ArticlePloS one2022
Disease Management Program in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, long-term results of the early and established program cohort: A population-based retrospective cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- [Diabetes education and counseling in adult patients with diabetes (Update 2026)].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Review
- Article
- The discrepancy between managing the disease and a disease management program in systemic melanoma therapy.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2025Article
- Effects of the Copenhagen Disease Management Program for Type 2 Diabetes on Healthcare Utilization.Journal of diabetes research · 2025Article
- Article
- Integrated Care as a Model for Interprofessional Disease Management and the Benefits for People Living with HIV/AIDS.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term follow up of the early and the effectiveness of the established program of the Austrian Disease Management Program (DMP) 'Therapie aktiv-Diabetes im Griff' for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus concerning mortality, major macrovascular complications, costs and process quality of care parameters.
methodsWe conducted a propensity score matched cohort study based on routine health insurance data for type 2 diabetic patients. The observational period from the matched early program cohort starts from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2017 and includes 7181 DMP participants and 21543 non-participants. In the established matched program cohort, 3087 DMP participants and 9261 non-participants were observed within January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2017.
resultsIn the early program cohort, 22.1% of the patients in the DMP-group and 29.7% in the control-group died after 8 years follow-up (HR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.66-0.73). A difference of € 1070 (95% bootstrap-T interval: € 723 - € 1412) in mean total costs per year was observed. In the established program cohort, 10.4% DMP participants died 4 years after enrollment, whereas in the control-group 11.9% of the patients died (HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.78-0.99). Healthcare utilization is higher in the DMP-group (75%-96%) compared to the control-group (63%-90%).
conclusionsThe 8-year long-term follow up of the DMP program showed a relevant improvement of survival and healthcare costs of patients with type 2 diabetes. The established program cohort had improved survival and quality of care. Our findings indicate that the DMP "Therapie aktiv" provides a long-term advantage for type 2 diabetes patients.
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.