Economic evaluation of Quality improvement interventions designed to improve glycemic control in diabetes: A systematic review and Weighted regression analysis

Diabetes Care

Volumn 41, Issue 5, 2018, Pages 985-993

  Nuckols, Teryl K ^a,b   Keeler, Emmett ^b   Anderson, Laura J ^a,c   Green, Jonas ^a   Morton, Sally C ^d   Doyle, Brian J ^e   Shetty, Kanaka ^b   Arifkhanova, Aziza ^b   Booth, Marika ^b   Shanman, Roberta ^b   Shekelle, Paul ^b,e  

^a CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e VA GREATER LOS ANGELES HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIDIABETIC AGENT; HEMOGLOBIN A1C;

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIABETES MELLITUS; DIET THERAPY; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EXERCISE; GLYCEMIC CONTROL; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEMOGLOBIN BLOOD LEVEL; HIGH INCOME COUNTRY; HUMAN; INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; WEIGHTED REGRESSION ANALYSIS; ADULT; BLOOD; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; MALE; META ANALYSIS; METABOLISM; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT;

ADULT; BLOOD GLUCOSE; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 1; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EID: 85046138790     PISSN: 01495992     EISSN: 19355548     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2337/dc17-1495/-/DC1     Document Type: Review

References (65)

1. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998;352:837-853
2. Clarke PM, Gray AM, Briggs A, Stevens RJ, Matthews DR, Holman RR; UKPDS 72 United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study. Cost-utilityanalyses of intensive blood glucose and tight blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 72). Diabetologia 2005;48:868-877
3. Gray A, Raikou M, McGuire A, et al.; United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Cost effectiveness of an intensive blood glucose control policy in patients with type 2 diabetes: economic analysis alongside randomised controlled trial (UKPDS 41). BMJ 2000;320:1373-1378
4. Ali MK, Bullard KM, Saaddine JB, Cowie CC, Imperatore G, Gregg EW. Achievement of goals in U. S. diabetes care, 1999-2010. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1613-1624
5. Porter ME. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med 2010;363:2477-2481
6. Danz MS, Rubenstein LV, Hempel S, et al. Identifying quality improvement intervention evaluations: is consensus achievable? Qual Saf Health Care 2010;19:279-283
7. Batalden PB, Davidoff F. What is "quality improvement" and how can ittransform healthcare? Qual Saf Health Care 2007;16:2-3
8. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Practice Facilitation Handbook, Module 4. Approaches to Quality Improvement [Internet], c2013. Available from https://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/prevention-chronic-care/improve/system/pfhandbook/mod4.html. Accessed 7 February 2018
9. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration. Quality Improvement, April 2011. Available from https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/quality/toolbox/508pdfs/qualityimprovement.pdf. Accessed 7 February 2018
10. American Diabetes Association. Strategies for improving care. Sec. 1. In Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2016. Diabetes Care 2016;39(Suppl. 1):S6-S12
11. Tricco AC, Ivers NM, Grimshaw JM, et al. Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies on the management of diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2012;379:2252-2261
12. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097
13. National Institute for Health Research. Systematic review of cost outcomes of quality improvement. In: PROSPERO, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk [Internet]. London, U. K., National Institute for Health Research, 2015. Available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display-record.php?ID=CRD42015014950. PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42015014950. Accessed 7 February 2018
14. Glanville J, Kaunelis D, Mensinkai S. How well do search filters perform in identifying economic evaluations in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25:522-529
15. Li R, Zhang P, Barker LE, Chowdhury FM, Zhang X. Cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent and control diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Diabetes Care 2010;33:1872-1894
16. Wubben DP, Vivian EM. Effects of pharmacist outpatient interventions on adults with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Pharmacotherapy 2008;28:421-436
17. Jackson CL, Bolen S, Brancati FL, Batts-Turner ML, Gary TL. A systematic review of interactive computer-assisted technology in diabetes care. Interactive information technology in diabetes care. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:105-110
18. Shojania KG, Ranji SR, McDonald KM, et al. Effects of quality improvement strategies for type 2 diabetes on glycemic control: a meta-regressionanalysis. JAMA 2006;296:427-440
19. Goeree R, Burke N, O'Reilly D, Manca A, Blackhouse G, Tarride JE. Transferability of economic evaluations: approaches and factors to consider when using results from one geographic area for another. Curr Med Res Opin 2007;23:671-682
20. Ivers N, Tricco AC, Trikalinos TA, et al. Seeing the forests and the trees-innovative approaches to exploring heterogeneity in systematic reviews of complex interventions to enhance health system decision-making: a protocol. Syst Rev 2014;3:88
21. The Cochrane Collaboration. Consumers and Communication Group resources for authors [Internet], 2013. Available from http://cccrg.cochrane.org/author-resources. Accessed 26 November 2016
22. Treadwell JR, Singh S, Talati R, McPheeters ML, Reston JT. A Framework for "Best Evidence" Approaches in Systematic Reviews. Rockville, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2011
23. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses [Internet]. Available from http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical-epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 7 February 2018
24. The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Available from http://handbook.cochrane.org/. Accessed 7 February 2018
25. Hempel S, Shekelle PG, Liu JL, et al. Developmentofthe QualityImprovement Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS): a tool for critical appraisal of quality improvement intervention publications. BMJ Qual Saf 2015;24:796-804
26. Nuckols TK, Escarce JJ, Asch SM. The effects of quality of care on costs: a conceptual framework. Milbank Q 2013;91:316-353
27. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (Eds). Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York City, Oxford University Press, 1996
28. Nuckols TK, Keeler E, Morton SC, et al. Economic evaluation of quality improvement interventions for bloodstream infections related to central catheters: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176:1843-1854
29. Walker DG, Wilson RF, Sharma R, et al. Best Practices for Conducting Economic Evaluations in Health Care: A Systematic Review of Quality Assessment Tools. Rockville, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2012
30. Chiou CF, Hay JW, Wallace JF, et al. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Med Care 2003;41:32-44
31. Stanley TD, Doucouliagos H. Neitherfixed nor random: weighted least squares meta-analysis. Stat Med 2015;34:2116-2127
32. Slingerland AS, Herman WH, Redekop WK, Dijkstra RF, Jukema JW, Niessen LW. Stratified patient-centered care in type 2 diabetes: a clusterrandomized, controlled clinical trial of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Diabetes Care 2013;36:3054-3061
33. Schouten LM, Niessen LW, van de Pas JW, Grol RP, Hulscher ME. Cost-effectiveness of a quality improvement collaborative focusing on patients with diabetes. Med Care 2010;48:884-891
34. Gilmer TP, Roze S, Valentine WJ, et al. Costeffectiveness of diabetes case management for low-income populations. Health Serv Res 2007;42:1943-1959
35. Dijkstra RF, Niessen LW, Braspenning JC, Adang E, Grol RT. Patient-centred and professionaldirected implementation strategies for diabetes guidelines: a cluster-randomized trial-based costeffectiveness analysis. Diabet Med 2006;23:164-170
36. Noel HC, Vogel DC, Erdos JJ, Cornwall D, Levin F. Home telehealth reduces healthcare costs. Telemed J E Health 2004;10:170-183
37. O'Reilly D, Holbrook A, Blackhouse G, Troyan S, Goeree R. Cost-effectiveness of a shared computerized decision support system for diabetes linked to electronic medical records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012;19:341-345
38. Mason JM, Young RJ, New JP, et al. Economic analysis of a telemedicine intervention to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus: illustration of a novel analytic method. Dis Manag Health Outcomes 2006;14:377-385
39. Gillett M, Dallosso HM, Dixon S, et al. Delivering the Diabetes Education and Self Management for Ongoing and Newly Diagnosed (DESMOND) programme for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 2010;341:c4093
40. Gilmer TP, O'Connor PJ, Sperl-Hillen JM, et al. Cost-effectiveness ofanelectronic medical record based clinical decision support system. Health Serv Res 2012;47:2137-2158
41. Prezio EA, Pagán JA, Shuval K, Culica D. The Community Diabetes Education (CoDE) program: cost-effectiveness and health outcomes. Am J Prev Med 2014;47:771-779
42. Gillespie P, O'Shea E, Paul G, O'Dowd T, Smith SM. Cost effectiveness of peer support for type 2 diabetes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012;28:3-11
43. Kuo S, Bryce CL, Zgibor JC, Wolf DL, Roberts MS, Smith KJ. Cost-effectiveness of implementing the Chronic Care Model for diabetes care in a military population. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:501-513
44. Brownson CA, Hoerger TJ, Fisher EB, Kilpatrick KE. Cost-effectiveness of diabetes selfmanagement programs in community primary care settings. Diabetes Educ 2009;35:761-769
45. McRae IS, Butler JR, Sibthorpe BM, et al. A cost effectiveness study of integrated care in health services delivery: a diabetes program in Australia. BMC Health Serv Res 2008;8:205
46. Huang ES, Zhang Q, Brown SE, Drum ML, Meltzer DO, Chin MH. The cost-effectiveness of improving diabetes care in U. S. federally qualified community health centers. Health Serv Res 2007;42:2174-2193; discussion 2294-2323
47. O'Reilly D, Hopkins R, Blackhouse G, et al. Long-term cost-utility analysis of a multidisciplinary primary care diabetes management program in Ontario. Can J Diabetes 2007;31:205-214
48. Brown HS 3rd, Wilson KJ, Pagán JA, et al. Costeffectiveness analysis of a community health worker intervention for low-income Hispanic adults with diabetes. Prev Chronic Dis 2012;9:E140
49. Giorda CB, Nicolucci A, Pellegrini F, et al. Improving quality of care in people with type 2 diabetes through the Associazione Medici Diabetologi-annals initiative: a long-term costeffectiveness analysis. Diabet Med 2014;31:615-623
50. Gozzoli V, Palmer AJ, Brandt A, Spinas GA. Economic and clinical impact of alternative disease management strategies for secondary prevention in type 2 diabetes in the Swiss setting. Swiss Med Wkly 2001;131:303-310
51. Elissen AM, Steuten LM, Lemmens LC, et al. Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of chronic care management for diabetes: investigating heterogeneity in outcomes. J Eval Clin Pract 2013;19:753-762
52. Bodenheimer T, Wagner EH, Grumbach K. Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness: the Chronic Care Model, part 2. JAMA 2002;288:1909-1914
53. U. S. Department of Transportation. Revised Departmental Guidance on Valuation of a Statistical Life in Economic Analysis. Washington, DC, U. S. Department of Transportation, 2016
54. Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost-effectiveness-the curious resilience of the $50, 000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med 2014;371:796-797
55. McAdam-Marx C, Dahal A, Jennings B, Singhal M, Gunning K. The effect of a diabetes collaborative care management program on clinical and economic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 2015;21:452-468
56. Rosenthal MB, Alidina S, Friedberg MW, et al. A difference-in-difference analysis of changes in quality, utilization and cost following the colorado multi-payer patient-centered medical home pilot. J Gen Intern Med 2016;31:289-296
57. Carter BL, Malone DC, Billups SJ, et al. Interpreting the findings of the IMPROVE study. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2001;58:1330-1337
58. Wagner EH, Sandhu N, Newton KM, McCulloch DK, Ramsey SD, Grothaus LC. Effect of improved glycemic control on health care costs and utilization. JAMA 2001;285:182-189
59. Sidorov J, Shull R, Tomcavage J, Girolami S, Lawton N, Harris R. Does diabetes disease management save money and improve outcomes? A report of simultaneous short-term savings and quality improvement associated with a health maintenance organization-sponsored disease management program among patients fulfilling health employer data and information set criteria. Diabetes Care 2002;25:684-689
60. National Committee for Quality Assurance. HEDIS and performance measurement [Internet], 2016. Available from http://www.ncqa.org/hedis-quality-measurement. Accessed22November 2016
61. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Accountable care organizations [Internet], 2016. Available from https://www.medicare.gov/manage-your-health/coordinating-your-care/accountable-care-organizations.html. Accessed 22 November 2016
62. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. MACRA - delivery system reform, Medicare payment reform [Internet], 2016. Available from https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/Value-Based-Programs/MACRA-MIPS-and-APMs/MACRA-MIPS-and-APMs.html. Accessed 22 November 2016
63. Totten AM, Wagner J, Tiwari A, O'Haire C, Griffin J, Walker M. Closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science (vol. 5: public reporting as a quality improvement strategy). Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2012; (208.5): 1-645
64. Damberg CL, Sorbero ME, Lovejoy SL, Martsolf G, Raaen L, Mandel D. Measuring Success in Health Care Value-Based Purchasing Programs Findings from an Environmental Scan, Literature Review, and Expert Panel Discussions. Santa Monica, CA, RAND Corporation, 2014
65. Roland M, Campbell S. Successes and failures of pay for performance in the United Kingdom. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1944-1949