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

Figures & data

Table 1 Demographic characteristics

Characteristics	Rome (N = 120)	Milan (N = 118)	Participants in the analysis sample (N = 238)	p-valuea
Age (mean, SD)	60.8 (9.2)	59.7 (9.5)	60.2 (9.3)	0.362
Gender (n, %)				0.676
Male	69 (57.5)	71 (60.2)	140 (58.8)
Female	51 (42.5)	47 (39.8)	98 (41.2)
Ethnicity (n, %)
White	120 (100.0)	118 (100.0)	238 (100.0)
Marital status (n, %)				0.963
Single	7 (5.8)	6 (5.1)	13 (5.5)
Married/living with partner	79 (65.8)	79 (66.9)	158 (66.4)
Other	34 (28.3)	33 (28.0)	67 (28.2)
Employment statusb (n, %)
Full-time work	37 (30.8)	50 (42.4)	87 (36.6)	0.065
Part-time work	12 (10.0)	15 (12.7)	27 (11.3)	0.510
Homemaker/housewife	16 (13.3)	5 (4.2)	21 (8.8)	0.013
Unemployed	9 (7.5)	6 (5.1)	15 (6.3)	0.443
Retired	45 (37.5)	46 (39.0)	91 (38.2)	0.814
Disabled	2 (1.7)	2 (1.7)	4 (1.7)	0.986
Education level, grouped (n, %)				0.653
University degree	13 (10.8)	15 (12.7)	28 (11.8)
No university degree	107 (89.2)	103 (87.3)	210 (88.2)

Notes:

a p-values comparing between Rome and Milan are based on independent t-tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables;

b not mutually exclusive.

Table 2 Utilities and disutilities

Health states	Mean utilitya	(SD)	Disutilities: difference from health state A		Disutilities: difference from health state G
			Mean	(SD)	Mean	(SD)
A. Basic health state (oral treatment only)	0.900	(0.097)	–	–	–	–
Health states with oral and injectable treatmentb
B. Reconstitution, waiting, needle handling	0.868	(0.109)	−0.032	(0.059)	−0.022	(0.052)
C. Reconstitution, waiting	0.872	(0.109)	−0.027	(0.058)	−0.018	(0.052)
D. Reconstitution, needle handling	0.879	(0.102)	−0.020	(0.040)	−0.011	(0.030)
E. Reconstitution	0.884	(0.100)	−0.015	(0.032)	−0.006	(0.021)
F. Needle handling	0.884	(0.101)	−0.016	(0.033)	−0.006	(0.021)
G. No inconveniences	0.890	(0.100)	−0.009	(0.025)	–	–

Notes:

a TTO scores are on a scale anchored with 0 representing dead and 1 representing full health;

b health states B to G include the basic health state, plus treatment with a weekly injection.

Abbreviation: TTO, time trade-off.

Table 3 t-tests comparing TTO scores between countries (Italy vs UKa) (N = 447)

Health stateb utilities	Italy (n = 238)	UK (n = 209)	Difference between Italy and the UK	t-test
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	t-statistic	p-value
A. Oral treatment only	0.900 (0.097)	0.888 (0.120)	0.012 (0.108)	1.132	0.258
Health states with oral and injectable treatment
B. Reconstitution, waiting, needle handling	0.868 (0.109)	0.858 (0.165)	0.010 (0.138)	0.779	0.437
C. Reconstitution, waiting	0.872 (0.109)	0.863 (0.161)	0.009 (0.136)	0.681	0.496
D. Reconstitution, needle handling	0.879 (0.102)	0.868 (0.159)	0.011 (0.132)	0.885	0.377
E. Reconstitution	0.884 (0.100)	0.874 (0.157)	0.010 (0.130)	0.804	0.422
F. Needle handling	0.884 (0.101)	0.874 (0.156)	0.010 (0.130)	0.781	0.435
G. No inconveniences	0.890 (0.100)	0.878 (0.156)	0.012 (0.129)	0.989	0.323

Notes:

a UK data adapted with permission from Matza LS, Boye KS, Stewart KD, Davies EW, Paczkowski R. Health state utilities associated with attributes of weekly injection devices for treatment of type 2 diabetes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:774;¹¹

b health states B to G include health state A, plus treatment with a weekly injection. Independent t-tests were used.

Abbreviation: TTO, time trade-off.

Table 4 t-tests comparing TTO disutility scores between countries (Italy vs UKa) (N = 447)

Health stateb disutilitiesc	Italy (n = 238)	UK (n = 209)	Difference between Italy and the UK	t-test
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	t-statistic	p-value
Disutilities relative to health state A
A vs B: Oral treatment only vs reconstitution, waiting, needle handling	−0.032 (0.059)	−0.030 (0.073)	−0.001 (0.066)	−0.212	0.832
A vs C: Oral treatment only vs reconstitution, waiting	−0.027 (0.058)	−0.025 (0.066)	−0.003 (0.062)	−0.474	0.636
A vs D: Oral treatment only vs reconstitution, needle handling	−0.020 (0.040)	−0.020 (0.063)	−0.000 (0.052)	−0.082	0.935
A vs E: Oral treatment only vs reconstitution	−0.015 (0.032)	−0.014 (0.058)	−0.002 (0.046)	−0.343	0.732
A vs F: Oral treatment only vs needle handling	−0.016 (0.033)	−0.014 (0.058)	−0.002 (0.047)	−0.411	0.681
A vs G: Oral treatment only vs no inconveniences	−0.009 (0.025)	−0.010 (0.056)	0.001 (0.042)	0.167	0.867
Disutilities relative to health state G
G vs B: No inconveniences vs reconstitution, waiting, needle handling	−0.022 (0.052)	−0.020 (0.042)	−0.002 (0.048)	−0.455	0.649
G vs C: No inconveniences vs reconstitution, waiting	−0.018 (0.052)	−0.014 (0.032)	−0.003 (0.044)	−0.865	0.388
G vs D: No inconveniences vs reconstitution, needle handling	−0.011 (0.030)	−0.010 (0.027)	−0.001 (0.029)	−0.412	0.681
G vs E: No inconveniences vs reconstitution	−0.006 (0.021)	−0.004 (0.016)	−0.002 (0.019)	−1.281	0.201
G vs F: No inconveniences vs needle handling	−0.006 (0.021)	−0.004 (0.015)	−0.003 (0.018)	−1.512	0.131

Notes:

a UK data adapted with permission from Matza LS, Boye KS, Stewart KD, Davies EW, Paczkowski R. Health state utilities associated with attributes of weekly injection devices for treatment of type 2 diabetes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:774;¹¹

b health states B to G include health state A, plus treatment with a weekly injection;

c disutilities computed for “A. Oral only” as x – A; and for “G. No inconveniences (Dulaglutide)” as x – G. Independent t-tests were used.

Abbreviation: TTO, time trade-off.

MatzaLSBoyeKSStewartKDDaviesEWPaczkowskiRHealth state utilities associated with attributes of weekly injection devices for treatment of type 2 diabetesBMC Health Serv Res20171777429178918

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar