Susan M. Joy

Patient Preferences for Noninsulin Diabetes Medications: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE An evidence-based synthesis of patient preferences for management of hyperglycemia is needed. Our objective was to systematically review patient preferences for noninsulin diabetes medications in adults with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We searched the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and EconLit databases for articles published on or before 23 January 2013. We included English-language studies of adult patients with type 2 diabetes that assessed patient preferences for diabetes medication treatment. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Study data and quality were abstracted with standard protocols. RESULTS Of 2,811 titles identified in our original search, 10 articles met inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Studies were conducted from 2007 to 2012 among diverse patient populations in the U.S., Sweden, Denmark, and the U.K. Methods used to assess patient preferences included discrete choice experiments (e.g., conjoint analysis), time tradeoff exercises, standard gamble, and patient surveys. Key attributes of diabetes medication associated with patient preferences included treatment benefits (e.g., glycemic control and weight loss/control), treatment burden (e.g., administration, frequency, and cost), and side effects (e.g., weight gain, gastrointestinal effects, and hypoglycemia). CONCLUSIONS Various clinical and quality of life–related factors influence patient preferences for noninsulin diabetes medications. Treatment efficacy with regard to glycemic control and weight loss/control and the risk of treatment-related hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal effects are reported to be important drivers of patient treatment selections. Future work is needed to identify practical methods for incorporating patient preferences into treatment decision making and patient-centered care.

Can public reporting impact patient outcomes and disparities? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE Recent US healthcare reforms aim to improve quality and access. We synthesized evidence assessing the impact that public reporting (PR), which will be extended to the outpatient setting, has on patient outcomes and disparities. METHODS A systematic review using PRISMA guidelines identified studies addressing the impact of PR on patient outcomes and disparities. RESULTS Of the 1970 publications identified, 25 were relevant, spanning hospitals (16), nursing homes (5), emergency rooms (1), health plans (2), and home health agencies (1). Evidence of effect on patient outcomes was mixed, with 6 studies reporting a favorable effect, 9 a mixed effect, 9 a null effect, and 1 a negative effect. One study found a mixed effect of PR on disparities. CONCLUSION The evidence of the impact of PR on patient outcomes is lacking, with limited evidence that PR has a favorable effect on outcomes in nursing homes. There is little evidence supporting claims that PR will have an impact on disparities or in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Health systems should collect information on patient-relevant outcomes. The lack of evidence does not necessarily imply a lack of effect, and a research gap exists regarding patient-relevant outcomes and PR.

Prioritizing strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control in Asia: a conjoint analysis

BackgroundLiver cancer is a complex and burdensome disease, with Asia accounting for 75% of known cases. Comprehensive cancer control requires the use of multiple strategies, but various stakeholders may have different views as to which strategies should have the highest priority. This study identified priorities across multiple strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control (CLCC) from the perspective of liver cancer clinical, policy, and advocacy stakeholders in China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Concordance of priorities was assessed across the region and across respondent roles.MethodsPriorities for CLCC were examined as part of a cross-sectional survey of liver cancer experts. Respondents completed several conjoint-analysis choice tasks to prioritize 11 strategies. In each task, respondents judged which of two competing CLCC plans, consisting of mutually exclusive and exhaustive subsets of the strategies, would have the greatest impact. The dependent variable was the chosen plan, which was then regressed on the strategies of different plans. The restricted least squares (RLS) method was utilized to compare aggregate and stratified models, and t-tests and Wald tests were used to test for significance and concordance, respectively.ResultsEighty respondents (69.6%) were eligible and completed the survey. Their primary interests were hepatitis (26%), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (58%), metastatic liver cancer (10%) and transplantation (6%). The most preferred strategies were monitoring at-risk populations (p<0.001), clinician education (p<0.001), and national guidelines (p<0.001). Most priorities were concordant across sites except for three strategies: transplantation infrastructure (p=0.009) was valued lower in China, measuring social burden (p=0.037) was valued higher in Taiwan, and national guidelines (p=0.025) was valued higher in China. Priorities did not differ across stakeholder groups (p=0.438).ConclusionsPriorities for CLCC in Asia include monitoring at-risk populations, clinician education, national guidelines, multidisciplinary management, public awareness and centers of excellence. As most priorities are relatively concordant across the region, multilateral approaches to addressing comprehensive liver cancer would be beneficial. However, where priorities are discordant among sites, such as transplantation infrastructure, strategies should be tailored to local needs.

Priorities for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) Control: A Comparison of Policy Needs in Five European Countries

Abstract In 2006, the European Parliament designated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) a serious public health problem, recognizing it as both a complex and deadly cancer. The authors conducted the first comparative needs assessment for HCC across five European countries. One hundred HCC experts assessed ten dimensions of HCC control. Common needs exist for lifestyle risk factor management (p < 0.001), political awareness (p < 0.001) and public awareness (p < 0.001). Discordances were found on funding for treatment (p = 0.001) and screening (p = 0.006), hepatitis C (p = 0.035), and hepatitis B (p = 0.050) strategies. The findings identify the priority needs, both common and country-specific, that should be addressed in these countries.