important to some patients with T2D, and it may be useful for clinicians to consider these attributes when choosing medication for patients initiating these weekly treatments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 20%
Student > Master 4 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 15%
Social Sciences 2 10%
Mathematics 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 7 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2018.
All research outputs
#16,159,666
of 25,540,105 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#917
of 1,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,470
of 343,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#27
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,540,105 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,767 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,246 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.