OBJECTIVE: An accounting of the resources necessary for implementation of efficacious programs is important for economic evaluations and dissemination. METHODS: A programmatic costs analysis was conducted prospectively in conjunction with an efficacy trial of Fuel Your Life (FYL), a worksite translation of the Diabetes Prevention Program. FYL was implemented through three different modalities, Group, Phone, and Self-study, using a micro-costing approach from both the employer and societal perspectives. RESULTS: The Phone modality was the most costly at $354.6 per participant, compared with $154.6 and $75.5 for the Group and Self-study modalities, respectively. With the inclusion of participant-related costs, the Phone modality was still more expensive than the Group modality but with a smaller incremental difference ($461.4 vs $368.1). CONCLUSIONS: This level of cost-related detail for a preventive intervention is rare, and our analysis can aid in the transparency of future economic evaluations.
OBJECTIVE: An accounting of the resources necessary for implementation of efficacious programs is important for economic evaluations and dissemination. METHODS: A programmatic costs analysis was conducted prospectively in conjunction with an efficacy trial of Fuel Your Life (FYL), a worksite translation of the Diabetes Prevention Program. FYL was implemented through three different modalities, Group, Phone, and Self-study, using a micro-costing approach from both the employer and societal perspectives. RESULTS: The Phone modality was the most costly at $354.6 per participant, compared with $154.6 and $75.5 for the Group and Self-study modalities, respectively. With the inclusion of participant-related costs, the Phone modality was still more expensive than the Group modality but with a smaller incremental difference ($461.4 vs $368.1). CONCLUSIONS: This level of cost-related detail for a preventive intervention is rare, and our analysis can aid in the transparency of future economic evaluations.
Authors: Robert Ratner; Ronald Goldberg; Steven Haffner; Santica Marcovina; Trevor Orchard; Sarah Fowler; Marinella Temprosa Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Elizabeth J Mayer-Davis; Karen C Sparks; Katherine Hirst; Tina Costacou; Jennifer C Lovejoy; Judith G Regensteiner; Mary A Hoskin; Andrea M Kriska; George A Bray Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Michael S Lawlor; Caroline S Blackwell; Scott P Isom; Jeffrey A Katula; Mara Z Vitolins; Timothy M Morgan; David C Goff Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: William H Herman; Sharon L Edelstein; Robert E Ratner; Maria G Montez; Ronald T Ackermann; Trevor J Orchard; Mary A Foulkes; Ping Zhang; Christopher D Saudek; Morton B Brown Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2013 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Jeffrey A Katula; Mara Z Vitolins; Erica L Rosenberger; Caroline S Blackwell; Timothy M Morgan; Michael S Lawlor; David C Goff Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-05-18 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Nicholas J Haynes; Robert J Vandenberg; David M DeJoy; Mark G Wilson; Heather M Padilla; Heather S Zuercher; Melissa M Robertson Journal: Am Psychol Date: 2019-04
Authors: Phaedra S Corso; Justin B Ingels; Heather M Padilla; Heather Zuercher; David M DeJoy; Robert J Vandenberg; Mark G Wilson Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Heather M Padilla; Heather Zuercher; Melissa Robertson; David M DeJoy; Mark Wilson; Robert J Vandenberg; Phaedra S Corso Journal: Health Promot Pract Date: 2019-08-24