↓ Skip to main content

Costs of development and maintenance of an internet program for teens with type 1 diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Technology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
Title
Costs of development and maintenance of an internet program for teens with type 1 diabetes
Published in
Health and Technology, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12553-015-0109-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Margaret Grey, Lauren Liberti, Robin Whittemore

Abstract

Many adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) have difficulty completing self-management tasks within the context of their social environments. Group-based approaches to psycho-educational support have been shown to prevent declines in glucose control, but are challenging to implement due to youths' many activities and costs. A novel solution is providing psycho-educational support via the internet. The purpose of this study is to describe the cost of developing and maintaining two internet psycho-educational programs, both of which have been shown to improve health outcomes in adolescents with T1D. We calculated actual costs of personnel and programming in the development of TEENCOPE(™) and Managing Diabetes, two highly interactive programs that were evaluated in a multi-site clinical trial (n=320). Cost calculations were set at U.S. dollars and converted to value for 2013 as expenses were incurred over 6 years. Development costs over 1.5 years totaled $324,609, with the majority of costs being for personnel to develop and write content in a creative and engaging format, to get feedback from teens on content and a prototype, and IT programming. Maintenance of the program, including IT support, a part-time moderator to assure safety of the discussion board (0.5-1 hour/week), and yearly update of content was $43,845/year, or $137.00 per youth over 4.5 years. Overall, program and site development were relatively expensive, but the program reach was high, including non-white youth from 4 geographically distinct regions. Once developed, maintenance was minimal. With greater dissemination, cost-per-youth would decrease markedly, beginning to offset the high development expense.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 17%
Student > Master 11 14%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 20 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 23%
Psychology 10 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 11%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 25 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 July 2015.
All research outputs
#13,199,636
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Health and Technology
#95
of 226 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,555
of 264,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Technology
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 226 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,285 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.