ArticleDigital health
Cost-effectiveness of a digital supportive healthcare pathway for type 2 diabetes compared to usual care in Belgium.
Article in Digital health. 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 of Methods for Extrapolating Costs and Effects in Economic Evaluations of Remote Monitoring.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Review
- Nanostructured electrode materials and flexible-substrate engineering for wearable multi-analyte biosensors in diabetes monitoring and personalized care: a comprehensive review.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2026Review
- Federated multimodal AI for precision-equitable diabetes care.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a digital supportive healthcare pathway in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) compared to usual care. Methods: An age-dependent Markov model was applied from a healthcare payer perspective projecting results of a clinical trial study over a time horizon of 22 years assuming a continuous implementation of the intervention every year, 24/7. The setting was Flanders (Belgium). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: The hybrid care pathway led to a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain of 5.97, while the costs increased with €663,036. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €110,989/QALY. With a cost-effectiveness threshold of 45,000€/QALY, the hybrid care pathway was found not cost-effective compared to the usual care trajectory. Sensitivity analyses showed that over 50% of iterations exceeded the threshold, with a cost-effectiveness probability of 13.12% at €45,000/QALY. Conclusions: This cost-effectiveness analysis indicates that a hybrid care pathway is unlikely to be a cost-effective approach compared to the standard care trajectory in patients with T2DM. Nevertheless, the exploration of technology-driven healthcare pathways are vital for advancing patient well-being, emphasizing the need for further research to optimize resource utilization and enhance outcomes effectively.
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.