Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29225890›Full record

ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2017

Can peer support be cost saving? An economic evaluation of RAPSID: a randomized controlled trial of peer support in diabetes compared to usual care alone in East of England communities.

La'Marcus Wingate, Jonathan Graffy, Daniel Holman, David Simmons

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

La'Marcus WingateDepartment of Clinical and Administrative Pharmacy, Howard University, Washington DC, Washington, USA.
Jonathan GraffyDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Daniel HolmanDepartment of Sociological Studies, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
David SimmonsMacArthur Clinical School, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, Australia.
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBHoward University · USUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetes peer support, where one person with diabetes helps others, may improve diabetes management. The objective of this study was to perform a cost analysis of peer support strategies used in RAndomized controlled trial of Peer Support in type 2 Diabetes.

methodsWe performed a 2×2 factorial randomized cluster controlled trial in England. People with type 2 diabetes were invited to participate as either 'peer' or 'peer support facilitator' (PSF) through postal invitation predominantly from general practice. Clusters, based on local communities, were each randomly assigned to one arm of group, 1:1, both group and 1:1 or control interventions. The intervention was delivered over 8-12 months by trained PSFs, supported by monthly meetings with a diabetes nurse. Out-of-pocket expenses/service utilization were self-reported at baseline, midpoint and on trial completion. Intervention costs were collated. Non-hospital costs used National Health Service (NHS) reference costs. Hospital payments were obtained from one local commissioning group and mean payments calculated. The analysis employed a societal perspective. Costs were evaluated at the conclusion of the trial.

resultsParticipants (n=1299) were recruited across 130 clusters. The four arms were well balanced and matched (60% male, mean diabetes duration 9.5 years, mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.4+/-1.3%, 17% insulin treated). Implementation costs at 2013 rates were £13.84/participant/annum, participant out-of-pocket expenses for any intervention were £11.41/participant/annum and the NHS-incurred costs were reduced by £138.38/participant/annum. Savings for the 1:1, group and any intervention were £233.65, £90.52 and £113.13/participant/annum, respectively.

conclusionsWe conclude that both 1:1 and group diabetes peer support over 8-12 months are cost saving in this setting, although much of the benefit is largely derived by differences in self-reported healthcare utilization. Long-term benefits should be investigated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66963621.

Indexed as

Cost AnalysisDiabetesHospital costsOut of pocket costsPeer Support

Identifiers

PMID29225890
PMCPMC5706488
OpenAlexW2751651249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.