ArticleCureus2025
Group Education and Communities of Practice: A Sustainable Model for Promoting Healthy Habits and Valuing Professional Work.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionConventional one-to-one health education models face scalability and sustainability limitations. Group education and communities of practice may simultaneously improve reach, effectiveness, and economic sustainability. We sought to demonstrate, using a microeconomic model contextualized by integrative evidence, that group-based education and communities of practice represent economically sustainable and scalable strategies for health promotion that can enhance professional value while maintaining or improving clinical outcomes documented in existing literature.
methodsWe developed a theoretical-propositional model grounded in an integrative review (2010-2025) and a session-level microeconomic simulation comparing individual versus group formats under realistic market assumptions in Brazil (currency: Brazilian Real, R$; year 2025). Outcomes included gross revenue, net margin, average cost per participant, and break-even price. Scenarios incorporated group sizes (10-30), online versus in-person delivery, attendance (70%-100%), and variable costs (R$0-R$20 per participant). We interpreted results alongside published health economic evaluations of structured group education and shared/telemedicine group visits.
resultsIn the base case (N=20; online; price R$120; fixed cost R$300; variable cost R$0; 100% attendance), net margin was R$2,100 per one-hour session; a 12-week program reached R$25,200 cumulative margin. In-person with R$10 per participant variable cost and 85% attendance (17 attendees) yielded approximately R$790 per session in conservative operational designs and about R$9,480 over 12 weeks. Group formats exhibited strong economies of scale with robustness in sensitivity analyses.
conclusionGroup education and communities of practice present a sustainable, scalable approach to health promotion that can improve access, leverage peer support, and enhance professional value. Complementary evidence from diabetes education, telemedicine group visits, school- and community-based programs, and public health return-on-investment analyses supports the potential for favorable economic performance without sacrificing effectiveness.
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.