Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
Epidemiology/Health Services/Psychosocial Research

Risking Health to Avoid Injections

Preferences of Canadians with type 2 diabetes

  1. A. Brett Hauber, PHD1,
  2. F. Reed Johnson, PHD1,
  3. Luc Sauriol2 and
  4. Benedicte Lescrauwaet3
  1. 1RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
  2. 2Aventis Pharma, Sanofi Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Quebec, Canada
  3. 3Pfizer Canada, Quebec, Canada
  1. Address correspondence and reprint requests to A. Brett Hauber, PhD, RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC. E-mail: abhauber{at}rti.org
Diabetes Care 2005 Sep; 28(9): 2243-2245. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.28.9.2243
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Preferences of Canadians with type 2 diabetes

Improved glycemic control reduces the risk of long-term diabetes complications (1–3). However, subcutaneous insulin injections represent a barrier to achieving “optimal” blood glucose levels, particularly among type 2 diabetic patients (4). Indeed, some patients even delay initiation of therapy to avoid injections (5). This study used conjoint analysis to quantify the relative importance that Canadian patients with type 2 diabetes place on short-term treatment outcomes and on the frequency of insulin injections.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 1,886 patients enrolled in a Canadian consumer panel (n = 70,000) were mailed a questionnaire. Study entry criteria were age ≥18 years and self-reported type 2 diabetes.

The choice format conjoint questionnaire was designed to reveal the relative importance patients place on various health outcomes and treatment attributes associated with insulin therapy. This format offers advantages over other methods of quantifying health care preferences (6–11). The questions comprised 12 hypothetical treatment choices, including varying numbers of daily insulin injections using an insulin pen (one to three injections), levels of glucose control (optimal, suboptimal, and poor as fasting plasma glucose levels of 4–7, 7.1–10, and >10 mmol/l, respectively), HbA1c (A1C) levels <7, 7–8.4, and >8.4%), and numbers of mild-to-moderate hypoglycemic events per month (<1, 1–2, >2). Insulin pens were chosen over other methods of subcutaneous insulin delivery because they are the predominant method used in Canada (12). One alternative in each question was a constant reference condition. For patients using insulin, all attributes of the constant reference condition were set to the patient’s current treatment; for insulin-naïve patients, the reference condition represented standard treatment for patients new to insulin (one injection per day of insulin plus oral antidiabetic agents and 1–2 hypoglycemic events per month) and the patient’s current level of glucose control.

Conditional logit analysis (13) was used to estimate absolute importance weights for improvements in attribute levels, namely reducing injection frequency from three times a day twice a day, reducing injection frequency from twice a day to once a day, improving glucose control from “poor” to “suboptimal,” and improving glucose control from “suboptimal” to “optimal.” Importance weights were expressed relative to the largest estimated mean importance weight difference, which was assigned a value of 1. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

We obtained and analyzed a regionally and culturally representative sample of 936 eligible Canadian diabetic patients. Approximately half (49.64%) of the mailed surveys were returned. The sample included 179 French-language surveys, 45 English-language surveys from Quebec, and 712 English-language surveys from other provinces. Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1.

For determination of relative importance weights, patient data were stratified according to insulin use (naïve versus experienced), sex, and age (Table 1). The largest importance weight (set to 1) was for improving glucose control from “suboptimal” to “optimal” among patients aged 18–44 years. For all patients (P = 0.0298), on average, and all subgroups, the relative importance weight for improving glucose control from “poor” to “suboptimal” was greater than the relative importance weight for improving glucose control from “suboptimal” to “optimal” (P values for the subgroups are as follows, corresponding to the order of the subgroups in Table 1: 0.0890, 0.1347, 0.2277, 0.3468, 0.5095, 0.6220, 0.1909, 0.0779, and 0.2114). For all patients, on average, and for most subgroups, the relative importance weight for reducing the number of injections from twice a day to once a day was greater than the relative importance weight for reducing the number of injections from three times a day to twice a day. The reverse was true for patients using insulin and for patients aged 18–44 years.

A comparison of the relative importance weights for reducing the number of injections from twice a day to once a day with those for improving glucose control from “suboptimal” to “optimal” levels showed that, on average, reducing the number of injections was as important as improving glucose control for all patients. Both improvements are equally important among male and female patients, although the mean value for reducing the number of injections from twice a day to once a day is greater for men than for women.

Among insulin-experienced patients, the mean relative importance weight for improving glucose control was positive and significant (P < 0.0001 for both improvements), while the relative importance weight for reducing the number of injections was zero (P = 0.0159 for reducing from three times a day to twice a day, 0.9436 for reducing from twice a day to once a day). In contrast, among insulin-naïve patients, the mean relative importance weight for reducing the number of injections was 1.61 times higher than the mean relative importance weight for improving glucose control, but this was not statistically significantly different. The relative importance weight for reducing from three times a day to twice a day was not significantly different from that for improving glucose control (P = 0.1380); however, reducing from twice a day to once a day was significantly different from improving glucose control (P = 0.0007).

Relative importance weights for reducing the number of injections were stable across all age-groups. In contrast, the mean relative importance of improving glucose control declined with advancing age.

CONCLUSIONS

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to quantify the relative importance of various aspects of insulin therapy. Canadian patients with type 2 diabetes place significant value on reducing the number of daily insulin injections and on improving glucose control. On average, patients indicated that reducing the number of injections from twice a day to once day is as important as improving glucose control from “suboptimal” to “optimal” levels. For most patients, reducing the frequency of insulin injections from three times a day to twice day was less important than reducing the frequency from twice a day to once a day. Most patients perceived that improving glucose control from “poor” to “suboptimal” levels was significantly more important than improving control from “suboptimal” to “optimal” levels. This may be due to the greater risk of complications in poorly controlled versus suboptimally controlled patients and to the fact that poor control may be associated with noticeable symptoms, whereas suboptimal control is probably not.

Insulin-experienced patients place significant value on improving glucose control and much less value on reducing the frequency of injections. In contrast, insulin-naïve patients perceived reducing the frequency of insulin injections from twice a day to once a day to be as important as improving glucose control from “suboptimal” to “optimal.” This latter result is disconcerting in view of the clinical importance of maintaining “optimal” glycemic control. More intensive and persuasive diabetes education may be needed to better impart the importance of glucose control, while less burdensome methods of insulin delivery may remove this barrier to effective insulin therapy. Either strategy may also encourage earlier initiation of insulin therapy among insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic patients.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1—

Relative importance weights for improvements in attribute levels

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by an unrestricted research grant from Pfizer and by the Sanofi-Aventis Group.

Footnotes

  • A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

    • Accepted May 13, 2005.
    • Received April 15, 2005.
  • DIABETES CARE

References

  1. ↵
    Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) Research Group: The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 329: 997–986, 1993
  2. Ohkubo Y, Kishakawa H, Araki E, Miyata T, Isami S, Motoyoshu S, Kojima Y, Furuyoshi N, Shichiri M: Intensive insulin therapy prevents progression of diabetic microvascular complications in Japanese patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus: a randomized prospective 6 year study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 8: 103–117, 1995
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group: Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 352: 837–853, 1998
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    Hunt LM, Valenzuela MA, Pugh JA: NIDDM patients’ fears and hopes about insulin therapy: the basis of patient reluctance. Diabetes Care 20: 292–298, 1997
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    Korytkowski M: When oral agents fail: practical barriers to starting insulin. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 26 (Suppl. 3): S18–S24, 2002
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    Johnson FR, Desvousges WH: Estimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: environmental, health, and employment effects of energy programs. J Environ Econ Manage 34: 79–99, 1997
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. Ryan M, Hughes J: Using conjoint analysis to value surgical versus medical management of miscarriage. Health Econ 6: 261–273, 1997
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. Johnson FR, Desvousges WH, Ruby MC, Stieb D, De Civita P: Eliciting stated preferences: an application to willingness to pay for longevity. Med Decis Mak 18 (Suppl. 2): S57–S67, 1998
    OpenUrl
  9. Ryan M, McIntosh E, Shackley P: Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care. Health Econ Lett 2: 15–21, 1998
  10. Johnson FR, Banzhaf MR, Desvousges WH: Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format stated-preference approach. Health Econ 9: 295–317, 2000
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    Zwerina K, Huber J, Kuhfeld WK: A general method for constructing efficient choice designs [article online]. SAS Institute Market Research Document TS-689D, 1996. Available from http://support.sas.com/techsup/tnote/tnote_stat.html. Accessed 1 April 2005
  12. ↵
    Roper Starch Worldwide: Survey of Canadian Diabetes Market. New York, Roper ASW, 2002
  13. ↵
    Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S: Applied logistic regression. In Probability and Statistics. 2nd ed. New York, John Wiley & Sons, 2000
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 28 (9)

In this Issue

September 2005, 28(9)
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Risking Health to Avoid Injections
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Risking Health to Avoid Injections
A. Brett Hauber, F. Reed Johnson, Luc Sauriol, Benedicte Lescrauwaet
Diabetes Care Sep 2005, 28 (9) 2243-2245; DOI: 10.2337/diacare.28.9.2243

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Risking Health to Avoid Injections
A. Brett Hauber, F. Reed Johnson, Luc Sauriol, Benedicte Lescrauwaet
Diabetes Care Sep 2005, 28 (9) 2243-2245; DOI: 10.2337/diacare.28.9.2243
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • CONCLUSIONS
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Suboptimal Use of Cardioprotective Drugs in Newly Treated Elderly Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes
  • Disparities in Diabetes Care Between Smokers and Nonsmokers
  • Updated and Revised Diabetes Family Conflict Scale
Show more Epidemiology/Health Services/Psychosocial Research

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.