首页> 外文期刊>Clinical ophthalmology >Cost effectiveness of a telephone intervention to promote dilated fundus examination in adults with diabetes mellitus
【24h】

Cost effectiveness of a telephone intervention to promote dilated fundus examination in adults with diabetes mellitus

机译:电话干预促进成年人糖尿病眼底扩大检查的成本效益

获取原文
       

摘要

Abstract: In a clinical trial, we have previously shown that a telephone intervention can significantly increase participation in dilated fundus examination (DFE) screening among low-income adults with diabetes. Here the costs and cost-effectiveness ratio of this intervention are calculated. Intervention effectiveness was estimated as the difference in DFE utilization between the telephone intervention and print groups from the clinical trial multiplied by the size of the telephone intervention group. A micro-costing approach was used. Personnel time was aggregated from logs kept during the clinical trial of the intervention. Wage rates were taken from a commercial compensation database. Telephone charges were estimated based on prevailing fees. The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the ratio of total costs of the intervention to the number of DFEs gained by the intervention. A sensitivity analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of a more limited telephone intervention. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis using bootstrap samples from the clinical trial results quantified the uncertainties in resource utilization and intervention effectiveness. Net intervention costs were US$18,676.06, with an associated gain of 43.7 DFEs and 16.4 new diagnoses of diabetic retinopathy. The cost-effectiveness ratio is US$427.37 per DFE gained. A restricted intervention limiting the number of calls to 5, as opposed to 7, would achieve the same results, but would cost approximately 17% less. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the 5th and 95th percentiles of the cost-effectiveness ratio were US$304.05 and US$692.52 per DFE gained, respectively. Our telephone intervention is more expensive than simple mail or telephone reminders used in other settings to promote preventive care; it is, however, also considerably more effective, and is effective in a low-income minority population at greater risk for diabetes complications. The costs are dominated by labor costs, and may be substantially defrayed, without loss of effectiveness, by restricting the number of telephone calls to 5 per patient.
机译:摘要:在一项临床试验中,我们以前已经证明,电话干预可以显着增加低收入糖尿病成年人眼底膨胀检查(DFE)筛查的参与。在此计算此干预的成本和成本效益比。估计干预效果是通过临床试验中电话干预组和印刷组之间DFE利用率的差异乘以电话干预组的规模得出的。使用了微成本法。从干预临床试验期间保存的日志中汇总人员时间。工资率取自商业补偿数据库。电话费是根据现行费用估算的。成本效益比计算为干预总成本与干预获得的DFE数量之比。敏感性分析估计了更有限的电话干预的成本效益。使用来自临床试验结果的自举样本进行的概率敏感性分析量化了资源利用和干预效果的不确定性。净干预成本为18,676.06美元,相关收益为43.7 DFE和16.4糖尿病视网膜病变的新诊断。每个DFE获得的成本效益比为427.37美元。将呼叫数限制为5(而不是7)的受限干预将获得相同的结果,但成本降低约17%。在概率敏感性分析中,成本效益比的第5个百分点和第95个百分点分别为每个DFE获得304.05美元和692.52美元。我们进行电话干预的费用要比在其他环境中用于促进预防保健的简单邮件或电话提醒的费用更高;但是,它也非常有效,并且在患有糖尿病并发症风险较高的低收入少数人群中有效。成本主要由人工成本支配,并且可以通过将每名患者的电话数量限制为5次来实质上支付费用,而不会降低效率。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号