ArticleDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2022
Selecting a target population for type 2 diabetes lifestyle prevention programs: A cost-effectiveness perspective.
Article in Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A scoping review on the implementation dynamics of scaling up a community-based health promotion and exercise program for older adults: opportunities and challenges.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Long-term cost-effectiveness of health behaviour intervention to manage type 2 diabetes in Nepal.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Progression to Diabetes Among Older Adults With Hemoglobin A1c-Defined Prediabetes in the US.JAMA network open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsCost-effectiveness (CE) of lifestyle change programs (LCP) for type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention is influenced by a participant's risk. We identified the risk threshold of developing T2D in the intervention population that was cost-effective for three formats of the LCP: delivered in-person individually or in groups, or delivered virtually. We compared the cost-effectiveness across program formats when there were more than one cost-effective formats.
methodsUsing the CDC-RTI T2D CE Simulation model, we estimated CEs associated with 3 program formats in 8 population groups with an annual T2D incidence of 1% to 8%. We generated a nationally representative simulation population for each risk level using the 2011-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data. We used an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in 25-years, to measure the CEs of the programs. We took a health care system perspective.
resultsTo achieve an ICER of $50,000/QALY or lower, the annual T2D incidence of the program participant needed to be ≥5% for the in-person individual program, ≥4% for the digital individual program, and ≥3% for the in-person group program. For those with T2D risk of ≥4%, the in-person group program always dominated the digital individual program. The in-person individual program was cost-effective compared with the in-person group program only among persons with T2D risk of ≥8%.
conclusionsOur findings could assist decision-makers in selecting the most appropriate target population for different formats of lifestyle intervention programs to prevent T2D.
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.