Socioeconomic Differences in Preferences and Willingness-to-Pay for Insulin Delivery Systems in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An evaluation of patients' preferences is necessary to understand the demand for different insulin delivery systems. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and patients' preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for various attributes of insulin administration for diabetes management. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to determine patients; preferences and their WTP for hypothetical insulin treatments. Both self-reported annual household income and education completed were used to explore differences in treatment preferences and WTP for different attributes of treatment across different levels of SES. RESULTS: The DCE questionnaire was successfully completed by 274 patients. Overall, glucose control was the most valued attribute by all socioeconomic groups, while route of insulin delivery was not as important. Patients with higher incomes were willing to pay significantly more for better glucose control and to avoid adverse events compared to lower income groups. In addition, they were willing to pay more for an oral short-acting insulin ($Can 71.65 [95% confidence interval, $40.68, $102.62]) compared to the low income group ($Can 9.85 [95% confidence interval, 14.86, 34.56; P < 0.01]). Conversely, there were no differences in preferences when the sample was stratified by level of education. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that preferences and WTP for insulin therapy are influenced by income but not by level of education. Specifically, the higher the income, the greater desire for an oral insulin delivery system, whereas an inhaled route becomes less important for patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".