Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jan;11(1):e003025.
doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2022-003025.

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

Affiliations

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

Ian P Smith et al. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2023 Jan.

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.

Keywords: blood glucose self-monitoring; economics; patient-centered care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example discrete choice experiment choice task.

References

    1. American Diabetes Association . Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2012;35 Suppl 1:S64–71. 10.2337/dc12-s064 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sun H, Saeedi P, Karuranga S, et al. . IDF diabetes atlas: global, regional and country-level diabetes prevalence estimates for 2021 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2022;183:109119. 10.1016/j.diabres.2021.109119 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Saeedi P, Salpea P, Karuranga S, et al. . Mortality attributable to diabetes in 20-79 years old adults, 2019 estimates: Results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9th edition. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2020;162:108086. 10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108086 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Evert AB, Boucher JL, Cypress M, et al. . Nutrition therapy recommendations for the management of adults with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2014;37 Suppl 1:S120–43. 10.2337/dc14-S120 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rubin RR, Peyrot M. Psychological issues and treatments for people with diabetes. J Clin Psychol 2001;57:457–78. 10.1002/jclp.1041 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types