Cited by 48Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Economic evaluation of type 2 diabetes prevention programmes: Markov model of low- and high-intensity lifestyle programmes and metformin in participants with different categories of intermediate hyperglycaemia

Open access
Roberts, Samantha, Craig, Dawn, Adler, Amanda, McPherson, Klim, Greenhalgh, Trisha·2018·BMC Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: National guidance on preventing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the UK recommends low-intensity lifestyle interventions for individuals with intermediate categories of hyperglycaemia defined in terms of impaired fasting glucose (IFG) or 'at-risk' levels of HbA1c. In a recent systematic review of economic evaluations of such interventions, most studies had evaluated intensive trial-based lifestyle programmes in participants with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). This study examines the costs and effects of different intensity lifestyle programmes and metformin in participants with different categories of intermediate hyperglycaemia. METHODS: We developed a decision tree and Markov model (50-year horizon) to compare four approaches, namely (1) a low-intensity lifestyle programme based on current NICE guidance, (2) a high-intensity lifestyle programme based on the US Diabetes Prevention Program, (3) metformin, and (4) no intervention, modelled for three different types of intermediate hyperglycaemia (IFG, IGT and HbA1c). A health system perspective was adopted and incremental analysis undertaken at an individual and population-wide level, taking England as a case study. RESULTS: Low-intensity lifestyle programmes were the most cost-effective (£44/QALY, £195/QALY and £186/QALY compared to no intervention in IGT, IFG and HbA1c, respectively). Intensive lifestyle interventions were also cost-effective compared to no intervention (£2775/QALY, £6820/QALY and £7376/QALY, respectively, in IGT, IFG and HbA1c). Metformin was cost-effective relative to no intervention (£5224/QALY, £6842/QALY and £372/QALY in IGT, IFG and HbA1c, respectively), but was only cost-effective relative to other treatments in participants identified with HbA1c. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY, low- and high-intensity lifestyle programmes were cost-effective 98%, 99% and 98% and 81%, 81% and 71% of the time in IGT, IFG and HbA1c, respectively. An England-wide programme for 50-59 year olds could reduce T2DM incidence by < 3.5% over 50 years and would cost 0.2-5.2% of the current diabetes budget for 2-9 years. DISCUSSION: This analysis suggests that current English national policy of low-intensity lifestyle programmes in participants with IFG or HbA1c will be cost-effective and have the most favourable budget impact, but will prevent only a fraction of cases of T2DM. Additional approaches to prevention need to be investigated urgently.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12916-017-0984-4

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A four-state model structure was adopted because it has been clinically validated and used in several studies in the UK context.

    “We adopted a four-state model structure: normal state (NGT), prediabetes state (PreD)/type 2 diabetes (T2D), and death (D) as it has been clinically validated and used in several studies in the UK context [14,15,21,30].”

    From Economic evaluation of wearable fitness trackers versus metformin for preventing type 2 diabetes in the UK population (2025) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Methods and Validation sections (pages not provided) describe a four-state model, verification with a clinical team in East London, and expert testing of the model structure’s face validity. The Discussion says previous economic evaluations commonly used Markov models, but it does not establish that several UK studies used this particular four-state structure. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Incremental effects from Herman et al. (2005) were used because they have been used in the most recent studies in the UK context.

    “Table 6 presents the incremental effects from Herman et al. (2005) as they have been used in the most recent studies in the U.K. context [14,21].”

    From Economic evaluation of wearable fitness trackers versus metformin for preventing type 2 diabetes in the UK population (2025) · cites this paper as [21]

    In Methods > Model parameters (page unavailable), Table 2 shows incremental utility effects used in this England-based model. It attributes those utilities to NICE guidance [32], not directly to Herman et al. (2005), and does not establish that Herman’s effects were used across recent UK studies. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The economic value of fitness trackers relative to established pharmacological treatments such as metformin is still underexplored.

    “First, the economic value of fitness trackers relative to established pharmacological treatments such as metformin [19,20] is still underexplored [21].”
  • A cycle length of one year was chosen, in line with similar studies in the UK context.

    “We chose a cycle length of one year, in line with similar studies in the UK context [14,21].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [21]Ashra NB Spong R Carter P A systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness of pragmatic lifestyle interventions for the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus in routine practice 2015 London Public Health England

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roberts, S., Craig, D., Adler, A., McPherson, K., & Greenhalgh, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • Addenbrooke's Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Roberts, Samantha
Venue
BMC Medicine
Published
2018-01-30
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
16-16
ISSN
1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2785435636
Cited by
48
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 2
FWCI
8.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research (Oxford Biomedical Research Centre)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
type 2 diabetes prevention, prediabetes, impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, HbA1c, lifestyle intervention, metformin, cost-effectiveness, Markov model, Diabetes Prevention Program, NICE guidelines, health system costs, quality-adjusted life years, willingness-to-pay threshold
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Male, Metformin

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review