PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München: Selecting a target population for type 2 diabetes lifestyle prevention programs: A cost-effectiveness perspective.

Information

Clues to quality of journals

Open Access Policy of Helmholtz Association 2016

CC Licencences

Publication Metrics

Navigation

Home

Deutsch

EVA: Electronic Publishing

New EVA Application

Research

Advanced Search

Browse by ...

... HMGU-Authors/Consortia

... Organizational Structure

... Journal

... Publication Type

... Research Data

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Publication Year

Publication overview

Statistics

Statistics (last 5 years)

OA Publications

Publish

Submit Publication

Import publication from...

...EVA

Report missing publication

Highlights

Support & Contact

Contact persons

Help

Data protection

Helmholtz Open Science

JANE Journal Estimator

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Park, J.* ; Zhang, P.* ; Shao, H.* ; Laxy, M. ; Imperatore, G.*

Selecting a target population for type 2 diabetes lifestyle prevention programs: A cost-effectiveness perspective.

Diabetic Med. 39:e14847 (2022)

Postprint

DOI

PMC

	Open Access Green

Abstract
Metrics
Extra information

AIMS: Cost-effectiveness (CE) of lifestyle change programs (LCP) for type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention is influenced by a participant's risk. We identified the risk threshold of developing T2D in the intervention population that was cost-effective for three formats of the LCP: delivered in-person individually or in groups, or delivered virtually. We compared the cost-effectiveness across program formats when there were more than one cost-effective formats. METHODS: Using the CDC-RTI T2D diabetes CE simulation model, we estimated CEs associated with three program formats in 8 population groups with an annual T2D incidence of 1% to 8%. We generated a nationally representative simulation population for each risk level using the 2011-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data. We used an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in 25-years, to measure the CEs of the programs. We took a health care system perspective RESULTS: To achieve an ICER of $50,000/QALY or lower, the annual T2D incidence of the program participant needed to be ≥5% for the in-person individual program, ≥4% for the digital individual program, and ≥3% for the in-person group program. For those with T2D risk of ≥4%, the in-person group program always dominated the digital individual program. The in-person individual program was cost-effective compared with the in-person group program only among persons with T2D risk of ≥8%. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings could assist decision-makers in selecting the most appropriate target population for different formats of lifestyle intervention programs to prevent T2D.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Scopus
Cited By

Altmetric

4.213

0.000