Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28366085›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2017

Comparison Between Individually and Group-Based Insulin Pump Initiation by Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.

Martin Ridderstråle

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Martin Ridderstråle1 Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
Lund University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDepending on available resources, competencies, and pedagogic preference, initiation of insulin pump therapy can be performed on either an individual or a group basis. Here we compared the two models with respect to resources used.

methodsTime-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) was used to compare initiating insulin pump treatment in groups (GT) to individual treatment (IT). Activities and cost drivers were identified, timed, or estimated at location. Medical quality and patient satisfaction were assumed to be noninferior and were not measured.

resultsGT was about 30% less time-consuming and 17% less cost driving per patient and activity compared to IT. As a batch driver (16 patients in one group) GT produced an upward jigsaw-shaped accumulative cost curve compared to the incremental increase incurred by IT. Taking the alternate cost for those not attending into account, and realizing the cost of opportunity gained, suggested that GT was cost neutral already when 5 of 16 patients attended, and that a second group could be initiated at no additional cost as the attendance rate reached 15:1.

conclusionsWe found TDABC to be effective in comparing treatment alternatives, improving cost control and decision making. Everything else being equal, if the setup is available, our data suggest that initiating insulin pump treatment in groups is far more cost effective than on an individual basis and that TDABC may be used to find the balance point.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1FemaleHumansInsulin Infusion SystemsMalePatient Education as TopicTime Factorsdiabetesgroup treatmentinsulin pump treatmenttime-driven activity-based costing

Identifiers

PMID28366085
PMCPMC5588822
OpenAlexW2570928484

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.