Browsing by Author "Kuo, Shihchen"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cost-effectiveness of Community-Based Depression Interventions for Rural and Urban Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: Projections From Program ACTIVE (Adults Coming Together to Increase Vital Exercise) II
    (American Diabetes Association, 2021) Kuo, Shihchen; de Groot, Mary; Saha, Chandan; Shubrook, Jay H.; Hornsby, W. Guyton, Jr.; Pillay, Yegan; Mather, Kieren J.; Herman, William H.; Endocrinology, IU School of Medicine
    Objective: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of the Program ACTIVE (Adults Coming Together to Increase Vital Exercise) II community-based exercise (EXER), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and EXER+CBT interventions in adults with type 2 diabetes and depression relative to usual care (UC) and each other. Research design and methods: Data were integrated into the Michigan Model for Diabetes to estimate cost and health outcomes over a 10-year simulation time horizon from the health care sector and societal perspectives, discounting costs and benefits at 3% annually. Primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Results: From the health care sector perspective, the EXER intervention strategy saved $313 (USD) per patient and produced 0.38 more QALY (cost saving), the CBT intervention strategy cost $596 more and gained 0.29 more QALY ($2,058/QALY), and the EXER+CBT intervention strategy cost $403 more and gained 0.69 more QALY ($585/QALY) compared with UC. Both EXER and EXER+CBT interventions dominated the CBT intervention. Compared with EXER, the EXER+CBT intervention strategy cost $716 more and gained 0.31 more QALY ($2,323/QALY). From the societal perspective, compared with UC, the EXER intervention strategy saved $126 (cost saving), the CBT intervention strategy cost $2,838/QALY, and the EXER+CBT intervention strategy cost $1,167/QALY. Both EXER and EXER+CBT interventions still dominated the CBT intervention. In comparison with EXER, the EXER+CBT intervention strategy cost $3,021/QALY. Results were robust in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: All three Program ACTIVE II interventions represented a good value for money compared with UC. The EXER+CBT intervention was highly cost-effective or cost saving compared with the CBT or EXER interventions.