No abstract

South Africa faces an epidemic of chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs), yet national surveillance is limited due to the lack of recent data. We used data from the first comprehensive national survey on NCDs—the South African National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (SANHANES-1 (2011–2012))—to evaluate the prevalence of and health system response to diabetes through a diabetes care cascade. We defined diabetes as a Hemoglobin A1c equal to or above 6.5% or currently on treatment for diabetes. We constructed a diabetes care cascade by categorizing the population with diabetes into those who were unscreened, screened but undiagnosed, diagnosed but untreated, treated but uncontrolled, and treated and controlled. We then used multivariable logistic regression models to explore factors associated with diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes. The age-standardized prevalence of diabetes in South Africans aged 15+ was 10.1%. Prevalence rates were higher among the non-white population and among women. Among individuals with diabetes, a total of 45.4% were unscreened, 14.7% were screened but undiagnosed, 2.3% were diagnosed but untreated, 18.1% were treated but uncontrolled, and 19.4% were treated and controlled, suggesting that 80.6% of the diabetic population had unmet need for care. The diabetes care cascade revealed significant losses from lack of screening, between screening and diagnosis, and between treatment and control. These results point to significant unmet need for diabetes care in South Africa. Additionally, this analysis provides a benchmark for evaluating efforts to manage the rising burden of diabetes in South Africa.

BackgroundThere is an increasing recognition that non communicable diseases impose large economic costs on households, societies and nations. However, not much is known about the magnitude of diabetes expenditure in African countries and to the best of our knowledge no systematic assessment of the literature on diabetes costs in Africa has been conducted. The aim of this paper is to capture the evidence on the cost of diabetes in Africa, review the methods used to calculate costs and identify areas for future research.MethodsA desk search was conducted in Pubmed, Medline, Embase, and Science direct as well as through other databases, namely Google Scholar. The following eligibility criteria were used: peer reviewed English articles published between 2006 and 2016, articles that reported original research findings on the cost of illness in diabetes, and studies that covered at least one African country. Information was extracted using two data extraction sheets and results organized in tables. Costs presented in the studies under review are converted to 2015 international dollars prices (I$).ResultsTwenty six articles are included in this review. Annual national direct costs of diabetes differed between countries and ranged from I$3.5 billion to I$4.5 billion per annum. Indirect costs per patient were generally higher than the direct costs per patient of diabetes. Outpatient costs varied by study design, data source, perspective and healthcare cost categories included in the total costs calculation. The most commonly included healthcare items were drug costs, followed by diagnostic costs, medical supply or disposable costs and consultation costs. In studies that reported both drug costs and total costs, drug costs took a significant portion of the total costs per patient. The highest burden due to the costs associated with diabetes was reported in individuals within the low income group.ConclusionEstimation of the costs associated with diabetes is crucial to make progress towards meeting the targets laid out in Sustainable Development Goal 3 set for 2030. The studies included in this review show that the presence of diabetes leads to elevated costs of treatment which further increase in the presence of complications. The cost of drugs generally contributed the most to total direct costs of treatment. Various methods are used in the estimation of diabetes healthcare costs and the costs estimated between countries differ significantly. There is room to improve transparency and make the methodologies used standard in order to allow for cost comparisons across studies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12992-017-0318-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Despite the expanding literature on how reforms may affect health workers and which reactions they may provoke, little research has been conducted on the mechanisms of effect through which health sector reforms either promote or discourage health worker performance. This paper seeks to trace these mechanisms and examines the contextual framework of reform objectives in Uganda and Bangladesh, and health workers' responses to the changes in their working environments by taking a 'realistic evaluation' approach.

IntroductionThere is growing evidence concerning the acceptability and feasibility of home-based HIV testing. However, less is known about the cost-effectiveness of the approach yet it is a critical component to guide decisions about scaling up access to HIV testing. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of a home-based HIV testing intervention in rural South Africa.MethodsTwo alternatives: clinic and home-based HIV counselling and testing were compared. Costs were analysed from a provider’s perspective for the period of January to December 2010. The outcome, HIV counselling and testing (HCT) uptake was obtained from the Good Start home-based HIV counselling and testing (HBHCT) cluster randomised control trial undertaken in KwaZulu-Natal province. Cost-effectiveness was estimated for a target population of 22,099 versus 23,864 people for intervention and control communities respectively. Average costs were calculated as the cost per client tested, while cost-effectiveness was calculated as the cost per additional client tested through HBHCT.ResultsBased on effectiveness of 37% in the intervention (HBHCT) arm compared to 16% in control arm, home based testing costs US$29 compared to US$38 per person for clinic HCT. The incremental cost effectiveness per client tested using HBHCT was $19.ConclusionsHBHCT was less costly and more effective. Home-based HCT could present a cost-effective alternative for rural ‘hard to reach’ populations depending on affordability by the health system, and should be considered as part of community outreach programs.