Association Between Systolic Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Inpatient Cost Moderated by Peer-Support Intervention Among Adult Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A 2-Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: People with type 2 diabetes and increased systolic blood pressure (SBP) are at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this study, we aimed to investigate the association between CVD-related hospital payments and SBP and tested whether this association is influenced by diabetes peer support. METHODS: Two cohorts comprising people with type 2 diabetes were included in the study. The first cohort comprised 4,704 patients with type 2 diabetes assessed between 2008 and 2009 from 18 general practices in Cambridgeshire and followed up to 2009-2011. The second cohort comprised 1,121 patients with type 2 diabetes from post-trial follow-up data, recruited between 2011 and 2012 and followed up to 2015. SBP was measured at baseline. Inpatient payments for CVD hospitalization within 2 years since baseline was the main outcome. The impact of 1:1, group or combined diabetes peer support and usual care were investigated in the second cohort. Adjusted mean CVD inpatient payments per person were estimated using a 2-part model after adjusting for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A "hockey-stick" relationship between baseline SBP and estimated CVD inpatient payment was identified in both cohorts, with a threshold at 133 to 141 mmHg, suggesting increased payments for patients with SBP below and above the threshold. The combined peer-support intervention altered the aforementioned association, with no increased payment with SBP above the threshold, and payment slightly decreased with SBP beyond the threshold. CONCLUSIONS: SBP maintained between 133 and 141 mmHg is associated with the lowest CVD disease management costs for patients with type 2 diabetes. Combined peer-support intervention could significantly decrease CVD-related hospital payments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".