ArticleGesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))2022
[The Economic Evaluation of the GLICEMIA 2.0 Study as an Example of a Complex Intervention].
Article in Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA piggyback approach was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the prevention program delivered at the point of care pharmacy in the GLICEMIA 2.0 study that sought to guide participants in the intervention group to improved glycemic control in type 2 diabetes with sustained incentivization of lifestyle changes, therapeutic compliance, and adherence. The control group received passive medication management and monitoring.
methodsPrimary endpoint of the GLICEMIA 2.0 study was the stabilization of HbA1c values. For health economic evaluation, incremental differences in output changes were examined, defined as the difference in the distribution of the HbA1c values between both groups over time. Direct program costs and anticipated indirect costs of service utilization were used as cost parameters. A net monetary benefit approach was used to validate cost-effectiveness thresholds via the formation of ICER values.
resultsThe intervention group had significantly higher reductions in HbA
conclusionThe GLICEMIA program indicates considerable effectiveness potentials, especially for high-risk patients. The study design seems to have assisted the intervention group's adherence in contrast to the control group. Detailed impacts within the complex intervention could not be validated due to restrictions of the study design as a complex intervention. Overall, statements about effect sustainability and further utilization rates progressions are limited due to a lack of follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.