Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29713494›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2018

Developing and feasibility testing of data collection methods for an economic evaluation of a supported selfmanagement programme for adults with a learning disability and type 2 diabetes.

John L O'Dwyer, Amy M Russell, Louise D Bryant, Rebecca E A Walwyn, Alexandra M Wright-Hughes, Elizabeth H Graham, Judy M Wright, Shaista Meer, Jacqueline Birtwistle, Amanda J Farrin and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparing the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-3L in a general population sample of adults.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

John L O'Dwyer1Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Leeds, LS2 9NL UK.
Amy M Russell1Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Leeds, LS2 9NL UK.
Louise D Bryant1Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Leeds, LS2 9NL UK.
Rebecca E A Walwyn2Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Leeds, LS2 9NL UK.
Alexandra M Wright-Hughes2Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Leeds, LS2 9NL UK.
Elizabeth H Graham2Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Leeds, LS2 9NL UK.
Judy M Wright1Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Leeds, LS2 9NL UK.
Shaista Meer1Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Leeds, LS2 9NL UK.
Jacqueline Birtwistle1Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Leeds, LS2 9NL UK.
Amanda J Farrin2Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Leeds, LS2 9NL UK.
Allan O House1Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Leeds, LS2 9NL UK.
Claire T Hulme1Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Leeds, LS2 9NL UK.
University of Leeds · GB

Funding

Department of Health 10/102/03
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe challenges of conducting research with hard to reach vulnerable groups are particularly pertinent for people with learning disabilities. Data collection methods for previous cost and cost-effectiveness analyses of health and social care interventions targeting people with learning disabilities have relied on health care/health insurance records or data collection forms completed by the service provider rather than by people with learning disabilities themselves. This paper reports on the development and testing of data collection methods for an economic evaluation within a randomised controlled trial (RCT) for a supported self-management programme for people with mild/moderate learning disabilities and type 2 diabetes.

methodsA case finding study was conducted to identify types of health and social care use and data collection methods employed in previous studies with this population. Based on this evidence, resource use questionnaires for completion by GP staff and interviewer-administered participant questionnaires (covering a wider cost perspective and health-related quality of life) were tested within a feasibility RCT. Interviewer-administered questionnaires included the EQ-5D-3L (the NICE recommended measure for use in economic evaluation). Participants were adults > 18 years with a mild or moderate learning disability and type 2 diabetes, with mental capacity to give consent to research participation.

resultsData collection for questionnaires completed by GP staff requesting data for the last 12 months proved time intensive and difficult. Whilst 82.3% (121/147) of questionnaires were returned, up to 17% of service use items were recorded as unknown. Subsequently, a shorter recall period (4 months) led to a higher return rate but with a higher rate of missing data. Missing data for interviewer-administered participant questionnaires was > 8% but the interviewers reported difficulty with participant recall. Almost 60% (48/80) of participants had difficulty completing the EQ-5D-3L.

conclusionsFurther investigation as to how service use can be recorded is recommended. Concerns about the reliability of identifying service use data directly from participants with a learning disability due to challenges in completion, specifically around recall, remain. The degree of difficulty to complete EQ-5D-3L indicates concerns regarding the appropriateness of using this measure in its current form in research with this population.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN41897033 (registered 21 January 2013).

Indexed as

Economic evaluationEQ-5DLearning disabilitySupported self-managementType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID29713494
PMCPMC5911950
OpenAlexW2802106396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.