About this item:

501 Views | 472 Downloads

Author Notes:

Correspondence: 6101kavita@gmail.com

KS, NT, DP, KMVN, MKA, and VP have formulated the design of the economic evaluation carried out alongside the CARRS randomised controlled trial.

KS, NT, MKA, KMVN and DP have composed the questionnaires.

All authors have taken part in preparation of the manuscript and have reviewed critically for the intellectual content and approved the final version.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Subjects:

Research Funding:

The CARRS trial was funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, under contract number HHSN268200900026C, and by UnitedHealth Group, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Several members of the research team at the Public Health Foundation of India and Emory University were supported by the Fogarty International Clinical Research Scholars and Fellows program through grant number 5R24TW007988 from the National Institutes of Health, Fogarty International Center through Vanderbilt University, Emory Global Health Institute, and D43 NCDs in India Training Program through award number 1D43HD05249 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and Fogarty International Center.

Dr. Kavita Singh was supported by the Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, under award number D43TW008332 (ASCEND Research Network).

Dr. M K Ali is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health supplemental grant under award number: R01MH100390-04S1.

We also acknowledge the contributions of the software development team: Mr. Prashant Tandon and Mr. Ajeet Kushwaha.

Keywords:

  • Diabetes care
  • Economic evaluation
  • Multicomponent strategy
  • Quality improvement
  • South Asia

Rationale and protocol for estimating the economic value of a multicomponent quality improvement strategy for diabetes care in South Asia.

Show all authors Show less authors

Tools:

Journal Title:

Global Health Research and Policy

Volume:

Volume 4

Publisher:

, Pages 7-7

Type of Work:

Article | Final Publisher PDF

Abstract:

Background: Economic dimensions of implementing quality improvement for diabetes care are understudied worldwide. We describe the economic evaluation protocol within a randomised controlled trial that tested a multi-component quality improvement (QI) strategy for individuals with poorly-controlled type 2 diabetes in South Asia. Methods/design: This economic evaluation of the Centre for Cardiometabolic Risk Reduction in South Asia (CARRS) randomised trial involved 1146 people with poorly-controlled type 2 diabetes receiving care at 10 diverse diabetes clinics across India and Pakistan. The economic evaluation comprises both a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis (mean 2.5 years follow up) and a microsimulation model-based cost-utility analysis (life-time horizon). Effectiveness measures include multiple risk factor control (achieving HbA1c < 7% and blood pressure < 130/80 mmHg and/or LDL-cholesterol< 100 mg/dl), and patient reported outcomes including quality adjusted life years (QALYs) measured by EQ-5D-3 L, hospitalizations, and diabetes related complications at the trial end. Cost measures include direct medical and non-medical costs relevant to outpatient care (consultation fee, medicines, laboratory tests, supplies, food, and escort/accompanying person costs, transport) and inpatient care (hospitalization, transport, and accompanying person costs) of the intervention compared to usual diabetes care. Patient, healthcare system, and societal perspectives will be applied for costing. Both cost and health effects will be discounted at 3% per year for within trial cost-effectiveness analysis over 2.5 years and decision modelling analysis over a lifetime horizon. Outcomes will be reported as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) to achieve multiple risk factor control, avoid diabetes-related complications, or QALYs gained against varying levels of willingness to pay threshold values. Sensitivity analyses will be performed to assess uncertainties around ICER estimates by varying costs (95% CIs) across public vs. private settings and using conservative estimates of effect size (95% CIs) for multiple risk factor control. Costs will be reported in US$ 2018. Discussion: We hypothesize that the additional upfront costs of delivering the intervention will be counterbalanced by improvements in clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes, thereby rendering this multi-component QI intervention cost-effective in resource constrained South Asian settings. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01212328.

Copyright information:

© The Author(s) 2019

This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Export to EndNote