Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

COST EFFECTIVENESS OF PEER SUPPORT FOR TYPE 2 DIABETES

  • Paddy Gillespie (a1), Eamon O'Shea (a2), Gillian Paul (a3), Tom O'Dowd (a3) and Susan M. Smith (a4)...
Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study is to examine the cost-effectiveness of a group-based peer support intervention in general practice for patients with type 2 diabetes.

Methods: Incremental cost utility analysis combining within trial and beyond trial components to compare the lifetime costs and benefits of alternative strategies: Control: standardized diabetes care; Intervention: group-based peer support in addition to standardized diabetes care. Within trial analysis was based on a cluster randomized controlled trial of 395 patients with type 2 diabetes in the east of Ireland. Beyond trial analysis was conducted using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model. Uncertainty was explored using a range of sensitivity analyses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated.

Results: Compared with the control strategy, the intervention was associated with an increase of 0.09 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], −0.05 to 0.25) in mean quality-adjusted life-years per patient and savings of €637.43 (95 percent CI, −2455.19 to 1125.45) in mean healthcare cost per patient and €623.39 (95 percent CI, −2507.98 to 1298.49) in mean total cost per patient respectively. The likelihood of the intervention being cost-effective was appreciably higher than 80 percent for a range of potential willingness-to-pay cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that while a group-based peer support intervention shows a trend toward improved risk factor management, we found no significant differences in final cost or effectiveness endpoints between intervention and control. The probabilistic results suggest that the intervention was more cost-effective, with probability values of higher than 80 percent across a range of potential cost-effectiveness threshold values.

Copyright
References
Hide All
1.American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2007. Diabetes Care. 2008;31:569615.
2.Barry M, Tilson L. Recent developments in pricing and reimbursement of medicines in Ireland. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2009;7:605611.
3.Briggs A. A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost effectiveness analysis: An illustration and application to blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:6982.
4.Campbell MK, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, et al. CONSORT statement: Extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2004;328:702708.
5.Caro JF, Fisher EB. A solution might be within people with diabetes themselves. Fam Pract. 2010;27 (Suppl 1):i1i2.
6.Brownson CA, Hoerger TJ, Fisher EB, Kilpatrick KE. Cost-effectiveness of diabetes self-management programs in community primary care settings. Diabetes Educ. 2009;35:761769.
7.Central Bank of Ireland. Dublin. www.centralbank.ie (accessed January 11, 2010).
8.Central Statistics Office. Dublin. www.cso.ie (accessed January 11, 2010).
9.Clarke PM, Gray AM, Briggs A, Stevens RJ, Matthews DR, Holman RR. Cost-utility analyses of intensive blood glucose and tight blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 72). Diabetologia. 2005;48:868877.
10.Clarke PM, Gray AM, Briggs A, et al. A model to estimate the lifetime health outcomes of patients with type2 diabetes: The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model (UKPDS no. 68). Diabetologia. 2004;47:17471759.
11.Clarke P, Gray A, Legood R, et al. The impact of diabetes-related complications on healthcare costs: Results from the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS Study No. 65). Diabet Med. 2003;20:442450.
12.Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien J, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
13.Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polsky D. Economic evaluation in clinical trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
14.Hardin JW, Hilbe JM. Generalised estimating equations. London: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press; 2003.
15.Johnston K, Gray A, Moher M, Yudkin P, Wright L, Mant D. Reporting the cost-effectiveness of interventions with nonsignificant effect differences: Example from the a trial of secondary prevention of heart disease. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:476489.
16.Massi-Benedetti M, The cost of diabetes type II in Europe: The CODE-2 study. Diabetologia. 2002;45:S1S4.
17.Mount Hood 4 Modeling Group. Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: A report on the fourth Mount Hood Challenge Meeting. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:16381646: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/reprint/30/6/1638 (accessed October 7, 2009).
18.National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; Apr 2004. www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=201974 (reference 0515).
19.Nolan JJ, O'Halloran D, McKenna TJ, Firth R, Redmond S. The cost of treating type 2 diabetes (CODEIRE). Ir Med J. 2006;99:307310.
20.Paul G, Smith SM, Whitford D, O'Shea E, O'Kelly F, O'Dowd T. Peer support in type 2 diabetes: A randomised controlled trial in primary care with parallel economic and qualitative analyses: Pilot study and protocol. BMC Fam Pract. 2007;8:45.
21.Smith SM, Paul G, Kelly A, Whitford DL, O'Shea E, O'Dowd T. Peer support for type 2 diabetes: A cluster randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2011;342:d715.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary Materials

Gillespie et al. supplementary material
Supplementary tables

 Word (248 KB)
248 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 6
Total number of PDF views: 39 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 241 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.