Cited by 95Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeDiabetes Management and EducationMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Cost-effectiveness of automated telephone self-management support with nurse care management among patients with diabetes

Open access
Handley, M. A., Shumway, M., Schillinger, D.·2008·The Annals of Family Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of an automated telephone self-management support with nurse care management (ATSM) intervention for patients with type 2 diabetes, which was tested among patients receiving primary care in publicly funded (safety net) clinics, focusing on non-English speakers. METHODS: We performed cost analyses in the context of a randomized trial among primary care patients comparing the effects of ATSM (n = 112) and usual care (n = 114) on diabetes-related outcomes in 4 San Francisco safety net clinics. ATSM uses interactive phone technology to provide surveillance, patient education, and one-on-one counseling, and was implemented in 3 languages for a 9-month period. Cost utility was examined using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) derived from changes in scores on the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey. We also examined cost-effectiveness for costs associated with a 10% increase in the proportion of patients meeting diabetes-specific public health goals for increasing exercise, as recommended by Healthy People 2010 and the American Diabetes Association. RESULTS: The annual cost of the ATSM intervention per QALY gained, relative to usual care, was $65,167 for start-up and ongoing implementation costs combined, and $32,333 for ongoing implementation costs alone. In sensitivity analyses, costs per QALY ranged from $29,402 to $72,407. The per-patient cost to achieve a 10% increase in the proportion of intervention patients meeting American Diabetes Association exercise guidelines was estimated to be $558 when all costs were considered and $277 when only ongoing costs were considered. CONCLUSIONS: The ATSM intervention for diverse patients with diabetes had a cost utility for functional outcomes similar to that of many other accepted interventions targeted at diabetes prevention and treatment, and achieved public health physical activity objectives at modest costs. Because a considerable proportion of costs were fixed, cost-utility and cost-effectiveness estimates would likely be substantially improved in a scaled-up ATSM program.

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 · 10.1370/afm.889

Cites

40 of 40 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?

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: 4

  1. Hogan P, Dall T, Nikolov P. Economic costs of diabetes in the US in 2002. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(3):917-932.
  2. Hogan P, Dall T, Nikolov P; American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the US in 2002. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(3):917-932.
  3. Gold M, Siegal J, Russell L, Weinstein M. Cost-Effectivenes in Health and Medicine. The Report on the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health in Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.
  4. Muennig P. Designing and Conducting Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Medicine and Health Care. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2002:298.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Handley, M. A., Shumway, M., & Schillinger, D.
Affiliations
San Francisco General Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Handley, M. A.
Venue
The Annals of Family Medicine
Published
2008-11-01
Volume
6
Issue
6
Pages
512-518
ISSN
  • 1544-1709 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-1717
OpenAlex
W2167011516
Cited by
95
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
19.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Annals of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University Libraries (University of Maryland) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Repository at the University of Maryland (University of Maryland College Park)
Funders
  • Commonwealth Fund
  • California Health Care Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (RR024131)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R18 HS17261, R21 HS014864)
  • University of California, San Francisco (UL1RR024131)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024131, K23 RR16539, K23RR016539)
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 Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, nursing care management, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility analysis, quality-adjusted life years, safety-net clinics, non-English speakers, physical activity, exercise recommendations, primary care, implementation costs
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Communication Barriers, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nursing Care, Patient Education as Topic, Primary Health Care, Self Care, Telephone, Program Evaluation, Quality-Adjusted Life Years

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