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.

Kuo S, Ye W, de Groot M, Saha C, Shubrook JH, Hornsby WG, Pillay Y, Mather KJ, Herman WH. 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. Diabetes Care. 2021 Apr 1; 44(4):874-882.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

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.