General Practice - Research Publications

Permanent URI for this collection

http://hdl.handle.net/11343/217

Filters

2020 - 2021 2
Reset filters

Settings
Statistics
Citations
Author: Audehm, Ralph × Author: Furler, John × Author: O'Neal, David × Start date: 2020 × End date: 2021 × Type: Journal Article ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Cost-effectiveness of professional-mode flash glucose monitoring in general practice among adults with type 2 diabetes: Evidence from the GP-OSMOTIC trial
    Hua, X ; Catchpool, M ; Clarke, P ; Blackberry, I ; Chiang, J ; Holmes-Truscott, E ; Jenkins, A ; Khunti, K ; O'Neal, D ; Speight, J ; Furler, J ; Manski-Nankervis, J-A ; Dalziel, K (WILEY, 2021-11-27)
    AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness of professional-mode flash glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes in general practice compared with usual clinical care. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted as a component of the GP-OSMOTIC trial, a pragmatic multicentre 12-month randomised controlled trial enrolling 299 adults with type 2 diabetes in Victoria, Australia. The economic evaluation was conducted from an Australian healthcare sector perspective with a lifetime horizon. Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) and total healthcare costs were compared between the intervention and the usual care group within the trial period. The 'UKPDS Outcomes Model 2' was used to simulate post-trial lifetime costs, life expectancy and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: No significant difference in health-related quality of life and costs was found between the two groups within the trial period. Professional-mode flash glucose monitoring yielded greater QALYs (0.03 [95% CI: 0.02, 0.04]) and a higher cost (A$3807 [95% CI: 3604, 4007]) compared with usual clinical care using a lifetime horizon under the trial-based monitoring frequency, considered not cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = A$120,228). The intervention becomes cost-effective if sensor price is reduced to lower than 50%, or monitoring frequency is decreased to once per year while maintaining the same treatment effect on HbA1c . CONCLUSIONS: Including professional-mode flash glucose monitoring every 3 months as part of a management plan for people with type 2 diabetes in general practice is not cost-effective, but could be if the sensor price or monitoring frequency can be reduced.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Guiding Glucose Management Discussions Among Adults With Type 2 Diabetes in General Practice: Development and Pretesting of a Clinical Decision Support Tool Prototype Embedded in an Electronic Medical Record
    Kunstler, BE ; Furler, J ; Holmes-Truscott, E ; McLachlan, H ; Boyle, D ; Lo, S ; Speight, J ; O'Neal, D ; Audehm, R ; Kilov, G ; Manski-Nankervis, J-A (JMIR PUBLICATIONS, INC, 2020-09-01)
    BACKGROUND: Managing type 2 diabetes (T2D) requires progressive lifestyle changes and, sometimes, pharmacological treatment intensification. General practitioners (GPs) are integral to this process but can find pharmacological treatment intensification challenging because of the complexity of continually emerging treatment options. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to use a co-design method to develop and pretest a clinical decision support (CDS) tool prototype (GlycASSIST) embedded within an electronic medical record, which uses evidence-based guidelines to provide GPs and people with T2D with recommendations for setting glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) targets and intensifying treatment together in real time in consultations. METHODS: The literature on T2D-related CDS tools informed the initial GlycASSIST design. A two-part co-design method was then used. Initial feedback was sought via interviews and focus groups with clinicians (4 GPs, 5 endocrinologists, and 3 diabetes educators) and 6 people with T2D. Following refinements, 8 GPs participated in mock consultations in which they had access to GlycASSIST. Six people with T2D viewed a similar mock consultation. Participants provided feedback on the functionality of GlycASSIST and its role in supporting shared decision making (SDM) and treatment intensification. RESULTS: Clinicians and people with T2D believed that GlycASSIST could support SDM (although this was not always observed in the mock consultations) and individualized treatment intensification. They recommended that GlycASSIST includes less information while maintaining relevance and credibility and using graphs and colors to enhance visual appeal. Maintaining clinical autonomy was important to GPs, as they wanted the capacity to override GlycASSIST's recommendations when appropriate. Clinicians requested easier screen navigation and greater prescribing guidance and capabilities. CONCLUSIONS: GlycASSIST was perceived to achieve its purpose of facilitating treatment intensification and was acceptable to people with T2D and GPs. The GlycASSIST prototype is being refined based on these findings to prepare for quantitative evaluation.