↓ Skip to main content

The global impact of non-communicable diseases on households and impoverishment: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Epidemiology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
6 policy sources
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
126 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
445 Mendeley
Title
The global impact of non-communicable diseases on households and impoverishment: a systematic review
Published in
European Journal of Epidemiology, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10654-014-9983-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Loes Jaspers, Veronica Colpani, Layal Chaker, Sven J. van der Lee, Taulant Muka, David Imo, Shanthi Mendis, Rajiv Chowdhury, Wichor M. Bramer, Abby Falla, Raha Pazoki, Oscar H. Franco

Abstract

The global economic impact of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) on household expenditures and poverty indicators remains less well understood. To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature evaluating the global economic impact of six NCDs [including coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), cancer (lung, colon, cervical and breast), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD)] on households and impoverishment. Medline, Embase and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception to November 6th 2014. To identify additional publications, reference lists of retrieved studies were searched. Randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, cohorts, case-control, cross-sectional, modeling and ecological studies carried out in adults and assessing the economic consequences of NCDs on households and impoverishment. No language restrictions. All abstract and full text selection was done by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers and checked by a third independent reviewer. Studies were included evaluating the impact of at least one of the selected NCDs and on at least one of the following measures: expenditure on medication, transport, co-morbidities, out-of-pocket (OOP) payments or other indirect costs; impoverishment, poverty line and catastrophic spending; household or individual financial cost. From 3,241 references, 64 studies met the inclusion criteria, 75 % of which originated from the Americas and Western Pacific WHO region. Breast cancer and DM were the most studied NCDs (42 in total); CKD and COPD were the least represented (five and three studies respectively). OOP payments and financial catastrophe, mostly defined as OOP exceeding a certain proportion of household income, were the most studied outcomes. OOP expenditure as a proportion of family income, ranged between 2 and 158 % across the different NCDs and countries. Financial catastrophe due to the selected NCDs was seen in all countries and at all income levels, and occurred in 6-84 % of the households depending on the chosen catastrophe threshold. In 16 low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), 6-11 % of the total population would be impoverished at a 1.25 US dollar/day poverty line if they would have to purchase lowest price generic diabetes medication. NCDs impose a large and growing global impact on households and impoverishment, in all continents and levels of income. The true extent, however, remains difficult to determine due to the heterogeneity across existing studies in terms of populations studied, outcomes reported and measures employed. The impact that NCDs exert on households and impoverishment is likely to be underestimated since important economic domains, such as coping strategies and the inclusion of marginalized and vulnerable people who do not seek health care due to financial reasons, are overlooked in literature. Given the scarcity of information on specific regions, further research to estimate impact of NCDs on households and impoverishment in LMIC, especially the Middle Eastern, African and Latin American regions is required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 445 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 440 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 84 19%
Researcher 52 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 10%
Student > Bachelor 35 8%
Student > Postgraduate 31 7%
Other 87 20%
Unknown 112 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 108 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 53 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 34 8%
Social Sciences 32 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 3%
Other 68 15%
Unknown 138 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,656,404
of 23,979,951 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Epidemiology
#239
of 1,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,268
of 360,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Epidemiology
#5
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,979,951 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,736 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 360,011 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.