Cost of illness (COI) of type-II diabetes mellitus in Shillong, Meghalaya
- 50 Downloads
This study aimed at contributing to the evidence base of economic burden caused due to type-II DM. The data were obtained from the 158 diabetics from the three tertiary hospitals in Shillong, Meghalaya, during January–March 2017 with the use of a semi-structured questionnaire. The information received was cross-checked with the medical records from the finance department. Patients comprised of 86 (54.4%) females and 72 (45.6%) males. The individuals under the age group of 56–65 were 49 (31%). The total median cost of illness per month was Rs. 5375 (2524–18,968) which was made up of 70.92% direct cost and 29.08% indirect cost. 58.2% respondents used their savings for getting treatment. The cost of care is high and comparable to cost in other countries. An improved understanding of COI of type-II DM will help in informing and motivating the policy and health decision makers which will reduce the national burden of this disease.
KeywordsCost of illness Type-II diabetes mellitus Shillong Meghalaya
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the Ethical standards of the Institutional Ethics Committee of Kasturba Medical College and Kasturba Hospital, Manipal bearing IEC project number: 789/2016.
Prior information on the study objectives was given and informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Mohan V, Sandeep S, Deepa R, Shah B, Varghese C. Epidemiology of type 2 diabetes: Indian scenario. Indian J Med Res. 2007;125:217–30.Google Scholar
- 2.Huizinga MM, Rothman RL. Addressing the diabetes pandemic: a comprehensive approach. Indian J Med Res. 2006;124:481–4.Google Scholar
- 3.Sicree R, Shaw J, Zimmet P. Diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance. In: Gan D, editor. Diabetes atlas. International Diabetes Federation. 3rd ed. Belgium: International Diabetes Federation; 2006. p. 15–103.Google Scholar
- 7.Syiem D, Lyngdoh W, Warjri P, Tariang D, Dkhar A, Diengdoh AMR. Prevalence of diabetes amongst the Khasi and Jaintia population of Meghalaya. NEHU. Journal. 2012. http://dspace.nehu.ac.in/handle/1/7722.
- 8.Kessler RC, Petukhova M, McInnes K, Ustün TB. Content and Scoring Rules for the WHO HPQ Absenteeism and Presenteeism Questions. Boston (MA): Harvard Medical School; 2007.Google Scholar
- 10.Grover S, Avasthi A, Bhansali A, Chakrabarti S, Kulhara P: Cost of ambulatory care of diabetes mellitus: a study from north India. Postgrad Med J. 2005;81(956):391–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/pgmj.2004.024299.
- 12.Barcelo A, Aedo C, Rajpathak S and Robles S. The cost of diabetes in Latin America and the Caribbean. Bull World Health Organ. 2003;81(1):19–27.Google Scholar
- 14.Henriksson F, Agardh CD, Berne C, Bolinder J, Lönnqvist F, Stenström P, et al. Direct medical costs for patients with type 2 diabetes in Sweden. J Int Med. 2000;248(5):387–96.Google Scholar
- 15.NIDA (2010). Comorbidity: addiction and other mental illness. Retrieved April 9, 2017, from https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/comorbidity-addiction-other-mental-illnessesbehaviors.
- 19.The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. Lifetime benefits and costs of intensive therapy as practiced in the diabetes control and complications trial. JAMA 1996;276:1409–15.Google Scholar
- 20.Chatterjee S, Riewpaiboon A, Piyauthakit P, Riewpaiboon W, Bonpaijit K, Panpuwong N, Acharvanuntagal V. Cost of diabetes and its complications in Thailand: A complete picture of economic burden. Health Soc Care Community. 2011;119(3):289–98.Google Scholar
- 21.American Diabetes Association. Economic consequences of diabetes mellitus in the U.S. Diabetes Care. 1997–98; 21:296-309. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.21.2.296.
- 23.Rc E, Javitt JC, Herman WH, Dasbach EJ, Zbrozek AS, Dong F, et al. Model of complications of NIDDM. I. Model construction and assumptions. Diabetes Care. 1991;20:725–44.Google Scholar