Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32922053›Full record

ArticleDiabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy2020

Incidence and Intensity of Catastrophic Health-care Expenditure for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Care in Iran: Determinants and Inequality.

Bakhtiar Piroozi, Amjad Mohamadi-Bolbanabad, Ghobad Moradi, Hossein Safari, Shahnaz Ghafoori, Yadolah Zarezade, Farzam Bidarpour, Satar Rezaei

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bakhtiar PirooziSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Research Institute for Health Development, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-6973-5764
Amjad Mohamadi-BolbanabadSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Research Institute for Health Development, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran.
Ghobad MoradiSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Research Institute for Health Development, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran.ORCID 0000-0003-2612-6528
Hossein SafariHealth Promotion Research Center, Iran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-2472-2185
Shahnaz GhafooriSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Research Institute for Health Development, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran.
Yadolah ZarezadeSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Research Institute for Health Development, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran.
Farzam BidarpourSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Research Institute for Health Development, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran.
Satar RezaeiResearch Center for Environmental Determinants of Health, Health Institute, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-6194-6057
Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences · IRIran University of Medical Sciences · IRKermanshah University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe present study aimed to assess the prevalence and intensity of catastrophic health-care expenditures (CHE) relating to type 2 diabetes mellitus care and inequality in facing such expenditures in Iran.

methodsA total of 1065 type 2 diabetes patients were included in this cross-sectional study. A multistage sampling method was used to select the samples. Data on sociodemographic characteristics, economic status, health and diabetic costs were collected using a self-constructed questionnaire. We used capacity to pay (CTP) of households to calculate the incidence of CHE due to diabetic care at four different thresholds. The mean positive overshoot (MPO) and overshoot were used to assess the intensity of CHE. The relative concentration index and slope index of inequality (SII) were used to measure socioeconomic-related inequalities in incidences of CHE. In addition, decomposition methods were used to identify the main factors affecting observed inequality in CHE.

resultsThe incidence of CHE at the 10, 20, 30, and 40% of CTP thresholds for type 2 diabetes mellitus care was 57.5, 28.9, 16.5, and 11.4%, respectively. The results of CI and SII indices for CHE due to diabetic care indicated that the incidence of CHE was more prevalent among patients with lower socioeconomic groups. The decomposition analysis showed that the socioeconomic status, marital status and gender of patients were the main factors contributing to socioeconomic inequality in incidence of CHE among the poor.

conclusionOur study demonstrated that the incidence and intensity of CHE due to diabetic care were relatively high, particularly among socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. Modification to the present health care financing strategies is recommended in order to protect lower socioeconomic groups against the financial burden of diabetic care.

Indexed as

catastrophic costdiabetesinequalitiessocioeconomic status

Identifiers

PMID32922053
PMCPMC7450415
OpenAlexW3049048617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.