Wen Ye1, Shihchen Kuo2, Edith C Kieffer3, Gretchen Piatt4, Brandy Sinco3, Gloria Palmisano5, Michael S Spencer6, William H Herman2. 1. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI wye@umich.edu. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. University of Michigan School of Social Work, Ann Arbor, MI. 4. Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI. 5. Community Health and Social Service Center, Inc., Detroit, MI. 6. University of Washington School of Social Work, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To simulate the long-term cost-effectiveness of a peer leader (PL)-led diabetes self-management support (DSMS) program following a structured community health worker (CHW)-led diabetes self-management education (DSME) program in reducing risks of complications in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The trial randomized 222 Latino adults with T2D to 1) enhanced usual care (EUC); 2) a CHW-led, 6-month DSME program and 6 months of CHW-delivered monthly telephone outreach (CHW only); or 3) a CHW-led, 6-month DSME program and 12 months of PL-delivered weekly group sessions with telephone outreach to those unable to attend (CHW + PL). Empirical data from the trial and the validated Michigan Model for Diabetes were used to estimate cost and health outcomes over a 20-year time horizon from a health care sector perspective, discounting both costs and benefits at 3% annually. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Over 20 years, the CHW + PL intervention had an ICER of $28,800 and $5,900 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with the EUC and CHW-only interventions, respectively. The CHW-only intervention had an ICER of $430,600 per QALY gained compared with the EUC intervention. In sensitivity analyses, the results comparing the CHW + PL with EUC and CHW-only interventions were robust to changes in intervention effects and costs. CONCLUSIONS: The CHW + PL-led DSME/DSMS intervention improved health and provided good value compared with the EUC intervention. The 6-month CHW-led DSME intervention without further postintervention CHW support was not cost effective in Latino adults with T2D.
OBJECTIVE: To simulate the long-term cost-effectiveness of a peer leader (PL)-led diabetes self-management support (DSMS) program following a structured community health worker (CHW)-led diabetes self-management education (DSME) program in reducing risks of complications in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The trial randomized 222 Latino adults with T2D to 1) enhanced usual care (EUC); 2) a CHW-led, 6-month DSME program and 6 months of CHW-delivered monthly telephone outreach (CHW only); or 3) a CHW-led, 6-month DSME program and 12 months of PL-delivered weekly group sessions with telephone outreach to those unable to attend (CHW + PL). Empirical data from the trial and the validated Michigan Model for Diabetes were used to estimate cost and health outcomes over a 20-year time horizon from a health care sector perspective, discounting both costs and benefits at 3% annually. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Over 20 years, the CHW + PL intervention had an ICER of $28,800 and $5,900 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with the EUC and CHW-only interventions, respectively. The CHW-only intervention had an ICER of $430,600 per QALY gained compared with the EUC intervention. In sensitivity analyses, the results comparing the CHW + PL with EUC and CHW-only interventions were robust to changes in intervention effects and costs. CONCLUSIONS: The CHW + PL-led DSME/DSMS intervention improved health and provided good value compared with the EUC intervention. The 6-month CHW-led DSME intervention without further postintervention CHW support was not cost effective in Latino adults with T2D.
Authors: Honghong Zhou; Deanna J M Isaman; Shari Messinger; Morton B Brown; Ronald Klein; Michael Brandle; William H Herman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Michael S Spencer; Ann-Marie Rosland; Edith C Kieffer; Brandy R Sinco; Melissa Valerio; Gloria Palmisano; Michael Anderson; J Ricardo Guzman; Michele Heisler Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Verughese Jacob; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; David P Hopkins; Jeffrey A Reynolds; Ka Zang Xiong; Christopher D Jones; Betsy J Rodriguez; Krista K Proia; Nicolaas P Pronk; John M Clymer; Ron Z Goetzel Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: William H Polonsky; Jay Earles; Susan Smith; Donna J Pease; Mary Macmillan; Reed Christensen; Thomas Taylor; Judy Dickert; Richard A Jackson Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Fakhralddin Abbas Mohammed Elfakki; Mustafa Khidir Elnimeiri; Sami Mahmoud Assil; Ehab Ahmed Frah; Nada Hassan Ibrahim Abdalla Journal: J Family Med Prim Care Date: 2022-01-31