Eliciting Patient Preferences for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices in Type 1 Diabetes
Author(s)
Hannah K1, Lich R2, Nair K3, Anderson HD3, Ellis S4, McQueen R5
1University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy, Denver, CO, USA, 2Lockton Companies Inc., Denver, CO, USA, 3University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO, USA, 4University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy, Aurora, CO, USA, 5University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, CO, USA
OBJECTIVES: Understanding the contributing factors that influence patient choices when considering continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices can allow providers to connect patients with the most appropriate device to improve their outcomes. The objective of this study was to elicit patient preferences for device attributes from CGM users using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey of type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients. METHODS: T1D patients ≥18 years old actively using a CGM device (n=339) were recruited from the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes patient registry to complete a web-based DCE survey. To inform the survey instrument, semi-structured interviews were conducted to generate an inventory of attributes and attribute levels to describe what patients value when selecting a CGM device. Fourteen choice-based questions measured CGM users’ preferences for seven device attributes: calibration, perceived accuracy in detecting glucose levels outside or within target range, sensor wear time, adhesive durability of sensor, method of data retrieval, ability to personalize alerts/alarms and overall ease of use in retrieving and interacting with glucose monitoring information. Random parameters logistic regression was utilized to estimate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in choosing between two hypothetical device profiles. RESULTS: A total of 134 surveys (39.5% response rate) were completed and analyzed. Method of data retrieval was the most preferred device attribute (OR: 51.3; 95% CI: 16.4-160.7). Calibration (OR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.104-0.494), adhesive durability (OR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.03-3.79), sensor wear time (OR: 6.25; 95%CI: 3.38-11.54) and alerts and alarms (OR: 3.10; 95% CI: 1.63-5.90) significantly influenced the choice of a CGM device. CONCLUSIONS: CGM users expressed a preference for devices with real-time data retrieval method, longer sensor wear time with more adhesive durability and the ability to personalize alerts and alarms. CGM devices that require calibration are less preferred.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2021-05, ISPOR 2021, Montreal, Canada
Value in Health, Volume 24, Issue 5, S1 (May 2021)
Code
PDB40
Topic
Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Stated Preference & Patient Satisfaction
Disease
Medical Devices