ArticleCJC open2021
Cost-Comparison Analysis of a Physician-Delivered Step-Count Prescription Strategy.
Article in CJC open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncrements of 1000 steps/d predict cardiovascular disease (CVD) event reductions. In adults with type 2 diabetes and/or hypertension, our
methodsWe considered Canadians aged 55 to 74 years with type 2 diabetes and/or hypertension. Using time estimates from our trial, we computed nursing costs corresponding to patient support time over 1 year, and pedometer costs for an anticipated 50% of patients without a smartphone. We estimated the number of CVD hospitalizations, the reduction expected with a mean 1000 steps/d increase, and the associated savings. We calculated the net cost (savings), the proportion of patients with their own device required for cost neutrality, and costs (savings) if all patients needed to be provided with a device.
resultsAt an average intervention cost of $51.28/patient, the total cost would be $168 million. With an estimated 8875 CVD events prevented, $208 million would be saved. This savings would result in ~$40 million in net savings with 50% device ownership, cost neutrality with 25% device ownership, and ~$42 million in net costs if all patients required the healthcare system to provide a device.
conclusionsAt current levels of smartphone ownership, adoption of the SMARTER strategy is cost-saving to cost-neutral from the healthcare system perspective.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.