Can peer support be cost saving? An economic evaluation of RAPSID: a randomized controlled trial of peer support in diabetes compared to usual care alone in East of England communities.

Background Diabetes peer support, where one person with diabetes helps others, may improve diabetes management. The objective of this study was to perform a cost analysis of peer support strategies used in RAndomized controlled trial of Peer Support in type 2 Diabetes. Methods We performed a 2x2 factorial randomized cluster controlled trial in England. People with type 2 diabetes were invited to participate as either 'peer' or 'peer support facilitator' (PSF) through postal invitation predominantly from general practice. Clusters, based on local communities, were each randomly assigned to one arm of group, 1:1, both group and 1:1 or control interventions. The intervention was delivered over 8-12 months by trained PSFs, supported by monthly meetings with a diabetes nurse. Out-of-pocket expenses/service utilization were self-reported at baseline, midpoint and on trial completion. Intervention costs were collated. Non-hospital costs used National Health Service (NHS) reference costs. Hospital payments were obtained from one local commissioning group and mean payments calculated. The analysis employed a societal perspective. Costs were evaluated at the conclusion of the trial. Results Participants (n=1299) were recruited across 130 clusters. The four arms were well balanced and matched (60% male, mean diabetes duration 9.5 years, mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.4+/-1.3%, 17% insulin treated). Implementation costs at 2013 rates were 13.84 pound/participant/annum, participant out-of-pocket expenses for any intervention were pound 11.41/participant/annum and the NHS-incurred costs were reduced by 138.38 pound/ participant/annum. Savings for the 1:1, group and any intervention were 233.65 pound, 90.52 pound and pound 113.13/participant/annum, respectively. Conclusions We conclude that both 1:1 and group diabetes peer support over 8-12 months are cost saving in this setting, although much of the benefit is largely derived by differences in self-reported healthcare utilization. Long-term benefits should be investigated.