Figure 2 shows the 1-way sensitivity analysis for 8 model parameters. For each parameter, we summarize the parameter values (baseline value; range: minimum, maximum) and provide the corresponding cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs).

For example, the first parameter listed is “Probability of reducing risk factors without an mDPP.” The baseline probability was 12.1%, but in sensitivity analyses, we varied this value from a low of 3.2% to a high of 25.9%. At the baseline value, the cost-effectiveness ratio was $3,420. If this probability decreases to 3.2%, then the cost-effectiveness ratio is $783 per QALY; if the probability increases to 25.9%, then the cost-effectiveness ratio is $18,580. We summarize this information as follows:

Probability of reducing risk factors without an mDPP: 12.1%; range, 3.2%-25.9% ($3,420; range, $783-$18,580)

Analogous summaries for the remaining 7 parameters are

Probability of enrollment in an mDPP: 47.0%; range, 9.2%-86.7% ($3,420; range, $16,707-$1,911) Probability of reducing risk factors with an mDPP: 16.2%; range, 4.2%-34.4% ($3,420; range, $13,087-$0) Probability of screening risk-factor–positive: 31.0%; range, 7.2%-63.5% ($3,420; range, $14,046-$1,818) Utility for risk-factor–positive patients with an mDPP: 0.75; range, 0.73-0.77 ($3,420; range, $13,178-$1,926) Probability of diabetes for risk-factor–positive patients without an mDPP: 10.8%; range, 2.9%-23.3% ($3,420; range, 8,505-$0) Probability of diabetes for risk-factor–positive patients with an mDPP: 4.8%; range, 1.3%-10.5% ($3,420; range, $7,085-$1,911) Utility for risk-factor–positive patients without an mDPP: 0.73; range, 0.71-0.75 ($3,420; range, $2,280-$7,301)