ReviewHealth economics review2026
Economic burden and cost of non-adherence in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of middle- and high-income countries.
Review in Health economics review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Economic burden and cost of non-adherence in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of middle- and high-income countries.Health economics review · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) poses a growing economic burden in middle- and high-income countries due to its high prevalence and long-term complications. This study aimed to quantify and compare the annual per-capita direct and indirect costs of T2DM in adults of middle- and high-income countries, and to examine how treatment adherence relates to complications, hospitalizations, and costs, while also assessing the completeness of economic reporting. MAIN: A PRISMA-guided systematic review (January 2014—March 2024) searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, PsycINFO, and EconLit for adult studies reporting T2DM costs; reporting completeness was appraised with Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). All costs were standardized to annual per-person 2024 United States dollars (USD) adjusted for PPP (PPP-USD) using local Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation and Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) conversion. When necessary, per-person values were derived from aggregated cost data. Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria. Direct costs varied widely, ranging from USD 17.74 per person-year in Pakistan to USD 623 in Spain, while indirect costs were reported in 5 of 15 (33.3%) studies and were highest in South Korea (USD 1,068) and China (USD 929.5), mainly from productivity losses and premature mortality. Higher adherence was associated with fewer complications and hospitalizations despite higher pharmacy spending, and adherence was frequently shaped by education, geographic context, and emotional distress.
conclusionBeyond direct medical spending, the economic burden of T2DM is strongly influenced by indirect costs, especially productivity losses and premature mortality, which remain under-measured. Strengthening adherence and adopting standardized, societal-perspective costing with routine reporting of indirect costs, alongside near-term policy levers such as primary-care adherence support and targeted out-of-pocket relief, could improve comparability, equity, and efficiency by redirecting resources from avoidable hospitalizations toward sustained adherence support.
trial registrationThe study protocol was registered in the International prospective register of systematic reviews PROSPERO database under registration number CRD42024519296 (Gómez-Torres et al, Int J Environ Res Public Health 20:328, 2024)
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.