Table 2.
Rate Ratios Comparing the DSME Intervention Group and Comparison Groups
| DSME participants relative to CG-1a | DSME participants relative to CG-2b | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome measure | Pre | Post | Pre | Post |
| Inpatient stays (per year) | ||||
| Rate ratio | 0.97 (P = 0.86) | 0.52 (P = 0.33) | 1.41 (P = 0.09) | 1.33 (P = 0.16) |
| CI | 0.65, 1.44 | 0.14, 1.92 | 0.94, 2.10 | 0.90, 1.97 |
| Emergency department visits | ||||
| Rate ratio | 0.86 (P = 0.40) | 0.77 (P = 0.51) | 0.99 (P = 0.95) | 0.94 (P = 0.84) |
| CI | 0.62, 1.21 | 0.35, 1.67 | 0.76, 1.29 | 0.54, 1.64 |
| Costs | ||||
| Cost ratio | 1.01 (P = 0.99) | 1.27 (P = 0.72) | — | — |
| CI | 0.39, 2.63 | 0.33, 4.92 | — | — |
CG-1 comprised 54 individuals who met the criteria for participation and who were on the recruitment list but who did not participate in the program. CG-2 comprised individuals selected from the Camden Citywide Claims data set, using propensity score methods to adjust CG-2 to resemble the intervention group more closely.
Utilization measures were analyzed using a zero-inflated Poisson model. Costs were analyzed using a logistic gamma hurdle model. Statistics for post results are based on weighted averages of model results from low- and high-intensity participants.
Utilization measures were analyzed using a GEE Poisson model, where propensity score quintile group was used as a covariate. Costs were not analyzed using GEE methodology because of non-normality. GEE models instead of zero-inflated/hurdle models were used in this analysis because of large sample size. Statistics for post results are based on weighted averages of model results from low- and high-intensity participants.
CI, confidence interval; DSME, diabetes self-management education; GEE, generalized estimating equation.