Dataset Information

Gender inequality and the double burden of disease in low-income and middle-income countries: an ecological study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Many low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC) suffer from a double burden of infectious diseases (ID) and non-communicable diseases (NCD). Previous research suggests that a high rate of gender inequality is associated with a higher ID and NCD burden in LMIC, but it is unknown whether gender inequality is also associated with a double burden of disease. In this ecological study, we explored the association between gender inequality and the double burden of disease in LMIC.

Methods

For 108 LMIC, we retrieved the Gender Inequality Index (GII, scale 0-1) and calculated the double burden of disease, based on disability-adjusted life-years for a selection of relevant ID and NCD, using WHO data. We performed logistic regression analysis to study the association between gender inequality and the double burden of disease for the total population, and stratified for men and women. We adjusted for income, political stability, type of labour, urbanisation, government health expenditure, health infrastructure and unemployment. Additionally, we conducted linear regression models for the ID and NCD separately.

Results

The GII ranged from 0.13 to 0.83. A total of 37 LMIC had a double burden of disease. Overall, the adjusted OR for double burden of disease was 1.05 per 0.01 increase of GII (95% CI 0.99 to 1.10, p=0.10). For women, there was a borderline significant positive association between gender inequality and double burden of disease (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11, p=0.06), while there was no association in men (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.04, p=0.75).

Conclusion

We found patterns directing towards a positive association between gender inequality and double burden of disease, overall and in women. This finding suggests the need for more attention for structural factors underlying gender inequality to potentially reduce the double burden of disease.

SUBMITTER: van der Ham M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8074552 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe evidence on the economic burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) remains scarce. We conducted a comprehensive systematic review to establish the magnitude and knowledge gaps in relation to the economic burden of CVD and hypertension on households, health systems and the society.MethodsWe included studies using primary or secondary data to produce original economic estimates of the impact of CVD. We searched sixteen electronic databases from 1990 onwards without language restrictions. We appraised the quality of included studies using a seven-question assessment tool.ResultsEighty-three studies met the inclusion criteria, most of which were single centre retrospective cost studies conducted in secondary care settings. Studies in China, Brazil, India and Mexico contributed together 50% of the total number of economic estimates identified. The quality of the included studies was generally low. Reporting transparency, particularly for cost data sources and results, was poor. The costs per episode for hypertension and generic CVD were fairly homogeneous across studies; ranging between $500 and $1500. In contrast, for coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke cost estimates were generally higher and more heterogeneous, with several estimates in excess of $5000 per episode. The economic perspective and scope of the study appeared to impact cost estimates for hypertension and generic CVD considerably less than estimates for stroke and CHD. Most studies reported monthly costs for hypertension treatment around $22. Average monthly treatment costs for stroke and CHD ranged between $300 and $1000, however variability across estimates was high. In most LMICs both the annual cost of care and the cost of an acute episode exceed many times the total health expenditure per capita.ConclusionsThe existing evidence on the economic burden of CVD in LMICs does not appear aligned with policy priorities in terms of research volume, pathologies studied and methodological quality. Not only is more economic research needed to fill the existing gaps, but research quality needs to be drastically improved. More broadly, national-level studies with appropriate sample sizes and adequate incorporation of indirect costs need to replace small-scale, institutional, retrospective cost studies.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough the economic burden of multiple sclerosis (MS) in high-income countries (HICs) has been extensively studied, information on the costs of MS in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains scarce. Moreover, no review synthesizing and assessing the costs of MS in LMICs has yet been undertaken.ObjectiveOur objective was to systematically identify and review the cost of illness (COI) of MS in LMICs to critically appraise the methodologies used, compare cost estimates across countries and by level of disease severity, and examine cost drivers.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search for original studies in English, French, and Dutch containing prevalence or incidence-based cost data of MS in LMICs. The search was conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Library, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Econlit, and CINAHL (EBSCO) on July 2020 without restrictions on publication date. Recommended and validated methods were used for data extraction and analysis to make the results of the COI studies comparable. Costs were adjusted to $US, year 2019 values, using the World Bank purchasing power parity and inflated using the consumer price index.ResultsA total of 14 studies were identified, all of which were conducted in upper-middle-income economies. Eight studies used a bottom-up approach for costing, and six used a top-down approach. Four studies used a societal perspective. The total annual cost per patient ranged between $US463 and 58,616. Costs varied across studies and countries, mainly because of differences regarding the inclusion of costs of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), the range of cost items included, the methodological choices such as approaches used to estimate healthcare resource consumption, and the inclusion of informal care and productivity losses. Characteristics and methodologies of the included studies varied considerably, especially regarding the perspective adopted, cost data specification, and reporting of costs per severity levels. The total costs increased with greater disease severity. The cost ratios between different levels of MS severity within studies were relatively stable; costs were around 1-1.5 times higher for moderate versus mild MS and about two times higher for severe versus mild MS. MS drug costs were the main cost driver for less severe MS, whereas the proportion of direct non-medical costs and indirect costs increased with greater disease severity.ConclusionMS places a huge economic burden on healthcare systems and societies in LMICs. Methodological differences and substantial variations in terms of absolute costs were found between studies, which made comparison of studies challenging. However, the cost ratios across different levels of MS severity were similar, making comparisons between studies by disease severity feasible. Cost drivers were mainly DMTs and relapse treatments, and this was consistent across studies. Yet, the distribution of cost components varied with disease severity.