Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Although technology-assisted diabetes prevention programs (DPPs) have been shown to improve glycemic control and weight loss, information are limited regarding relevant costs and their cost-effectiveness. To describe a retrospective within-trial cost and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to compare a digital-based DPP (d-DPP) with small group education (SGE), over a 1-year study period. The costs were summarized into direct medical costs, direct nonmedical costs (i.e., times that participants spent engaging with the interventions), and indirect costs (i.e., lost work productivity costs). The CEA was measured by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analysis was performed using nonparametric bootstrap analysis. Over 1 year, the direct medical costs, direct nonmedical costs, and indirect costs per participant were $4,556, $1,595, and $6,942 in the d-DPP group versus $4,177, $1,350, and $9,204 in the SGE group. The CEA results showed cost savings from d-DPP relative to SGE based on a societal perspective. Using a private payer perspective for d-DPP, ICERs were $4,739 and $114 to obtain an additional unit reduction in HbA1c (%) and weight (kg), and were $19,955 for an additional unit gain of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to SGE, respectively. From a societal perspective, bootstrapping results indicated that d-DPP has a 39% and a 69% probability, at a willingness-to-pay of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY, respectively, of being cost-effective. The d-DPP was cost-effective and offers the prospect of high scalability and sustainability due to its program features and delivery modes, which can be easily translated to other settings.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibad008 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!