ArticleBMC public health2021
Effectiveness of the German disease management programs: quasi-experimental analyses assessing the population-level health impact.
Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health Care-Related Determinants of First-Time Long-Term Care Need in Older Adults in Germany: Retrospective Cohort Study Using Claims Data.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Article
- The Utilization of Lipid-Lowering Drugs and Participation in the German Disease Management Program for Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Atherosclerotic Disease: An Analysis of Claims Data.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2026Article
- The Role of Digital Media in Chronic Disease Self-Management: Protocol for a Multimethod Study of the DISELMA Research Consortium.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- The PopGrouper as a tool for morbidity adjustment in regional comparisons of health care: an analytical framework.Research in health services & regions · 2025Article
- Article
- Correction to: Effectiveness of the German disease management programs: quasi-experimental analyses assessing the population-level health impact.BMC public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2002-2003 disease management programs (DMPs) for type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease were introduced in Germany to improve the management of these conditions. Today around 6 million Germans aged 56 and older are enrolled in one of the DMPs; however, their effect on health remains unclear.
methodsWe estimated the impact of German DMPs on circulatory and all-cause mortality using a synthetic control study. Specifically, using routinely available data, we compared pre and post-intervention trends in mortality of individuals aged 56 and older for 1998-2014 in Germany to trends in other European countries.
resultsAverage circulatory and all-cause mortality in Germany and the synthetic control was 1.63 and 3.24 deaths per 100 persons. Independent of model choice, circulatory and all-cause mortality decreased non-significantly less in Germany than in the synthetic control; for the model with a 3 year time lag, for example, by 0.12 (95%-CI: - 0.20; 0.44) and 0.22 (95%-CI: - 0.40; 0.66) deaths per 100 persons, respectively. Further main analyses, as well as sensitivity and subgroup analyses supported these results.
conclusionsWe observed no effect on circulatory or all-cause mortality at the population-level. However, confidence intervals were wide, meaning we could not reject the possibility of a positive effect. Given the substantial costs for administration and operation of the programs, further comparative effectiveness research is needed to clarify the value of German DMPs for type 2 diabetes and CHD.
Indexed as
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.