Table 4.
Attribute | Preference weight | 95% confidence interval | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Skin sensor | 0.725** | 0.552 | 0.897 | |
Control of the speed of injection | 0.455** | 0.320 | 0.591 | |
Step-by-step, on-screen instructions in real time | 0.304** | 0.182 | 0.427 | |
Injection date reminder | 0.438** | 0.292 | 0.584 | |
Electronic log | 0.497** | 0.369 | 0.626 | |
Large grip size | −0.181 | −0.424 | 0.062 | |
Out-of-pocket cost | £0 | 4.297** | 3.472 | 5.122 |
£15 | 3.571** | 2.885 | 4.256 | |
£30 | 2.844** | 2.298 | 3.391 | |
£50 | 1.876** | 1.516 | 2.236 | |
£90 | −0.061** | −0.072 | −0.049 | |
£125 | −1.755** | −2.092 | −1.418 | |
£150 | −2.965** | −3.535 | −2.396 | |
£250 | −7.807** | −9.306 | −6.308 | |
Constant for standard disposable self-injection device | 0.338 | −0.286 | 0.961 |
Notes: All variables, with the exception of out-of-pocket cost, were dichotomous and effects-coded. We present coefficients estimates for the included features, the coefficient for excluded features is computed as the negative of it. Cost was included in the model as the interaction of continuous cost and the natural log of income. The preference weights were created using the estimated coefficient for cost. The parameters were modeled with normally distributed random parameters. An error component was included to better accommodate the opt-out bias that could be caused by the standard device alternative. **P≤0.01.