26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A systematic review of associations between non-communicable diseases and socioeconomic status within low- and lower-middle-income countries

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of death globally. Eighty-two percent of premature NCD deaths occur within low- and lower middle-income countries (LLMICs). Research to date, largely drawn from high-income countries, suggests that disadvantaged and marginalized groups have a higher NCD burden, but there has been a dearth of research studying this relationship within LLMICs. The purpose of this systematic review is to map the literature on evidence from LLMICs on the socio-economic status (SES) gradient of four particular NCDs: cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and chronic respiratory diseases.

          Methods

          We conducted a comprehensive literature search for primary research published between 1 January 1990 and 27 April 2015 using six bibliographic databases and web resources. We included studies that reported SES and morbidity or mortality from cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic respiratory diseases within LLMICs.

          Results

          Fifty-seven studies from 17 LLMICs met our inclusion criteria. Fourteen of the 18 papers that reported significant associations between cancer and SES suggested that low SES groups had the highest cancer risk. Eleven of 15 papers reporting significant relationships between CVD and SES suggested that low SES groups have higher risk. In contrast, seven of 12 papers reporting significant findings related to diabetes found that higher SES groups had higher diabetes risk. We identified just three studies on the relationship between chronic respiratory diseases and SES; none of them reported significant findings.

          Conclusions

          Only 17 of the 84 LLMICs were represented, highlighting the need for more research on NCDs within these countries. The majority of studies were medium to high quality cross-sectional studies. When we restricted our analyses to high quality studies only, for both cancer and cardiovascular disease more than half of studies found a significantly higher risk for those of lower SES. The opposite was true for diabetes, whilst there was a paucity of high quality research on chronic respiratory disease. Development programmes must consider health alongside other aims and NCD prevention interventions must target all members of the population.

          Systematic review registration number

          Prospero: CRD42015020169.

          Related collections

          Most cited references72

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews

          Background Following publication of the PRISMA statement, the UK Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of York in England began to develop an international prospective register of systematic reviews with health-related outcomes. The objectives were to reduce unplanned duplication of reviews and provide transparency in the review process, with the aim of minimizing reporting bias. Methods An international advisory group was formed and a consultation undertaken to establish the key items necessary for inclusion in the register and to gather views on various aspects of functionality. This article describes the development of the register, now called PROSPERO, and the process of registration. Results PROSPERO offers free registration and free public access to a unique prospective register of systematic reviews across all areas of health from all around the world. The dedicated web-based interface is electronically searchable and available to all prospective registrants. At the moment, inclusion in PROSPERO is restricted to systematic reviews of the effects of interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor health conditions, for which there is a health-related outcome. Ideally, registration should take place before the researchers have started formal screening against inclusion criteria but reviews are eligible as long as they have not progressed beyond the point of completing data extraction. The required dataset captures the key attributes of review design as well as the administrative details necessary for registration. Submitted registration forms are checked against the scope for inclusion in PROSPERO and for clarity of content before being made publicly available on the register, rejected, or returned to the applicant for clarification. The public records include an audit trail of major changes to planned methods, details of when the review has been completed, and links to resulting publications when provided by the authors. Conclusions There has been international support and an enthusiastic response to the principle of prospective registration of protocols for systematic reviews and to the development of PROSPERO. In October 2011, PROSPERO contained 200 records of systematic reviews being undertaken in 26 countries around the world on a diverse range of interventions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Poverty and common mental disorders in low and middle income countries: A systematic review.

            In spite of high levels of poverty in low and middle income countries (LMIC), and the high burden posed by common mental disorders (CMD), it is only in the last two decades that research has emerged that empirically addresses the relationship between poverty and CMD in these countries. We conducted a systematic review of the epidemiological literature in LMIC, with the aim of examining this relationship. Of 115 studies that were reviewed, most reported positive associations between a range of poverty indicators and CMD. In community-based studies, 73% and 79% of studies reported positive associations between a variety of poverty measures and CMD, 19% and 15% reported null associations and 8% and 6% reported negative associations, using bivariate and multivariate analyses respectively. However, closer examination of specific poverty dimensions revealed a complex picture, in which there was substantial variation between these dimensions. While variables such as education, food insecurity, housing, social class, socio-economic status and financial stress exhibit a relatively consistent and strong association with CMD, others such as income, employment and particularly consumption are more equivocal. There are several measurement and population factors that may explain variation in the strength of the relationship between poverty and CMD. By presenting a systematic review of the literature, this paper attempts to shift the debate from questions about whether poverty is associated with CMD in LMIC, to questions about which particular dimensions of poverty carry the strongest (or weakest) association. The relatively consistent association between CMD and a variety of poverty dimensions in LMIC serves to strengthen the case for the inclusion of mental health on the agenda of development agencies and in international targets such as the millenium development goals. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Measurement of socioeconomic status in health disparities research.

              Socioeconomic status (SES) is frequently implicated as a contributor to the disparate health observed among racial/ ethnic minorities, women and elderly populations. Findings from studies that examine the role of SES and health disparities, however, have provided inconsistent results. This is due in part to the: 1) lack of precision and reliability of measures; 2) difficulty with the collection of individual SES data; 3) the dynamic nature of SES over a lifetime; 4) the classification of women, children, retired and unemployed persons; 5) lack of or poor correlation between individual SES measures; and 6) and inaccurate or misleading interpretation of study results. Choosing the best variable or approach for measuring SES is dependent in part on its relevance to the population and outcomes under study. Many of the commonly used compositional and contextual SES measures are limited in terms of their usefulness for examining the effect of SES on outcomes in analyses of data that include population subgroups known to experience health disparities. This article describes SES measures, strengths and limitations of specific approaches and methodological issues related to the analysis and interpretation of studies that examine SES and health disparities.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Glob Health
                J Glob Health
                JGH
                Journal of Global Health
                Edinburgh University Global Health Society
                2047-2978
                2047-2986
                December 2018
                25 July 2018
                : 8
                : 2
                : 020409
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Population-based Approaches for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [2 ]Secretariat of the WHO Global Coordination Mechanisms on the Prevention and Control of Non-communicable diseases, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
                [3 ]Health Care Libraries, Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to:
Kremlin Wickramasinghe
Centre on Population Approaches for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention
Nuffield Department of Population Health
University of Oxford
Old Road Campus
Oxford OX3 7LF
United Kingdom
 kremlinkw@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                jogh-08-020409
                10.7189/jogh.08.020409
                6076564
                30140435
                9b431994-73dc-4893-a0c7-5ed9c3c76b0c
                Copyright © 2018 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 7, Equations: 0, References: 108, Pages: 25
                Categories
                Articles

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article