• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

量化服药预防不良健康结局的效用:一项横断面调查。

Quantifying the utility of taking pills for preventing adverse health outcomes: a cross-sectional survey.

作者信息

Hutchins Robert, Pignone Michael P, Sheridan Stacey L, Viera Anthony J

机构信息

Health Care and Prevention MD-MPH Program, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine and Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.

Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2015 May 11;5(5):e006505. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006505.

DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006505
PMID:25967985
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4431138/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The utility value attributed to taking pills for prevention can have a major effect on the cost-effectiveness of interventions, but few published studies have systematically quantified this value. We sought to quantify the utility value of taking pills used for prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

Central North Carolina.

PARTICIPANTS

708 healthcare employees aged 18 years and older.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Utility values for taking 1 pill/day, assessed using time trade-off, modified standard gamble and willingness-to-pay methods.

RESULTS

Mean age of respondents was 43 years (19-74). The majority of the respondents were female (83%) and Caucasian (80%). Most (80%) took at least 2 pills/day. Mean utility values for taking 1 pill/day using the time trade-off method were: 0.9972 (95% CI 0.9962 to 0.9980). Values derived from the standard gamble and willingness-to-pay methods were 0.9967 (0.9954 to 0.9979) and 0.9989 (95% CI 0.9986 to 0.9991), respectively. Utility values varied little across characteristics such as age, sex, race, education level or number of pills taken per day.

CONCLUSIONS

The utility value of taking pills daily in order to prevent an adverse CVD health outcome is approximately 0.997.

摘要

目的

服用预防药物的效用价值可能对干预措施的成本效益产生重大影响,但很少有已发表的研究系统地量化这一价值。我们试图量化用于预防心血管疾病(CVD)的药物服用的效用价值。

设计

横断面调查。

地点

北卡罗来纳州中部。

参与者

708名18岁及以上的医疗保健员工。

主要和次要结果

使用时间权衡法、改良标准博弈法和支付意愿法评估每天服用1片药的效用价值。

结果

受访者的平均年龄为43岁(19 - 74岁)。大多数受访者为女性(83%)和白种人(80%)。大多数人(80%)每天至少服用2片药。使用时间权衡法得出的每天服用1片药的平均效用价值为:0.9972(95%置信区间0.9962至0.9980)。通过标准博弈法和支付意愿法得出的值分别为0.9967(0.9954至0.9979)和0.9989(95%置信区间0.9986至0.9991)。效用价值在年龄、性别、种族、教育水平或每天服药数量等特征方面变化不大。

结论

为预防不良心血管疾病健康结果而每日服药的效用价值约为0.997。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c230/4431138/c62c252f15c3/bmjopen2014006505f02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c230/4431138/a7a22dc0fccb/bmjopen2014006505f01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c230/4431138/c62c252f15c3/bmjopen2014006505f02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c230/4431138/a7a22dc0fccb/bmjopen2014006505f01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c230/4431138/c62c252f15c3/bmjopen2014006505f02.jpg

相似文献

1
Quantifying the utility of taking pills for preventing adverse health outcomes: a cross-sectional survey.量化服药预防不良健康结局的效用:一项横断面调查。
BMJ Open. 2015 May 11;5(5):e006505. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006505.
2
Quantifying the utility of taking pills for cardiovascular prevention.量化服用药物进行心血管疾病预防的效用。
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015 Mar;8(2):155-63. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.001240. Epub 2015 Feb 3.
3
Vision and quality-of-life.视力与生活质量。
Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1999;97:473-511.
4
[Oral contraceptives: knowledge and compliance].[口服避孕药:知识与依从性]
Ugeskr Laeger. 1993 Nov 1;155(44):3546-50.
5
A novel, multi-ingredient supplement to manage elevated blood lipids in patients with no evidence of cardiovascular disease: a pilot study.一种用于管理无心血管疾病证据患者血脂升高的新型多成分补充剂:一项试点研究。
Altern Ther Health Med. 2014 Sep-Oct;20(5):18-23.
6
User characteristics and oral contraceptive compliance in Egypt.埃及的用户特征与口服避孕药依从性
Stud Fam Plann. 1994 Sep-Oct;25(5):284-92.
7
Assessing values for health: numeracy matters.评估健康价值:算术能力很重要。
Med Decis Making. 2001 Sep-Oct;21(5):382-90. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0102100505.
8
Results of a Markov model analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness of a single tablet of fixed-dose amlodipine and atorvastatin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in Korea.评估固定剂量氨氯地平和阿托伐他汀单片用于韩国心血管疾病一级预防的成本效益的马尔可夫模型分析结果。
Clin Ther. 2009 Oct;31(10):2189-203; discussion 2150-1. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2009.10.015.
9
Bleeding out the quality-adjusted life years: evaluating the burden of primary dysmenorrhea using time trade-off and willingness-to-pay methods.失血导致调整后的生命年数减少:使用时间权衡和意愿支付方法评估原发性痛经的负担。
Pain. 2017 Nov;158(11):2259-2267. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001028.
10
Gaps in cardiovascular medication taking: the tip of the iceberg.心血管药物服用方面的差距:冰山一角。
J Gen Intern Med. 1993 Dec;8(12):659-66. doi: 10.1007/BF02598282.

引用本文的文献

1
Cost-Effectiveness of a Polypill for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in an Underserved Population.在服务不足人群中使用复方制剂预防心血管疾病的成本效益
JAMA Cardiol. 2025 Mar 1;10(3):224-233. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2024.4812.
2
Immediate Versus 5-Year Risk-Guided Initiation of Treatment for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease for Australians Aged 40 Years: A Health Economic Analysis.40岁澳大利亚人原发性心血管疾病预防治疗的即时启动与5年风险引导启动:一项健康经济分析
Pharmacoeconomics. 2025 Mar;43(3):331-349. doi: 10.1007/s40273-024-01454-z. Epub 2024 Dec 2.
3
Quantifying the impact of taking medicines for primary prevention: a time-trade off study to elicit direct treatment disutility in the UK.

本文引用的文献

1
Quantifying the utility of taking pills for cardiovascular prevention.量化服用药物进行心血管疾病预防的效用。
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015 Mar;8(2):155-63. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.001240. Epub 2015 Feb 3.
2
Patient-accessible tool for shared decision making in cardiovascular primary prevention: balancing longevity benefits against medication disutility.心血管病一级预防中用于共同决策的患者可及工具:权衡长寿益处与药物负效用
Circulation. 2014 Jun 17;129(24):2539-2546. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.007595. Epub 2014 Apr 17.
3
Effect of including cancer mortality on the cost-effectiveness of aspirin for primary prevention in men.
量化初级预防药物治疗的影响:在英国进行时间权衡研究以引出直接治疗不便利。
BMJ Open. 2023 Sep 21;13(9):e063800. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063800.
4
Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Team-Based Care for Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis and Simulation Study.基于团队的高血压护理的有效性和成本效益:一项荟萃分析和模拟研究。
Hypertension. 2023 Jun;80(6):1199-1208. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.122.20292. Epub 2023 Mar 8.
5
Cost Effectiveness of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Compared with Home or Clinic Blood Pressure Monitoring for Diagnosing Hypertension in Australia.在澳大利亚,动态血压监测与家庭或诊所血压监测用于诊断高血压的成本效益比较
Pharmacoecon Open. 2023 Jan;7(1):49-62. doi: 10.1007/s41669-022-00364-0. Epub 2022 Sep 19.
6
Priorities among effective clinical preventive services in British Columbia, Canada.加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省有效临床预防服务的优先事项。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Apr 26;22(1):564. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07871-0.
7
Beyond 10-Year Risk: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Statins for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.超越 10 年风险:他汀类药物用于心血管疾病一级预防的成本效益分析。
Circulation. 2022 Apr 26;145(17):1312-1323. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.057631. Epub 2022 Mar 7.
8
Cost-effectiveness of Icosapent Ethyl for High-risk Patients With Hypertriglyceridemia Despite Statin Treatment.依折麦布辛伐他汀与icosapent ethyl 治疗高风险高甘油三酯血症患者的成本效果比较。
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Feb 1;5(2):e2148172. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.48172.
9
Cost-effectiveness of Dapagliflozin for Treatment of Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.达格列净治疗射血分数降低的心力衰竭患者的成本效益分析。
JAMA Cardiol. 2021 Aug 1;6(8):926-935. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2021.1437.
10
Cost-Effectiveness of Hypertension Treatment by Pharmacists in Black Barbershops.高血压患者在黑人理发店接受药剂师治疗的成本效益。
Circulation. 2021 Jun 15;143(24):2384-2394. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.051683. Epub 2021 Apr 15.
纳入癌症死亡率对男性阿司匹林一级预防成本效果的影响。
J Gen Intern Med. 2013 Nov;28(11):1483-91. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2465-6. Epub 2013 May 17.
4
Comparative effectiveness of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and warfarin in the management of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.达比加群、利伐沙班、阿哌沙班和华法林在非瓣膜性心房颤动患者管理中的疗效比较。
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013 Aug;94(2):269-76. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2013.83. Epub 2013 Apr 25.
5
Cost-effectiveness of apixaban compared with warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.阿哌沙班与华法林预防房颤卒中的成本效果比较。
PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47473. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047473. Epub 2012 Oct 9.
6
Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared to warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.利伐沙班与华法林预防房颤卒中的成本效果比较。
Am J Cardiol. 2012 Sep 15;110(6):845-51. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.05.011. Epub 2012 May 30.
7
Cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel plus aspirin for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in whom warfarin is unsuitable.氯吡格雷联合阿司匹林用于不适合使用华法林的房颤患者卒中预防的成本效益。
Am J Cardiol. 2012 Apr 1;109(7):1020-5. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.11.034. Epub 2012 Jan 3.
8
Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran for stroke prophylaxis in atrial fibrillation.达比加群酯预防房颤卒中的成本效果分析。
Circulation. 2011 Jun 7;123(22):2562-70. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.985655. Epub 2011 May 23.
9
Statin treatment for primary prevention of vascular disease: whom to treat? Cost-effectiveness analysis.他汀类药物治疗用于血管疾病一级预防:治疗谁?成本效益分析。
BMJ. 2011 Mar 30;342:d1672. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d1672.
10
Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran compared with warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.达比加群酯与华法林预防房颤卒中的成本效果比较。
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jan 4;154(1):1-11. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-154-1-201101040-00289. Epub 2010 Nov 1.