Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Diabet Med ; 34(8): 1136-1144, 2017 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28294392

RESUMO

AIM: To analyse the cost-effectiveness of different interventions for Type 2 diabetes prevention within a common framework. METHODS: A micro-simulation model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a range of diabetes prevention interventions including: (1) soft drinks taxation; (2) retail policy in socially deprived areas; (3) workplace intervention; (4) community-based intervention; and (5) screening and intensive lifestyle intervention in individuals with high diabetes risk. Within the model, individuals follow metabolic trajectories (for BMI, cholesterol, systolic blood pressure and glycaemia); individuals may develop diabetes, and some may exhibit complications of diabetes and related disorders, including cardiovascular disease, and eventually die. Lifetime healthcare costs, employment costs and quality-adjusted life-years are collected for each person. RESULTS: All interventions generate more life-years and lifetime quality-adjusted life-years and reduce healthcare spending compared with doing nothing. Screening and intensive lifestyle intervention generates greatest lifetime net benefit (£37) but is costly to implement. In comparison, soft drinks taxation or retail policy generate lower net benefit (£11 and £11) but are cost-saving in a shorter time period, preferentially benefit individuals from deprived backgrounds and reduce employer costs. CONCLUSION: The model enables a wide range of diabetes prevention interventions to be evaluated according to cost-effectiveness, employment and equity impacts over the short and long term, allowing decision-makers to prioritize policies that maximize the expected benefits, as well as fulfilling other policy targets, such as addressing social inequalities.


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/prevenção & controle , Dieta Saudável , Política de Saúde , Promoção da Saúde/economia , Estilo de Vida Saudável , Modelos Econômicos , Qualidade de Vida , Bebidas Gaseificadas/efeitos adversos , Bebidas Gaseificadas/economia , Simulação por Computador , Redução de Custos , Análise Custo-Benefício , Custos e Análise de Custo , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/sangue , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/diagnóstico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/economia , Dieta Saudável/economia , Inglaterra , Educação em Saúde/economia , Inquéritos Epidemiológicos , Humanos , Programas de Rastreamento/economia , Características de Residência , Impostos , Local de Trabalho
2.
Diabet Med ; 34(5): 632-640, 2017 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28075544

RESUMO

AIMS: To develop a cost-effectiveness model to compare Type 2 diabetes prevention programmes targeting different at-risk population subgroups with a lifestyle intervention of varying intensity. METHODS: An individual patient simulation model was constructed to simulate the development of diabetes in a representative sample of adults without diabetes from the UK population. The model incorporates trajectories for HbA1c , 2-h glucose, fasting plasma glucose, BMI, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol. Patients can be diagnosed with diabetes, cardiovascular disease, microvascular complications of diabetes, cancer, osteoarthritis and depression, or can die. The model collects costs and utilities over a lifetime horizon. The perspective is the UK National Health Service and personal social services. We used the model to evaluate the population-wide impact of targeting a lifestyle intervention of varying intensity to six population subgroups defined as high risk for diabetes. RESULTS: The intervention produces 0.0003 to 0.0009 incremental quality-adjusted life years and saves up to £1.04 per person in the general population, depending upon the subgroup targeted. Cost-effectiveness increases with intervention intensity. The most cost-effective options are to target individuals with HbA1c > 42 mmol/mol (6%) or with a high Finnish Diabetes Risk (FINDRISC) probability score (> 0.1). CONCLUSION: The model indicates that diabetes prevention interventions are likely to be cost-effective and may be cost-saving over a lifetime. In the model, the criteria for selecting at-risk individuals differentially impact upon diabetes and cardiovascular disease outcomes, and on the timing of benefits. These findings have implications for deciding who should be targeted for diabetes prevention interventions.


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/prevenção & controle , Prevenção Primária , Comportamento de Redução do Risco , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Doenças Cardiovasculares/etiologia , Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Análise Custo-Benefício , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicações , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/economia , Feminino , Promoção da Saúde/economia , Promoção da Saúde/métodos , Humanos , Estilo de Vida , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Prevenção Primária/economia , Prevenção Primária/métodos , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Risco , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...