Open Access

The impact of type 2 diabetes on health related quality of life in Bangladesh: results from a matched study comparing treated cases with non-diabetic controls

  • Novie Safita1, 2,
  • Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam3, 4, 5Email author,
  • Clara K. Chow5, 6,
  • Louis Niessen7, 8,
  • Andreas Lechner9, 10, 11,
  • Rolf Holle1, 10 and
  • Michael Laxy1, 10
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes201614:129

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0530-7

Received: 25 March 2016

Accepted: 6 September 2016

Published: 13 September 2016

Abstract

Background

Little is known about the association between diabetes and health related quality of life (HRQL) in lower-middle income countries. This study aimed to investigate HRQL among individuals with and without diabetes in Bangladesh.

Methods

The analysis is based on data of a case-control study, including 591 patients with type 2 diabetes (cases) who attended an outpatient unit of a hospital in Dhaka and 591 age -and sex-matched individuals without diabetes (controls). Information about socio-demographic characteristics, health conditions, and HRQL were assessed in a structured interview. HRQL was measured with the EuroQol (EQ) visual analogue scale (VAS) and the EQ five-dimensional (5D) descriptive system. The association between diabetes status and quality of life was examined using multiple linear and logistic regression models.

Results

Mean EQ-VAS score of patients with diabetes was 11.5 points lower (95 %-CI: −13.5, −9.6) compared to controls without diabetes. Patients with diabetes were more likely to report problems in all EQ-5D dimensions than controls, with the largest effect observed in the dimensions ‘self-care’ (OR = 5.9; 95 %-CI: 2.9, 11.8) and ‘mobility’ (OR = 4.5; 95 %-CI: 3.0, −6.6). In patients with diabetes, male gender, high education, and high-income were associated with higher VAS score and diabetes duration and foot ulcer associated with lower VAS scores. Other diabetes-related complications were not significantly associated with HRQL.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that the impact of diabetes on HRQL in the Bangladeshi population is much higher than what is known from western populations and that unlike in western populations comorbidities/complications are not the driving factor for this effect.

Keywords

Diabetes Complications Quality of life Bangladesh EQ-5D Case control study

Background

Diabetes is a major health problem all over the world that leads to severe complications and disability [1]. Eighty percent of the world’s diabetic population lives in low- and middle-income countries. South Asia is one of the most affected regions [2] and with a prevalence of around 9.7 %, Bangladesh is the country with the second largest number of adults with diabetes in South Asia showing increasing trend in both urban and rural areas [3, 4]. Understanding the burden of diabetes in the Bangladeshi population is essential for decision making and resource allocation in the national healthcare system. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is an important patient-reported outcome that allows policy makers to understand the burden of diabetes. HRQL comprehensively describes the patient’s health status comprising physical, mental, emotional and social wellbeing [5]. The EQ-5D is a preference-based HRQL instrument that has been used widely in diabetes research -- particularly preferred because of its simplicity and reliability [6]. Assessment of HRQL using generic instruments like the EQ-5D allows burden of disease comparisons across a broad spectrum of diseases and indications.

Several studies, mainly from high-and middle-income countries, have described the negative impact of diabetes on HRQL. It has been found that particularly individuals with macro-vascular complications such as stroke and ischemic heart disease often report substantial deteriorations in HRQL [79]. Moreover, a comprehensive review on this topic suggested a strong association between the number and severity of complications with worsening quality of life [10]. Other important determinants that have been reported were patient’s awareness that they have developed diabetes [11], insulin therapy [12], obesity [12], and fear of hypoglycemic events [13].

Even though a great proportion of people with diabetes live in South Asia, there is little evidence on the effect of diabetes on quality of life in this setting, especially in Bangladesh. The effect might be different to what is already known from western populations, as in Asia, people live in a different socio-economic context, and develop diabetes at younger age and lower BMI thresholds [1417]. South Asians also tend to have a greater risk of developing many diabetes-related complications such as coronary artery disease (CAD), peripheral artery disease (PAD), retinopathy, nephropathy, and depression [1820]. Given the high prevalence of diabetes and diabetic complications in South Asian populations, there is urgent need to assess and understand the burden of diabetes in terms of reduced HRQL.

The objective of this study was therefore to estimate the impact of type 2 diabetes on HRQL using data from a large case-control study from Bangladesh. In an exploratory analysis, we further examined determinants of HRQL among diabetes patients only.

Methods

Study design

The data of this study originates from a case-control study comprising 591 patients with diabetes and 591 people without diabetes. Non-specialized and specialized diabetes care in Bangladesh is predominantly delivered in diabetes centers or outpatient care centers. Both cases and controls were recruited in the Out-Patient Department (OPD) of the Bangladesh Institute of Health Science (BIHS) Hospital, a tertiary hospital in Dhaka, between January and July 2014. The BIHS OPD serves patients from various places and different socioeconomic backgrounds, and has one of the largest diabetic Out-Patient Department (OPD) turnover in the world under a single roof.

Individuals coming to the OPD were included as ‘cases’ if they were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes according to WHO criteria [21], willing to participate in the study by providing necessary measurements, and provide written informed consent. Exclusion criteria were age younger than 20 years, patients with serious co-morbid conditions, eg diabetic episodes, that require immediate hospitalization, patients having mental illness, or those who were unable to provide written consent.

Controls were recruited within 48 h after recruiting index cases and were either visitors of the hospital or people who live in the same geographical area as cases. Eligible were individuals of the same sex and similar age (within 5-years range) as cases, without a diabetes diagnosis, who agreed to participate by providing written consent.

Data collection and instruments

Data were collected by a study team consisting of one study physician, one research officer, and three research assistants. The team underwent a 4 weeks training in which they were taught about the study protocol and research ethics and trained to perform the physical measurements and interviews. Information on socioeconomic status, history of diseases, diabetes-related conditions and medications, as well as HRQL were collected through face-to-face interviews using a structured questionnaire. Biomedical and anthropometric information were assessed in a standardized examination. Details on the study design, the protocol and data collection have been described elsewhere [22].

Health related quality of life

HRQL was assessed using the Bengali translated version of EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D) instrument. The EQ-5D is a generic index instrument that is applicable to a wide range of health condition. It comprises two parts: the EQ-5D descriptive system and the EQ visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS). The EQ-5D descriptive system measures five health domains including mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression [23]. In the used 3 level version (EQ-5D-3 L), for each of those health domains there are 3 responses level, ie ‘no problems’, ‘moderate problems’, and ‘extreme problems’. If a scoring algorithm, ie a reference value set, is available the 243 resulting health states can be converted into a single utility value, the EQ-5D index score. If no reference value set is available, as it is the case for the Bangladeshi population, a single item analysis is possible. The EQ-VAS is a vertical Visual Analog Scale with a range from 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state) scale. Both the EQ-5D and the EQ-VAS evaluate the health status of respondents on the day of survey.

Socio-demographics factors and comorbidities

Three sets of covariates were defined. The first set includes the sociodemographic and life-style factors age (continuous), gender, education (no education, primary education, secondary education, higher secondary education and above), income (categorized in quartiles), marital status (married, not married), employment status (employed, not employed), smoking status (currently smoking, not smoking) and weight status (underweight/normal weight – body mass index (BMI) < 25, overweight – 25 ≤ BMI < 30, obese-BMI ≥ 30).

The second set of covariates includes the binary variables heart disease (angina, myocardial infarction, heart failure or coronary artery disease), kidney disease (kidney failure, nephropathy or chronic kidney disease), neurological disease (stroke, transient ischemic attack or peripheral neuropathy) and eye problem (retinopathy, visual acuity or cataract).

The third set of covariates includes variables that are only important for patients with diabetes, namely diabetes duration and the presence of a foot ulcer. Selection of determinants and covariates was based on evidence from the literature and availability of information assessed.

Data Analysis

The characteristics of the study population were described using descriptive statistics of means, standard deviations, frequencies and proportions.

To analyze the association between diabetes and EQ-VAS scores, we fitted a multiple linear regression model. To examine the relationship between diabetes and EQ-5D, the five dimensions that originally have three ordinal levels (no, moderate, extreme problems) were dichotomized to the categories ‘no problem’ and ‘moderate or extreme problem’ and a multiple logistic regressions model was applied. Linear and logistic regression models were successively adjusted for the first (socio-demographics) and then second set of covariates (comorbidities). Interaction effects between diabetes and variables from the covariate set 1 were tested. To explore the determinants of quality of life in patients with diabetes, in a second step, we applied a linear regression model in which we regressed the socio-demographics (covariate set 1), comorbidities (covariate set 2) and diabetes-related factors (covariate set 3) on the EQ-VAS scores in cases only.

Data were complete for all variables, except for “income” (n = 98 missing). To avoid shrinkage of data, missing values were imputed with a single regression-based imputation method (PROC MI). All analyses were performed using the PROC GLM and PROC MI statements in SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

Results

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the study population. Cases and controls did not differ significantly in terms of gender, BMI, and income, however, there was a small (0.8 years) but statistical significant difference in the matching criterion age, which probably results from the frequency matching using 5-year age bands. Patients with diabetes were more likely to be unemployed, suffered more often from cardiovascular, nephrological, neurological and eye-related diseases and were less likely to smoke or to be married. In cases, duration of diabetes averaged 7.7 years and 50 % of patients reported to suffer from at least one comorbidity or complication.
Table 1

Characteristics of study participants

Variables

Diabetic subjects (n = 591)

Non-diabetic subjects (n = 591)

p-value

Demographics

Age; mean [SD]

51.3 [11.6]

49.5 [11.1]

0.0043*

Sex

  

1.000

 Male; n (%)

255 (43.1)

255 (43.1)

 

 Female; n (%)

336 (56.9)

336 (56.9)

 

BMI; mean [SD]

26.4 [3.9]

26.0 [7.0]

0.217*

 Normal-underweight; n (%)

229 (38.7)

253 (42.8)

 

 Overweight; n (%)

274 (46.4)

271 (45.9)

 

 Obese; n (%)

88 (14.9)

67 (11.3)

 

Education years; mean [SD]

7.8 [5.3]

9.1 [5.2]

<.0001*

 No education; n (%)

116 (19.6)

76 (12.9)

 

 Primary education; n (%)

103 (17.4)

96 (16.2)

 

 Secondary education; n (%)

190 (32.2)

178 (30.1)

 

 Higher secondary and above; n (%)

182 (30.8)

241 (40.8)

 

Income taka; mean [SD]

16605 [17096]

16629 [18825]

0.9827 *

Married; n (%)

476 (80.5)

517 (87.5)

0.0011**

Unemployed/retired; n (%)

91 (15.4)

49 (8.3)

0.0002 **

Cigarette smoking; n (%)

114 (19.3)

144 (24.4)

0.0346 **

Chronic conditions

 Cardiovascular disease; n (%)

59 (10.0)

20 (3.4)

<.0001**

 Kidney disease; n (%)

53 (9.0)

14 (2.4)

<.0001**

 Neurological disease; n (%)

35 (6.0)

11 (1.9)

0.0003**

 Eye disease; n (%)

355 (60.1)

225 (38.1)

<.0001**

 Foot ulcer; n (%)

20 (3.4)

0 (0.0)

<0.001**

Number of complications;

 

-

<0.001**

 0; n (%)

191 (32.3)

352 (59.6)

 

 1; n (%)

298 (50.4)

−212 (35.9)

 

  > 1; n (%)

102 (17.3)

−27 (4.6)

 

Diabetes duration; mean [SD]

7.7 [7.2]

-

 

  < 5 years; n (%)

252 (42.6)

-

 

 5–10 years; n (%)

148 (25.1)

-

 

  > 10 years; n (%)

191 (32.3)

-

 

*p-values from t-test; **p-values from Chi-square test

Association between diabetes and EQ-VAS

The unadjusted EQ-VAS mean in patients with diabetes was 69.0 (SD = 19.2), compared to 81.5 (SD = 15.3) in controls without diabetes. Table 2 depicts the results on the association between diabetes and HRQL. The first model, adjusted for sociodemographic variables explains 18.4 % of the variance and shows that the adjusted EQ-VAS mean in patients with diabetes was 11.5 points lower than in people without diabetes [95 % CI = −13.5; −9.6]. After adjustment for comorbidities R2 improved to 19.2 %, yet diabetes was still by far the strongest predictor for HRQL (β = −10.7 [95 % CI = −12.7; −8.6]). Interaction effects were only found for the factor unemployed/retired (p = 0.001). In individuals who reported to be retired/unemployed the impact of diabetes was much smaller (− 2.6 points) than in the working population (−12.6 points) (Appendix).
Table 2

Regression coefficients from multiple linear regression analysis on the association between diabetes status and EQ-VAS score

 

Basic model (R2 = 0.184)

Extended model (R2 = 0.192)

Covariates

β-coefficients [95 % CI]

p-value

β-coefficients [95 % CI]

p-value

Intercept

79.3 [73.0; 85.6]

<.0001

78.1 [71.8; 84.5]

<.0001

Diabetes

−11.5 [−13.5; −9.6]*

<.0001

−10.7 [−12.7; −8.6]*

<.0001

Age

−0.2 [−0.3; −0.1]*

0.0009

−0.1 [−0.2; 0.0]*

0.0142

Male (ref = female)

4.7 [2.4; 7.0]*

<.0001

4.6 [2.3; 6.9]*

<.0001

BMI (ref = <25)

 Overweight (25–30)

0.9 [−1.2; 3.0]

0.392

1.0 [−1.1; 3.0]

0.3619

 Obese (>30)

−1.1 [−4.2; 2.0]

0.4865

−0.9 [−4.0; 2.2]

0.5596

Education (ref = no formal education)

 Primary

3.4 [0.1; 6.8]*

0.0462

3.7 [0.3; 7.0]*

0.0333

 Secondary

4.4 [1.4; 7.5]*

0.0044

4.8 [1.7; 7.9]*

0.0021

 Higher secondary and above

7.4 [4.1; 10.6]*

<.0001

7.7 [4.4; 11.0]*

<.0001

Income (ref = Q1)

 Q2

2.4 [−0.4; 5.1]

0.0875

2.3 [−0.4; 5.1]

0.0943

 Q3

2.3 [−0.5; 5.1]

0.1079

2.4 [−0.4; 5.2]

0.0934

 Q4

5.0 [2.1; 7.9]*

0.0008

5.1 [2.2; 8.0]*

0.0006

Married (vs single)

0.8 [−1.9; 3.5]

0.5763

0.7 [−2.0; 3.3]

0.6334

Unemployed/retired

−0.7 (−4.1; 2.7]

0.6743

−0.7 [−4.1; 2.7]

0.6972

Smoking

0.1 [−2.4; 2.5]

0.9459

0.3 [−2.2; 2.7]

0.8398

Comorbodities

 CVD

-

 

−2.0 [−6.0; 2.0]

0.3269

 Kidney_disease

-

 

−2.6 [−6.8; 1.6]

0.2302

 Neuro_disease

-

 

−4.3 [−9.4; 0.7]

0.0935

 Eye_problem

-

 

−2.1 [−4.1; 0.0]*

0.0479

Results from multiple linear regression based on n = 591 cases and n = 591 controls; *p-value <0.05

Association between diabetes and dimensions of the EQ-5D

Figure 1 descriptively illustrates the percentage of individuals with and without diabetes who report moderate or severe problems in the EQ-5D dimensions. Most problems were reported in the dimensions pain/discomfort (cases 58 %, controls 24 %, difference 25 %) and anxiety/depression (cases 47 %, controls 34 %, difference 13 %) followed by mobility (cases 25 %, controls 6 %, difference 19 %), usual activities (cases 14 %, controls 4 %, difference 10 %) and self-care (cases 10 %, controls 2 %, difference 8 %). Table 3 shows the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of reporting moderate or severe problems within each of the EQ-5D dimensions in cases with diabetes compared to controls without diabetes. The adjusted OR estimates vary between 1.6 and 5.8 in the basic model. In the comorbidity-adjusted model ORs were slightly lower. In contrast to the absolute differences in proportion of reported problems, the largest relative effect was observed for the dimensions self-care (OR = 5.8).
Fig. 1

Proportion of patients reporting moderate or severe problems in the EQ-5D dimensions

Table 3

Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of reporting moderate or severe problems within each of the EQ-5D dimensions in patients with diabetes compared to people without diabetes

EQ-5D dimensions

Model 1

Model 2

OR (95 % CI)

OR2 (95 % CI)

Mobility

4.5 [3.0–6.6]

3.7 [2.5–5.6]

Self-care

5.9 [2.9–11.8]

5.2 [2.6–10.6]

Usual activities

3.3 [2.0–5.3]

3.0 [1.8–5.0]

Pain/discomfort

4.0 [3.1–5.2]

3.5 [2.7–4.6]

Anxiety/depression

1.7 [1.3–2.1]

1.6 [1.2–2.0]

Results based on multiple linear logistic regression models based on n = 591 cases and n = 591 controls. Model 1: adjusted for covariate set 1 (socio-demographics)

Model 2: adjusted for covariate set 1 (socio-demographics) and set 2 (comorbidities)

All p-values <0.001

Determinants of EQ-VAS in patients with diabetes

Determinants of HRQL in patients with diabetes are illustrated in Table 4. The full model explained 10.8 % of the variance. HRQL was positively associated with male gender (β = +4.2), highest education level (β = +6.4), and belonging to the highest income quartile (β = +5.7). Compared to patients with a diabetes duration <5 years, those with a duration of 5–10 years and those with a duration of >10 years reported 4.7 (p = 0.02) and 6.3 (p < 0.001) point lower VAS scores. Neither weight status nor comorbidities such as heart disease, neurological disease, and renal disease and eye problems were significantly associated with EQ-VAS scores. However, diabetic foot ulcer had a large negative impact on HRQL (β = −13.5 [95 % CI = −21.9; −5.1]).
Table 4

Regression coefficients from a multiple linear regression analysis model analyzing determinates of EQ-VAS score

Parameter

β-coefficients [95 % CI]

P-value

Intercept

63.1 [57.5; 68.7]

<.0001

Male (ref = female)

4.2* [0.5; 7.9]

0.0281

BMI (ref = normal)

 Overweight

1.6 [−1.8; 4.9]

0.3586

 Obese

1.4 [−3.4; 6.2]

0.5633

Education (ref = no formal education)

 Primary

2.4 [−2.6; 7.4]

0.3466

 Secondary

3.6 [−0.8; 8.0]

0.1113

 Higher secondary and above

6.4* [1.5; 11.4]

0.0113

Income (ref = Q1)

 Q2

2.8 [−1.5; 7.1]

0.1991

 Q3

3.4 [−1.0; 7.9]

0.1265

 Q4

5.7* [1.3; 10.1]

0.0113

Married

0.6 [−3.4; 4.5]

0.7766

Unemployed/retired

3.2 [−1.5; 8.0]

0.1846

smoking

1.0 [−2.9; 4.9]

0.6167

Diabetes duration (ref = <5 years)

 5–10 years

−4.7* [−8.5; −0.8]

0.0180

  > 10 years

−6.3*[−9.9; −2.6]

0.0009

Comorbidities

 Cardiovascular diseases

−2.0 [−7.2; 3.2]

0.4490

 Kidney diseases

−1.4 [−6.8; 4.0]

0.6017

 Neurological diseases

−4.5 [−11.0; 1.9]

0.1691

 Eye problems

−0.6 [−3.8; 2.6]

0.7195

 Foot ulcer

−13.5*[−21.9; −5.1]

0.0017

R2 of the model = 0.108; *p-value <0.05

Discussion

HRQL is an important patient-reported outcome that helps policy makers to understand the burden of diseases. There is a lack of evidence concerning the burden of diabetes on quality of life among South Asian populations. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze the association between diabetes and HRQL in Bangladesh. Our findings suggest that the impact of diabetes on HRQL in the Bangladeshi population is much higher than what is known from western populations and that unlike in western populations comorbidities/complications are not the driving factor for this effect [2428].

The results of this study show that patients with diabetes report lower VAS-scores than controls without diabetes. Qualitatively, this finding from this case-control study is in line with results from population-based studies from other parts of the world; however, the magnitude of the effect is much bigger in the Bangladeshi population. With a decrement of almost 12 points on the VAS the effect is around twice as big as what has been found in studies in the US, Germany, China and Korea in which quality of life decrements for diabetes averaged 5–7 points on the VAS [2428].

Comorbidities were much more prevalent in cases, as diabetes is a strong independent risk factor for many of those. Though, the strong effect of diabetes on HRQL was not or only weakly mediated by self-reported micro- and macrovascular comorbidities as regression coefficients did not significantly change after adjustment for comorbidities. This is in contrast to studies from western countries which showed that micro- and macrovascular complications have a huge impact on HRQL in both patients with and without diabetes and are therefore the main causes for lower HRQL values in patients with diabetes [8, 12, 24, 29].

A recent study on the same data showed that out of pocket payments for medication and treatment are for example much higher than in China or other countries [30]. In parallel to the economic burden, this study shows that also the diabetes associated HRQL decrement is much higher than observed in other countries and populations. The reason for this finding remains unknown. It might be possible that the high out of pockets costs for diabetes medications and time resources spend for the management of the disease put individuals under financial pressure, resulting in psychologic and physical stress that translates into lower perceived HRQL. The found discrepancy in the magnitude of effect size could also be partly related to other issues: Participants in this study were slightly younger than those in the other mentioned studies and it is known that the difference in HRQL between patients with and without diabetes diminishes with age [2428, 31]. Further, population-based HRQL studies often rely on self-reports of the diabetes status and therefore the found associations might be diluted. This is unlikely to have happened in this case-control study, as objectively measured WHO criteria for diabetes were applied. Finally, compared to population-based surveys both cases and controls were recruited in a tertiary hospital OPD. Although diabetes care in Bangladesh is predominantly delivered in such settings, it might be possible that patients visiting the hospital OPD are ‘more severe’ cases. However, as the prevalence of diabetic complications is not higher than those known from other population-based studies on routinely treated diabetes patients, this bias is expected to be rather small [32].

The reason for the low predictive value of comorbidities and complications compared to the diabetes status remains unknown. Whereas it is possible that people from Bangladesh simply value factors like renal or cardiovascular comorbidities less burdensome than in other parts of the world, discrepancies could be also related to unknown differences in assessment methods. In our study, for example, information on comorbidities were based on self-reports and various conditions were summarized in the provided answer categories.

Besides these mentioned discrepancies, our findings are generally consistent with those of previous studies from Western or other Asians countries. In our study, being male, having higher education level and belonging to the highest income group, are positively associated with HRQL, whilst older age is associated with lower quality of life. This is accordance with the literature and illustrates that particularly females and people with low socioeconomic status report lower HRQL scores [9, 12, 33, 34]. With pain/discomfort being the most frequently reported problem the results of this study are in line with other studies from various populations [7, 3538]. In addition, as reported in previous studies we found that diabetic foot ulcer was associated with a very high HRQL decrement [36, 39]. These issues indicate that neuropathic problems in legs/feet and management of the legs are a core problem that should be addressed in the Bangladeshi population. Regular check-up of feet, screening for neuropathy, and adequate patient self-management education could be cost-effective strategies in this context.

The strengths of this study are the case-control design, the large sample size of diabetes patients, the unbiased classification of diabetes and the standardized assessment of HRQL with the EQ-5D descriptive system and the EQ-VAS. Furthermore, the stepwise adjustment for sociodemographic factors and comorbidities and the analysis of both, the impact of diabetes on HRQL, and the determinants of HRQL in patients with diabetes enhances the understanding for potentially underlying mechanisms in a high level of detail.

Yet, there are a few limitations that need to be considered when interpreting the results of the study. Firstly, all co-morbid conditions in this study are self-reported-hence misclassifications issues are likely to have had occurred. We further did not take into account the time of occurrence of comorbidities and some might already be cured by the time this study was conducted. In addition, it has to be acknowledged that this study compares quality of life of patients receiving care from a tertiary OHD with the quality of life of people without diabetes. The results of this study on the impact of diabetes on HRQL are therefore only generalizable to people who are aware of their disease, and who are under regular or sporadic care. This is a limitation, as previous studies indicated that only around 56 % of patients are aware of their disease and only 40 %, ie around 71 % of those who are aware of their disease, receive regular diabetes care [40]. Another minor limitation that has to be acknowledged is that potential cases or controls that require hospitalization were not considered to be eligible for the study. This explicit exclusion criterion leads to a minor underrepresentation of cases with severe episodes.

Finally, although the EQ-5D index score is known to be a valid and a reliable generic instrument to assess HRQL [6, 41], the results of our main analysis rely primarily on the less frequently used EQ-VAS. The reason for this is that there is no population-based Bangladeshi value set/scoring algorithm available that allows calculating a country-specific single utility score. Whereas estimations on basis of utility values describe the burden of a disease from a societal perspective, analyses on basis of VAS scores describe the burden of the disease from the perspective of the examined population, ie from the perspective of patients with diabetes. Furthermore, in contrast to EQ-5D index scores which are indirectly derived via the methods time trade-off or standard gamble, the valuations via the VAS do neither express preferences nor are they made under conditions of uncertainty. Therefore, VAS scores do not fulfill the assumptions of expected utility theory and cannot be interpreted as utilities needed as input parameters for decision analytic models.

Conclusion

The burden of diabetes in terms of lower HRQL in Bangladesh is substantial and much larger as what has been found in other Asian, European or North American countries. Female gender, low education, low income a long diabetes duration and presence of diabetic foot ulcer were significant predictors for reduced HRQL in patients with type 2 diabetes. Secondary preventive efforts are needed and socioeconomic boundaries for treatment should be lowered to diminish the burden of diabetes and diabetic complications such as foot ulcer.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the study team at icddr,b for their contribution.

Funding

This research study was funded by icddr,b’s core Sida Grant Number GR-01014. icddr,b also gratefully acknowledges the following donors which provide unrestricted support: Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), and the Department for International Development, UK (DFID). Shariful Islam also received support from Center for International Health (CIH), Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich, DAAD, BMZ and Exceed as PhD scholar for this study. The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of data; or preparation, review or approval of the manuscript, or decisions to submit for publication.

Availability of data and material

The datasets analysed during the current study are not publicly available due institutional data sharing policies but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

NS and ML designed the concept for the paper, performed the statistical analysis, interpreted the data and drafted the manuscript. RH and LN were involved in the coordination of the study, co-designed the concept of the manuscript and commented on the manuscript. SMSI and AL were involved in the coordination of the study, collected the data and commented on drafts of the manuscript. SMSI was further the Principal Investigator of the study and was responsible for the study design and study implementation. CC commented on drafts of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was approved by the Research Review Committee and Ethical Review Committee of the International Center for Diarrheal Diseases Research, Bangladesh (PR-13062) and obtained ethical clearance waiver from Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) and BIHS.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Helmholtz Zentrum München, Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management
(2)
Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometrics and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
(3)
Center for International Health, Ludwig - Maximilians- Universität München
(4)
International Center for Diarrhoeal Diseases Research Bangladesh (ICDDR, B)
(5)
The George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney
(6)
Westmead Hospital
(7)
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine
(8)
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
(9)
Diabetes Research Group, Medizinische Klinik IV, Klinikum der Universität München
(10)
German Center for Diabetes Research (DZD)
(11)
Clinical Cooperation Group Type 2 Diabetes, Helmholtz Zentrum München

References

  1. van Dieren S, Beulens JW, van der Schouw YT, Grobbee DE, Neal B. The global burden of diabetes and its complications: an emerging pandemic. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2010;17 Suppl 1:S3–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Islam SMS, Purnat TD, Phuong NTA, Mwingira U, Schacht K, Fröschl G. Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) in developing countries: a symposium report. Glob Health. 2014;10(1):1–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Akter S, Rahman MM, Abe SK, Sultana P. Nationwide survey of prevalence and risk factors for diabetes and prediabetes in Bangladeshi adults. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(1):e9–e10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Biswas T, Islam A, Rawal L, Islam S. Increasing prevalence of diabetes in Bangladesh: a scoping review. Public Health. 2016.Google Scholar
  5. Wood-Dauphinee S. Assessing quality of life in clinical research: from where have we come and where are we going? J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(4):355–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Glasziou P, Alexander J, Beller E, Clarke P, Group AC. Which health-related quality of life score? A comparison of alternative utility measures in patients with Type 2 diabetes in the ADVANCE trial. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:21.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Solli O, Stavem K, Kristiansen IS. Health-related quality of life in diabetes: The associations of complications with EQ-5D scores. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:18.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke P, Gray A, Holman R. Estimating utility values for health states of type 2 diabetic patients using the EQ-5D (UKPDS 62). Med Decis Making. 2002;22(4):340–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hunger M, Thorand B, Schunk M, Döring A, Menn P, Peters A, Holle R. Multimorbidity and health-related quality of life in the older population: results from the German KORA-Age study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:53.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Rubin RR, Peyrot M. Quality of life and diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 1999;15(3):205–18.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Venkataraman K, Khoo C, Wee HL, Tan CS, Ma S, Heng D, Lee J, Tai ES, Thumboo J. Associations between disease awareness and health-related quality of life in a multi-ethnic Asian population. PLoS One. 2014;9(11), e113802.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Redekop WK, Koopmanschap MA, Stolk RP, Rutten GE, Wolffenbuttel BH, Niessen LW. Health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction in Dutch patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(3):458–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Green AJ, Fox KM, Grandy S, Group SS. Self-reported hypoglycemia and impact on quality of life and depression among adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2012;96(3):313–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ramachandran A, Snehalatha C, Shetty AS, Nanditha A. Trends in prevalence of diabetes in Asian countries. World J Diabetes. 2012;3(6):110–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Katikireddi SV, Morling JR, Bhopal R. Is there a divergence in time trends in the prevalence of impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes? A systematic review in South Asian populations. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40(6):1542–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Islam SM, Alam DS, Wahiduzzaman M, Niessen LW, Froeschl G, Ferrari U, Seissler J, Rouf HM, Lechner A. Clinical characteristics and complications of patients with type 2 diabetes attending an urban hospital in Bangladesh. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2015;9(1):7–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Sal-sabil T, Islam A, Shariful Islam SM. Risk Factors for Type 2 Diabetes in Bangladesh: A Systematic Review. J Diabetol. 2016;2:4.Google Scholar
  18. Shah A, Kanaya AM. Diabetes and associated complications in the South Asian population. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2014;16(5):476.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Islam SMS, Ferrari U, Seissler J, Niessen L, Lechner A. Association between depression and diabetes amongst adults in Bangladesh: a hospital based case–control study. J Glob Health. 2015;5(2):020406. doi:https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.05.020406.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Islam SMS, Rawal LB, Niessen LW. Prevalence of depression and its associated factors in patients with type 2 diabetes: A cross-sectional study in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Asian J Psychiatr. 2015;17:36–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. IDF W. Definition and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and intermediate hyperglycaemia: Report of a WHO/IDF consultation. In. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006.Google Scholar
  22. Shariful Islam SM, Lechner A, Ferrari U, Froeschl G, Niessen LW, Seissler J, Alam DS. Social and economic impact of diabetics in Bangladesh: protocol for a case–control study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1217.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. EuroQol G. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Grandy S, Fox KM. EQ-5D visual analog scale and utility index values in individuals with diabetes and at risk for diabetes: Findings from the Study to Help Improve Early evaluation and management of risk factors Leading to Diabetes (SHIELD). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6(1):1–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Jia H, Lubetkin EI. The impact of obesity on health-related quality-of-life in the general adult US population. J Public Health. 2005;27(2):156–64.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Choi YJ, Lee MS, An SY, Kim TH, Han SJ, Kim HJ, Chung Y-S, Lee KW, Kim DJ. The Relationship between Diabetes Mellitus and Health-Related Quality of Life in Korean Adults: The Fourth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2007–2009). Diabetes Metab J. 2011;35(6):587–94.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Schweikert B, Hunger M, Meisinger C, König H-H, Gapp O, Holle R. Quality of life several years after myocardial infarction: comparing the MONICA/KORA registry to the general population†. Eur Heart J. 2009;30(4):436–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Tan Z, Liang Y, Liu S, Cao W, Tu H, Guo L, Xu Y. Health-Related Quality of Life as Measured with EQ-5D among Populations with and without Specific Chronic Conditions: A Population-Based Survey in Shaanxi Province. China PLoS ONE. 2013;8(7), e65958.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Wandell PE. Quality of life of patients with diabetes mellitus. An overview of research in primar1y health care in the Nordic countries. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2005;23(2):68–74.Google Scholar
  30. Shariful Islam SM, Lechner A, Ferrari U, Hossain P, Laxy M, Brown J, Seissler J, Niessen LW, Holle R: Healthcare use and expenditure for diabetes in Bangladesh: A matched-case–control study. (Accepted). BMJ Global Helth 2016.Google Scholar
  31. Laxy M, Hunger M, Stark R, Meisinger C, Kirchberger I, Heier M, von Scheidt W, Holle R. The Burden of Diabetes Mellitus in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease: A Methodological Approach to Assess Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Based on Individual-Level Longitudinal Survey Data. Value Health. 2015;18(8):969–76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Latif ZA, Jain A, Rahman MM. Evaluation of management, control, complications and psychosocial aspects of diabetics in Bangladesh: DiabCare Bangladesh 2008. Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull. 2011;37(1):11–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Quah JH, Luo N, Ng WY, How CH, Tay EG. Health-related quality of life is associated with diabetic complications, but not with short-term diabetic control in primary care. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2011;40(6):276–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Jhita T, Petrou S, Gumber A, Szczepura A, Raymond NT, Bellary S. Ethnic differences in health related quality of life for patients with type 2 diabetes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12.Google Scholar
  35. Javanbakht M, Abolhasani F, Mashayekhi A, Baradaran HR, Jahangiri noudeh Y. Health related quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Iran: a national survey. PLoS One. 2012;7(8), e44526.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Sakamaki H, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, Uchigata Y, Iwamoto Y, Origasa H, Otani T, Otani Y. Measurement of HRQL using EQ-5D in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Japan. Value Health. 2006;9(1):47–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Holmes J, McGill S, Kind P, Bottomley J, Gillam S, Murphy M. Health-related quality of life in type 2 diabetes (TARDIS-2). Value Health. 2000;3 Suppl 1:47–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Saleh F, Mumu SJ, Ara F, Hafez MA, Ali L. Non-adherence to self-care practices & medication and health related quality of life among patients with type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:431.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Tennvall GR. Health-related quality of life in patients with diabetes mellitus and foot ulcers. J Diabetes Complications. 2000;14:7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Akter S, Rahman MM, Abe SK, Sultana P. Prevalence of diabetes and prediabetes and their risk factors among Bangladeshi adults: a nationwide survey. Bull World Health Organ. 2014;92(3):204–213A.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Quercioli C, Messina G, Barbini E, Carriero G, Fani M, Nante N. Importance of sociodemographic and morbidity aspects in measuring health-related quality of life: performances of three tools: comparison of three questionnaire scores. Eur J Health Econ. 2009;10(4):389–97.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement