We estimated healthcare costs associated with patients with type 2 diabetes compared with non-diabetic subjects in a population-based primary care database through a retrospective analysis of economic impact during 2011, including 126,811 patients with type 2 diabetes in Catalonia, Spain. Total annual costs included primary care visits, hospitalizations, referrals, diagnostic tests, self-monitoring test strips, medication, and dialysis. For each patient, one control matched for age, gender and managing physician was randomly selected from a population database. The annual average cost per patient was €3110.1 and €1803.6 for diabetic and non-diabetic subjects, respectively (difference €1306.6; i.e., 72.4 % increased cost). The costs of hospitalizations were €1303.1 and €801.6 (62.0 % increase), and medication costs were €925.0 and €489.2 (89.1 % increase) in diabetic and non-diabetic subjects, respectively. In type 2 diabetic patients, hospitalizations and medications had the greatest impact on the overall cost (41.9 and 29.7 %, respectively), generating approximately 70 % of the difference between diabetic and non-diabetic subjects. Patients with poor glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin >7 %; >53 mmol/mol) had average costs of €3296.5 versus €2848.5 for patients with good control. In the absence of macrovascular complications, average costs were €3008.1 for diabetic and €1612.4 for non-diabetic subjects, while its presence increased costs to €4814.6 and €3306.8, respectively. In conclusion, the estimated higher costs for type 2 diabetes patients compared with non-diabetic subjects are due mainly to hospitalizations and medications, and are higher among diabetic patients with poor glycaemic control and macrovascular complications. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10198-015-0742-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction:Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic condition characterized by chronic pain, fatigue and loss of function which significantly impairs quality of life. Although treatment of FM remains disputed, some studies point at the efficacy of interdisciplinary therapy. This study aims to analyze the effectiveness, cost-utility and benefits of a multicomponent therapy on quality of life (main variable), functional impact, mood and pain in people suffering from FM that attend primary care centers (PCCs) of the Catalan Institute of Health (ICS).Methods and analysis:A 2-phase, mixed methods study has been designed following Medical Research Council guidance. Phase 1: Pragmatic randomized clinical trial with patients diagnosed with FM that attend one of the 11 PCCs of the ICS Gerència Territorial Terres de l’Ebre. We estimate a total sample of 336 patients. The control group will receive usual clinical care, while the multicomponent therapy group (MT group) will receive usual clinical care plus group therapy (consisting of health education, exercise and cognitive-behavioural therapy) during 12 weeks in 2-hourly weekly sessions. Analysis: the standardized mean response and the standardized effect size will be assessed at 3, 9, and 15 months after the beginning of the study using multiple linear regression models. Utility measurements will be used for the economic analysis. Phase 2: Qualitative socio constructivist study to evaluate the intervention according to the results obtained and the opinions and experiences of participants (patients and professionals). We will use theoretical sampling, with 2 discussion groups of participants in the multicomponent therapy and 2 discussion groups of professionals of different PCCs. A thematic content analysis will be carried out.Ethics and dissemination:This study protocol has been approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina (code P18/068). Articles will be published in international, peer-reviewed scientific journals.Trial registration:Clinical-Trials.gov: NCT04049006.

BackgroundThe use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in the health service is increasing. In spite of limitations, such as lack of time and experience, the deployment of ICTs in the healthcare system has advantages which include patient satisfaction with secure messaging, and time saving benefits and utility for patients and health professionals. ICTs may be helpful as either interventions on their own or as complementary tools to help patients stop smoking.ObjectivesTo gather opinions from both medical professionals and smokers about an email-based application that had been designed by our research group to help smoking cessation, and identify the advantages and disadvantages associated with interventions based on the utilization of ICTs for this purpose.MethodsA qualitative, descriptive–interpretative study with a phenomenological perspective was performed to identify and interpret the discourses of the participating smokers and primary healthcare professionals. Data were obtained through two techniques: semi-structured individual interviews and discussion groups, which were recorded and later systematically and literally transcribed together with the interviewer’s notes. Data were analyzed with the ATLAS TI 6.0 programme.ResultsSeven individual interviews and four focal groups were conducted. The advantages of the application based on the email intervention designed by our research group were said to be the saving of time in consultations and ease of access for patients who found work timetables and following a programme for smoking cessation incompatible. The disadvantages were thought to be a lack of personal contact with the healthcare professional, and the possibility of cheating/ self-deception, and a greater probability of relapse on the part of the smokers.ConclusionsBoth patients and healthcare professionals viewed the email-based application to help patients stop smoking as a complementary aid to face-to-face consultations. Nevertheless, ICTs could not substitute personal contact in the smoking cessation programme.