Variation in health system performance for managing diabetes among states in India: a cross-sectional study of individuals aged 15 to 49 years.
Adolescent
Adult
Cross-Sectional Studies
Diabetes Mellitus
/ epidemiology
Female
Health Services Accessibility
/ organization & administration
Health Systems Plans
/ standards
Humans
India
/ epidemiology
Male
Middle Aged
Observer Variation
Prevalence
Quality Assurance, Health Care
/ statistics & numerical data
Rural Population
/ statistics & numerical data
Young Adult
Care cascade
Diabetes
Health system performance
India
Journal
BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 05 2019
13 05 2019
Historique:
received:
12
11
2018
accepted:
15
04
2019
entrez:
16
5
2019
pubmed:
16
5
2019
medline:
20
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Understanding where adults with diabetes in India are lost in the diabetes care cascade is essential for the design of targeted health interventions and to monitor progress in health system performance for managing diabetes over time. This study aimed to determine (i) the proportion of adults with diabetes in India who have reached each step of the care cascade and (ii) the variation of these cascade indicators among states and socio-demographic groups. We used data from a population-based household survey carried out in 2015 and 2016 among women and men aged 15-49 years in all states of India. Diabetes was defined as a random blood glucose (RBG) ≥ 200 mg/dL or reporting to have diabetes. The care cascade-constructed among those with diabetes-consisted of the proportion who (i) reported having diabetes ("aware"), (ii) had sought treatment ("treated"), and (iii) had sought treatment and had a RBG < 200 mg/dL ("controlled"). The care cascade was disaggregated by state, rural-urban location, age, sex, household wealth quintile, education, and marital status. This analysis included 729,829 participants. Among those with diabetes (19,453 participants), 52.5% (95% CI, 50.6-54.4%) were "aware", 40.5% (95% CI, 38.6-42.3%) "treated", and 24.8% (95% CI, 23.1-26.4%) "controlled". Living in a rural area, male sex, less household wealth, and lower education were associated with worse care cascade indicators. Adults with untreated diabetes constituted the highest percentage of the adult population (irrespective of diabetes status) aged 15 to 49 years in Goa (4.2%; 95% CI, 3.2-5.2%) and Tamil Nadu (3.8%; 95% CI, 3.4-4.1%). The highest absolute number of adults with untreated diabetes lived in Tamil Nadu (1,670,035; 95% CI, 1,519,130-1,812,278) and Uttar Pradesh (1,506,638; 95% CI, 1,419,466-1,589,832). There are large losses to diabetes care at each step of the care cascade in India, with the greatest loss occurring at the awareness stage. While health system performance for managing diabetes varies greatly among India's states, improvements are particularly needed for rural areas, those with less household wealth and education, and men. Although such improvements will likely have the greatest benefits for population health in Goa and Tamil Nadu, large states with a low diabetes prevalence but a high absolute number of adults with untreated diabetes, such as Uttar Pradesh, should not be neglected.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Understanding where adults with diabetes in India are lost in the diabetes care cascade is essential for the design of targeted health interventions and to monitor progress in health system performance for managing diabetes over time. This study aimed to determine (i) the proportion of adults with diabetes in India who have reached each step of the care cascade and (ii) the variation of these cascade indicators among states and socio-demographic groups.
METHODS
We used data from a population-based household survey carried out in 2015 and 2016 among women and men aged 15-49 years in all states of India. Diabetes was defined as a random blood glucose (RBG) ≥ 200 mg/dL or reporting to have diabetes. The care cascade-constructed among those with diabetes-consisted of the proportion who (i) reported having diabetes ("aware"), (ii) had sought treatment ("treated"), and (iii) had sought treatment and had a RBG < 200 mg/dL ("controlled"). The care cascade was disaggregated by state, rural-urban location, age, sex, household wealth quintile, education, and marital status.
RESULTS
This analysis included 729,829 participants. Among those with diabetes (19,453 participants), 52.5% (95% CI, 50.6-54.4%) were "aware", 40.5% (95% CI, 38.6-42.3%) "treated", and 24.8% (95% CI, 23.1-26.4%) "controlled". Living in a rural area, male sex, less household wealth, and lower education were associated with worse care cascade indicators. Adults with untreated diabetes constituted the highest percentage of the adult population (irrespective of diabetes status) aged 15 to 49 years in Goa (4.2%; 95% CI, 3.2-5.2%) and Tamil Nadu (3.8%; 95% CI, 3.4-4.1%). The highest absolute number of adults with untreated diabetes lived in Tamil Nadu (1,670,035; 95% CI, 1,519,130-1,812,278) and Uttar Pradesh (1,506,638; 95% CI, 1,419,466-1,589,832).
CONCLUSIONS
There are large losses to diabetes care at each step of the care cascade in India, with the greatest loss occurring at the awareness stage. While health system performance for managing diabetes varies greatly among India's states, improvements are particularly needed for rural areas, those with less household wealth and education, and men. Although such improvements will likely have the greatest benefits for population health in Goa and Tamil Nadu, large states with a low diabetes prevalence but a high absolute number of adults with untreated diabetes, such as Uttar Pradesh, should not be neglected.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31084606
doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1325-6
pii: 10.1186/s12916-019-1325-6
pmc: PMC6515628
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
92Références
Lancet. 2010 Apr 17;375(9723):1365-74
pubmed: 20356621
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018 Mar;6(3):208-222
pubmed: 29371076
Br J Nutr. 2009 Nov;102(10):1498-506
pubmed: 19586573
Int J Equity Health. 2017 Jan 21;16(1):25
pubmed: 28109188
Diabetes Care. 2015 Aug;38(8):1449-55
pubmed: 25986661
Diabetes Care. 2011 Jun;34(6):e61-99
pubmed: 21617108
Lancet. 2017 Dec 2;390(10111):2437-2460
pubmed: 29150201
Ann Intern Med. 2014 Nov 18;161(10):681-9
pubmed: 25402511
Lancet. 2012 Nov 17;380(9855):1741-8
pubmed: 23040422
Lancet. 2003 Jul 12;362(9378):111-7
pubmed: 12867110
Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2014 May;18(3):379-85
pubmed: 24944935
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 2;12(10):e0184264
pubmed: 28968435
Diabetes Care. 1998 Apr;21(4):501-5
pubmed: 9571331
Obes Rev. 2011 May;12(5):e183-9
pubmed: 21348919
Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2016 Jan;11(1):102-8
pubmed: 26545266
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2014 Sep;16(9):596-603
pubmed: 25101698
Diabetes Care. 2018 May;41(5):963-970
pubmed: 29475843
Lancet Planet Health. 2018 Jul;2(7):e301-e312
pubmed: 30074893
J Cardiometab Syndr. 2007 Fall;2(4):267-75
pubmed: 18059210
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Mar 1;178(3):363-372
pubmed: 29379964
Glob Health Action. 2018;11(1):1416744
pubmed: 29334333
Front Public Health. 2016 Jul 07;4:145
pubmed: 27458578
N Engl J Med. 2005 Oct 27;353(17):1802-9
pubmed: 16251536
N Engl J Med. 2007 May 17;356(20):2053-63
pubmed: 17507704
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2019 Mar;27(3):505-512
pubmed: 30801987
Diabetologia. 2011 Dec;54(12):3022-7
pubmed: 21959957
J Diabetes Investig. 2017 Sep;8(5):687-696
pubmed: 28122165
Lancet. 2016 Apr 9;387(10027):1513-1530
pubmed: 27061677
PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e56550
pubmed: 23483887
JAMA. 2009 May 27;301(20):2129-40
pubmed: 19470990
PLoS Med. 2018 Jun 19;15(6):e1002581
pubmed: 29920517
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Dec;6(12):e1352-e1362
pubmed: 30219315
Malays J Nutr. 2011 Dec;17(3):301-13
pubmed: 22655452
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016 Nov;4(11):903-912
pubmed: 27727123
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017 Aug;5(8):585-596
pubmed: 28601585
Ecol Food Nutr. 2013;52(5):387-406
pubmed: 23927045
Diabetes. 2014 Jan;63(1):53-5
pubmed: 24357697