Logo of ijdiabdevcspringer.comThis journalToc AlertsSubmit OnlineOpen ChoiceInternational Journal of Diabetes in Developing Countries
Int J Diabetes Dev Ctries. 2009 Jul-Aug; 29(3): 103–109.
PMCID: PMC2822213

Challenges in diabetes management with particular reference to India

Abstract

Diabetes was estimated to be responsible for 109 thousand deaths, 1157 thousand years of life lost and for 2263 thousand disability adjusted life years (DALYs) in India during 2004. However, health systems have not matured to manage diabetes effectively. The limited studies available on diabetes care in India indicate that 50 to 60% of diabetic patients do not achieve the glycemic target of HbA1c below 7%. Awareness about and understanding of the disease is less than satisfactory among patients, leading to delayed recognition of complications. The cost of treatment, need for lifelong medication, coupled with limited availability of anti-diabetic medications in the public sector and cost in the private sector are important issues for treatment compliance. This article attempts to highlight the current constraints in the health system to effectively manage diabetes and the need for developing workable strategies for ensuring timely and appropriate management with extensive linkage and support for enhancing the availability of trained manpower, investigational facilities and drugs.

Keywords: Diabetes, diabetes management, non-communicable diseases, health care, India

Introduction

Non-communicable diseases were estimated to account for 35 million (60%) of the 58 million deaths globally in 2005. Of these, 72% were estimated to have occurred in low and lower middle income countries.[1] In India, 53% of all deaths in 2005 were estimated to be due to non-communicable diseases.[2] Non-communicable diseases pose a different and more complex threat to the health systems of countries, already faced with the unfinished agenda of infectious diseases, and maternal and child health problems. The hallmarks of these diseases namely long latency, chronicity, multi-organ involvement and need for long-term care make the management of chronic conditions difficult.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus exemplifies the management challenge in non-communicable diseases. Though recognized as a distinct clinical syndrome for centuries, our understanding of the disease, its causation, and mechanisms for progression are still evolving.[3] Over the past few decades, diagnostic criteria, and management algorithms for diabetes have seen rapid revisions. These are reflections of not just the translation of basic research into diabetes practice guidelines, but also an increased realization of the morbidity potential of the disease and its complications.

The global burden of diabetes was estimated to be 154 million in 2000, with a prevalence of 4.2% in the general adult population.[4] There were an estimated 37.76 million diabetics in India in 2004; 21.4 million in urban areas and 16.36 million in rural areas. Diabetes was estimated to be responsible for 109 thousand deaths, 1157 thousand years of life lost and for 2263 thousand disability-adjusted-life years (DALYs) during 2004.[5] The estimates for disease burden due to diabetes vary from 23 million in 2000[4] to 41 million in 2007,[6] the vast majority having type 2 diabetes mellitus. A substantial proportion of these patients will have diabetes-related complications. The percentages of patients having diabetic retinopathy, microalbuminuria and peripheral neuropathy in the Chennai Urban Rural Epidemiological Study (CURES) were 17.6, 26.9% and 26.1% respectively.[79] In the Chennai Urban Population Study (CUPS), 21.4% of diabetes patients had coronary artery disease, while 6.3% had peripheral vascular disease.[10,11] The health system needs to be geared to tackle these huge numbers, while ensuring health care that is universally accessible and of acceptable quality. This paper looks at the challenges diabetes poses to the health system globally and particularly in India.

Global scenario

National guidelines and standards of care for diabetes are now available in many countries in the world. Despite this, the management of patients with diabetes in practice remains less than satisfactory in most countries. For example, nation-wide studies in UK and USA have shown that the prevalence of inadequate glycemic control (Glycosylated Hemoglobin (HbA1c) > 7%) in UK[12] is 76%, and 50% in the USA.[13] Data from the NHANES 1999-2002 in the US indicate that other components of diabetic control were also inadequate with only 39.6% patients having blood pressure values less than 130/80 mm Hg and 36% having LDL cholesterol below recommended levels (< 100 mg/dl).[13]

In Brazil, management goals set by the Brazilian Diabetes Society were achieved in 46% of the patients surveyed with respect to HbA1c, 24% for body mass index (BMI), 28.5% for systolic BP and 19.3% for diastolic BP.[14] In a cross-sectional study from 12 countries in Asia, 54% of those surveyed did not have a recorded value of HbA1c. The study measured HbA1c independently, and 55% were found to have values higher than 8%.[15] Studies in Thailand[16] and Pakistan[17] have also found that only 26.3% and 31.4% of patients achieved HbA1c less than 7%, respectively.

Barriers to effective diabetes management include both provider- and patient- related issues. Physician barriers include sub-optimal knowledge of guidelines, constraints of time and facilities, and attitudinal issues.[18] Providers are not always aware of the most effective interventions and tend to spend more time on ‘acute’ management than ‘chronic’ care.[19,20] The complexity of T2DM as a disease, and the multiple interventions required, make physicians wary of treating T2DM, especially since disease prognosis remains unpredictable in spite of aggressive management.[21]

Patients' lack of knowledge about diabetes care can impede their ability to manage their disease. This is important as better patient self-management ability is related to improved diabetes control.[22] Perceived quality of life is also lower in patients being managed aggressively, due to lack of dramatic disease-related symptoms and side-effects of interventions. This can affect patient compliance with medical advice.[23]

Various models of chronic care and interventions to improve control of diabetes have been tested for usefulness in different countries. Broadly, these health care models have focussed on reorganizing the health care services with better-designed delivery systems, providing support for improved self-management by patients, supporting physicians to take appropriate clinical decisions through guidelines and clinical information flows, and creation of linkages between the health care provider organization and other agencies that can support patient care.[24] Individual studies and meta-analyses have assessed such models in various settings and demonstrated that reorienting health systems to include some or all of the above lead to improved clinical, behavioural and diabetes knowledge outcomes in patients.[2527] Specific interventions for provider education, patient education, financial incentives, feedback and reminders have also been found useful in some studies.[28]

Ethiopia has tested a model where nurses working in primary health centres have been trained to provide chronic disease care to patients. Nurse-led clinics are run once a week and specialist support is also made available once a month. Staff turnover and irregular supply of medicines were the limitations in implementation of the model.[29] A community-based intervention for nutrition and physical activity in rural Costa Rica was also found to be effective in improving glycemic control and weight loss within the 12 weeks of the study. Student nutritionists provided the nutrition interventions, while community volunteers undertook the physical activity interventions. Sustainability of the interventions and the effects could not be commented upon.[30] The Indonesian Endocrinology Society brought consensus guidelines for management of type 2 diabetes mellitus, which are now being followed by all health care professionals in Indonesia. Efforts are also being taken to increase the number of non-physician diabetes educators for patient education.[31]

India

In India, limited studies have focussed on diabetes care and provide an insight into the current profile of patients and their management. In Diab-Care Asia, a multi-country study in Asia, the mean age of diagnosis among Indian respondents was 43.6 years. 50% had poor control as measured by HbA1c, and 54% had late severe complications.[32] In another pan-India study with patients recruited through providers, 70% of the patients were diagnosed by general practitioners. Only 43.4% patients had their BP checked at the time of diagnosis. The figures were 17.6%, 5.6% and 4.2% for eye examination, kidney function tests and lipid tests. In spite of these low percentages, 27.4% and 26.5% of those surveyed had elevated blood pressure and diminished vision at the time of diagnosis. Only 7-11% of patients had been tested for HbA1c, lipids, blood circulation and kidney function after diagnosis, and 47.2% monitored their condition only four or less times in a year.[33] Both studies cannot, however, be considered representative of diabetes patients in India due the lack of a defined population base and rigorous sampling.

Nagpal et al., in a study among urban diabetics from middle and high income groups in Delhi, found that 41.8% of those tested had HbA1c greater than 8%, 63.2% had uncontrolled hypertension, and 74.5% had abnormal lipid profile. 79.4% were compliant with their medication, though 41.4% had not visited their health care provider in the past year. Only 13%, 16.2%, 32.1% and 3.1% of respondents had undergone HbA1c test, eye examination, serum cholesterol test, and foot examination, respectively, in the last year. Only 21.7% had heard of HbA1c or glycemic control.[34] Table 1 summarises the key findings from these studies.

Table 1
Summary of key findings – Indian studies on diabetes management

It is also probable that there is also substantial delay in diagnosis. In a study by Rayappa et al. in Bangalore, there was a ten-year difference in the age of diagnosis between the actively working and non-working respondents, a seven year gap between the highest educated and the least educated, and a four year lag between the highest and lowest socio-economic groups. Those with a late age at diagnosis also had multiple complications, implying delayed diagnosis of diabetes. Patients in this study also tended to evaluate diabetes control based on their perception of well-being. However, the mean blood glucose of those who felt ‘well’ was 180 mg/dL when last monitored.[35]

The awareness about the disease and its complications is also less than satisfactory among patients. Only 23% of self-reported diabetics, in a population based sample in Chennai, knew that diabetes could lead to foot problems, while only 5.8% knew that it could cause a heart attack.[36]

Compliance to medical advice, for a condition like diabetes, is an expensive affair, with the average cost per annum ranging from Rs 3000 to 10,000 in different studies.[3739] In 2005, the median per annum cost for diabetes care was estimated to be Rs 10,000 for urban, and Rs 6,260 for rural patients.[39] Availability and affordability of anti-diabetic medication is another problematic aspect, in spite of “The National List of Essential Medicines” identifying glibenclamide, metformin, and insulin (soluble and lente) as anti-diabetic drugs that need to be available universally.[40] The availability of glibenclamide in public health facilities, for example, varied from 100 percent in Karnataka to 3.8 percent in West Bengal.[41] Given the uncertainty of availability of medicines, and the lack of pricing control over the private sector, compliance with medication becomes a serious issue. In one facility-based study, only 30% of patients reported to be compliant with medication, 37% with dietary advice, and 19% with exercise. Non-adherence was more in the lower socio-economic group.[42]

Provider issues are also very important for appropriate management. Inadequate knowledge, focus on acute management rather than preventive care, competing care demands and delay in clinical response to poor control are some of the physician-related issues in diabetes control in India.

Discussion

Health care in India is provided by a variety of players, both governmental and non-governmental. The governmental system has a network of sub-centres, primary health centres and community health centres in rural areas, district hospitals, tertiary care hospitals and medical colleges in the cities. Though the system is based on the principle of state responsibility for free health care for the people without regard to their ability to pay, the focus continues to be on delivery of maternal and child health services.[42] Diabetes care is not explicitly part of the roles and responsibilities assigned to health personnel in the rural health care set-up, nor in pre and in-service training of personnel. Testing for blood glucose does not form part of the standard tests available in Primary Health Centres and Community Health Centres, and supplies for this test are not part of the central supply list.[4346] Tertiary care hospitals bear the maximum load of patient care. The public health system tends to be under-utilised for all types of care, due to reasons of location, unreliable functioning of health facilities and increased indirect expenditures involved.[47]

The private sector covers a wide spectrum of providers, from the high-end corporate hospitals, charitable institutions, small nursing homes, sole practitioners, to unqualified providers. The private health sector operates in an unregulated market, and there are huge variations in the quality and type of care on offer.[47,48] Qualified practitioners tend to congregate in urban areas, while private providers in rural areas are likely to be less than fully qualified.[49,50]

The variety of health care providers, lack of national guidelines and protocols for health care services, including standards for health facilities, personnel and treatment protocols, makes it difficult to monitor and assure quality services across the board. Such differences have been noted in a range of services, including emergency medicine,[51] obstetrics[52] and paediatric care.[53] Health systems strengthening with development of nationally accepted management protocols for all levels of health care and appropriate monitoring for quality and accessibility are the foundation for improved health care across the board.

Care for non-communicable diseases, especially if it involves hospitalisation, is more expensive than care for acute illnesses. In urban Kerala, even non-poor families chose to utilize public hospitals for non-communicable disease hospitalisation, while preferring private facilities for acute illness-related hospitalisation in 1995-96.[54] While hospitalisation, surgery, medication and laboratory tests are the major drivers of cost, clinical practices driven by profit can substantially increase costs in the absence of well-defined management practices and clinical goal-setting.[55] Along with effective service delivery, innovative financing mechanisms will have to be developed to ensure risk pooling, and reduced financial burden on poor households.

The National Rural Health Mission[56] (NRHM) launched in 2005 and the new pilot National Programme for prevention and control of Diabetes, Cardiovascular diseases and Stroke[57] (NPDCS) offer opportunities for improving care for diabetes and other non-communicable diseases through service provision at the primary and secondary levels of care. Guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Indian context have also now been developed through a joint consultation by the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) and WHO in 2005.[58] The matrix in Table 2 can be used for service delivery at various levels.

Table 2
Services for diabetes management

Effective management of people with diabetes is only a part of the solution for the problem of diabetes. Other aspects of care important from the perspective of diabetes control may be difficult to provide within the health system itself. Aspects related to the diet and amount of physical activity undertaken will be influenced by interplay of various sectoral policies and forces. Adherence to diet restrictions, for example, will depend on the sustained availability of inexpensive dietary substitutes in the market, their affordability and accessibility on a continuous basis to the patient apart from provision of appropriate dietary advice to the individual and the patient's motivation for adherence. These will require re-aligning of national or state policies for food procurement, pricing and marketing, to ensure lower prices, and improved access to healthy foods, and the opposite for those increasing health risk. Population-based strategies for health promotion and risk reduction, along with surveillance of trends in disease and risk factors are equally important components of any public health approach for diabetes control. The PACE project in Chennai has demonstrated the feasibility and the effectiveness of a large-scale multipronged diabetes awareness programme, and such approaches can complement effective diabetes management by increasing knowledge of diabetes and its prevention across the population.[60,61]

Conclusions

Diabetes management remains a challenge for developed and developing countries alike. The implementation of evidence-based guidelines and restructuring of clinical care organization has yielded gains in some countries. There have been several attempts in developing countries as well to generate feasible and effective care systems. These initiatives and projects hold promise but much depends on the re-orientation of the overall health system for effective and sustainable care.

In India, as in other countries, the health system has traditionally been designed to cater to acute illness and maternal and child health concerns. The need for long-term care, for non-communicable diseases, is a relatively new health concern, and personnel and infrastructure are as yet not geared to face this task. The burgeoning load of diabetes is a real threat in India, underscored by the constraints of the health system in terms of manpower and capacity. Workable strategies for ensuring timely and appropriate management require extensive linkage and support for enhancing the availability of trained manpower, investigational facilities and drugs. Primary prevention through promotion of healthy lifestyles and risk reduction is recognized as the most cost-effective intervention in resource-poor settings. However, India will need to also plan for the care of the sizeable number of people with diabetes, in order to prevent and decrease morbidity due to complications. A health system strengthening approach with standards of care at all levels, nationally accepted management protocols and regulatory framework can help in tackling this challenge.

Footnotes

Source of Support: Nil

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

References

1. WHO. Preventing chronic diseases: A vital investment. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005.
2. WHO. Preventing chronic diseases:a vital investment. India fact sheet – available from www.who.int/chp/chronic_disease_report/en - accessed on 6 Dec 07.
3. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. (15th edition) 2:2109–37.
4. King H, Aubert RE, Herman WH. Global burden of diabetes 1995-2025;Prevalence, numerical estimates, and projection. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:1414–31. [PubMed]
5. ICMR. Assessment of Burden of NCDs. Indian Council of Medical Research. 2006.
6. IDF. Diabetes Atlas. International Diabetes Federation Brussels. 3rd edition 2007.
7. Rema M, Premkumar S, Anitha B, Deepa R, Pradeepa R, Mohan V. Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy in Urban India: The Chennai Urban Rural Epidemiological Study (CURES) Eye Study-1. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:22328–33. [PubMed]
8. Ranjit UI, Rema M, Pradeepa R, Deepa M, Shanthirani CS, Deepa R, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of diabetic nephropathy in an Urban South Indian population: The Chennai Urban Rural Epidemiological Study (CURES-45) Diabetes Care. 2007;30:2019–24. [PubMed]
9. Pradeepa R, Rema M, Vignesh J, Deepa M, Deepa R, Mohan V. Prevalence and risk factors for diabetic neuropathy in an urban south Indian population: The Chennai Urban Rural Epidemiological Study (CURES-55) Diabet Med. 2008;25:407–12. [PubMed]
10. Mohan V, Deepa R, Shanthirani CS, Premalatha G. Prevalence of coronary artery disease and its relationship to lipids in a selected population in south India. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38:682–7. [PubMed]
11. Premalatha G, Shanthirani CS, Deepa R, Markovitz J, Mohan V. Prevalence and risk factors of peripheral vascular disease in a selected south Indian population – The Chennai Urban Population Study (CUPS) Diabetes Care. 2000;23:1295–300. [PubMed]
12. Fox KM, Gerber RA, Bolinder B, Chen J, Kumar S. Prevalence of inadequate glycemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom general practice database:a series of retrospective analyses of data from 1998 through 2002. Clinical Therapeutics. 2006;28:388–94. [PubMed]
13. Resnick HE, Bardsley J, Foster GL, Ratner RE. Achievement of American Diabetes Association clinical practice recommendations among US adults with diabetes 1999-2002. Diabetes Care. 2006;29:531–7. [PubMed]
14. Gomes MB, Gianella D, Faria M. Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetic patients within the targets of care guidelines in daily clinical practice: A Multi-centre study in Brazil. Rev Diabetic Studies. 2006;3:82–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. Chuang LM, Tsai ST, Huang BY, Tai TY. Diabcare-Asia 1998 Study Group. The status of diabetes control in Asia--a cross-sectional survey of 24 317 patients with diabetes mellitus in 1998. Diabet Med. 2002;19:978–85. [PubMed]
16. Kosachunhanun N, Benjasuratwong Y, Mongkolsomlit S, Rawdaree P, Plengdhya N, Leelawatana R, et al. Thailand diabetes registry project: Glycemic control in Thai type 2 diabetes and its relation to hypoglycaemic agent usage. J Med Assoc Thailand. 2006;89:S66–71. [PubMed]
17. Mahmood K, Aamir AH. Glycemic control status in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2005;15:323–5. [PubMed]
18. Puder JJ, Keller U. Quality of diabetes care: Problem of patient or doctor adherence? Swiss Med Wkly. 2003;133:530–4. [PubMed]
19. Fenton JJ, Korff NV, Ciechanowski P, Young BA. Quality of preventive care for diabetes: Effects of visit frequency and competing demands. Ann Fam Med. 2006;1:32–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
20. Hofer TP, Zemencuk JK, Hayward RA. When there is too much to do. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:646–53. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
21. Larme AC, Pugh JA. Attitudes of primary care providers towards diabetes – barriers to guideline implementation. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:1391–6. [PubMed]
22. Heisler M, Smith DM, Hayward RA, Krein SL, Kerr EA. How well do patients’ assessments of their diabetes self-management correleate with actual glycemic control and receipt of recommended diabetes services? Diabetes Care. 2003;26:738–43. [PubMed]
23. Huang ES, Brown SES, Ewigman BG, Foley EC, Meltzer DO. Patient perceptions of quality of life with diabetes-related complications and treatments. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:2478–83. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
24. Bodenheimer T, Wagner EH, Grumbach K. Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness. JAMA. 2002;288:1775–9. [PubMed]
25. Piatt GA, Orchard TJ, Emerson S, Simmons D, Songer TJ, Brooks MM, et al. Translating the Chronic Care Model into the community. Diabetes Care. 2006;29:811–7. [PubMed]
26. Vargas RB, Mangione CM, Asch S, Keesey J, Rosen M, Schlonlau M. Can a Chronic Care Model collaborative reduce heart disease risk in patients with diabetes? Soc Gen Intern Med. 2007;22:215–22. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
27. Tsai AC, Morton SC, Mangione CM, Keeler EB. A meta-analysis of interventions to improve care for chronic illnesses. Am J Manage Care. 2005;11:478–88. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
28. Weingarten SR, Henning JM, Badamgarav E, Knight K, Hasselblad V, Gano A, Jr, et al. Interventions used in disease management programmes for patients with chronic illness- which ones work? BMJ. 2002;325:925–32. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
29. Mamo Y, Seid E, Adams S, Gardiner A, Parry E. Primary healthcare approach to the management of chronic disease in Ethiopia: an example for other countries. Clin Med. 2007;7:228–30. [PubMed]
30. Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Goldhaber-Fiebert SN, Tristan ML, Nathan DM. Randomized controlled community based nutrition and exercise intervention improves glycemia and cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetic patients in rural Costa Rica. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:24–9. [PubMed]
31. Sutanegara D, Darmono, Budhiarta AA. The epidemiology and management of diabetes mellitus in Indonesia. Diab Res Clin Pract. 2000;50:S9–16. [PubMed]
32. Raheja BS, Kapur A, Bhoraskar A, Sathe SR, Jorgensen LN, Moorthi SR, et al. Diabcare Asia- India Study:Diabetes care in India – current status. J Assoc Phys India. 2001;49:717–22. [PubMed]
33. Bjork S, Kapur A, King H, Nair J, Ramachandran A. Global policy:aspects of diabetes in India. Health Policy. 2003;66:61–72. [PubMed]
34. Nagpal J, Bhartia A. Quality of diabetes care in the middle- and high-income group populace – the Delhi Diabetes Community (DEDICOM) survey. Diabetes Care. 2006;29:2341–8. [PubMed]
35. Rayappa PH, Raju KN, Kapur A, Bjork S, Sylvest C, Kumar KM. The impact of socio-economic factors on diabetes care. Int J Diab Dev Coun. 1999;19:8–16.
36. Deepa M, Deepa R, Shanthirani CS, Dutta M, Unwin NC, Kapur A, et al. Awareness and knowledge of diabetes in Chennai – the Chennai Urban Rural Epidemiology Study (CURES.-9) J Assoc Phys India. 2005;53:283–7.
37. Diabetes Care Organization and Economics – the economic burden of diabetes in India: Results from a National Survey. 2006 Jun 21; www.globalforumhealth.org/filesupld/forum/cd%20forum%/209/papers/bjork%20S.pdf visited.
38. Shobhana R, Rao PR, Lavanya A, Williams R, Vijay V, Ramachandran A. Expenditure on health care incurred by diabetic subjects in a developing country – a study from southern India. Diab Res Clin Pract. 2000;48:37–42. [PubMed]
39. Ramachandran A, Ramachanrdan S, Snehalatha C, Augustine C, Murugesan N, Viswanathan V, et al. Increasing Expenditure on Health Care Incurred by Diabetic Subjects in a Developing Country – A study from India. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:252–6. [PubMed]
40. National List of Essential Medicines. Government of India. 2003.
41. Kotwani A, Ewen M, Dey D, Iyer S, Lakshmi PK, Patel A, et al. Prices and availability of common medicines at six sites in India using a standard methodology. Ind J Med Res. 2007;125:645–54. [PubMed]
42. Shobhana R, Begum R, Snehalatha C, Vijay V, Ramachandran A. Patients' adherence to diabetes treatment. J Assoc Phys India. 1999;47:1173–5. [PubMed]
43. Rao SK. Delivery of health services in the public sector. Financing and delivery of health care services in India. National Commission on Macroeconomics and Health – Background papers. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Government of India. 2005:43–64.
44. National Rural Health Mission. Indian Public Health Standards for Sub-Centres. Directorate General of Health Services. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Government of India. 2006.
45. National Rural Health Mission. Indian Public Health Standards for Primary Health Centres. Directorate General of Health Services. Directorate General of Health Services. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Government of India. 2006.
46. National Rural Health Mission. Indian Public Health Standards for Community Health Centres. Directorate General of Health Services. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Government of India. 2006.
47. Rao SK, Nundy M, Dua AS. Delivery of health services in the private sector. Financing and delivery of health care services in India. National Commission on Macroeconomics and Health – Background papers. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Government of India. 2005:89–124.
48. Peabody JW, Liu A. A cross-national comparison of the quality of clinical care using vignettes. Health Policy and Planning. 2007;22:294–302. [PubMed]
49. De Costa A, Diwan V. ‘Where is the public health sector?’:Public and private sector healthcare provision in Madhya Pradesh, India. Health Policy. 2007;84:269–76. [PubMed]
50. Kumar R, Jaiswal V, Tripathi S, Kumar A, Idris MZ. Inequity in Health Care Delivery in India: The Problem of Rural Medical Practitioners. Health Care Analysis. 2007;15:223–33. [PubMed]
51. David SS, Vasnaik M, Ramakrishnan TV. Emergency medicine in India: Why are we unable to ‘walk the talk’? Emerg Med Aust. 2007;19:289–95. [PubMed]
52. Bhatia J, Cleland J. Health care of female outpatients in south-central India: Comparing public and private sector provision. Health Policy Plann. 2004;19:402–9. [PubMed]
53. Bharathiraja R, Sridharan S, Chelliah LR, Suresh S, Senguttuvan M. Factors affecting antibiotic prescribing pattern in pediatric practice. Indian J Pediatr. 2005;72:877–9. [PubMed]
54. Levesque JF, Haddad S, Narayana D, Fournier P. Affording what's free and paying for choice: Comparing the cost of public and private hospitalizations in urban Kerala. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2007;22:159–74. [PubMed]
55. Bajaj R. It is time to wash the linen. Natl Med J India. 2007;20:147–9. [PubMed]
56. National Rural Health Mission. Framework for Implementation. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Government of India. 2005.
57. Annual Report 2006-07. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Government of India. 2007.
58. ICMR. Guidelines for Management of type 2 Diabetes. Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi. 2005.
59. Annexure B: Interventions for the management of diseases/conditions at different levels of care. National Commission on Macroeconomics and Health.
60. Somannavar S, Lanthorn H, Pradeepa R, Narayanan V, Rema M, Mohan V. Prevention Awareness Counselling and Evaluation (PACE) Diabetes Project: A mega multi-pronged program for diabetes awareness and prevention in south India (PACE −5) J Assoc Phys India. 2008;56:429–35. [PubMed]
61. Somannavar S, Lanthorn H, Deepa M, Pradeepa R, Rema M, Mohan V. Increased awareness about diabetes and its complications in a whole city: Effectiveness of the Prevention Awareness Counselling and Evaluation (PACE) Diabetes Project (PACE −6) J Assoc Phys India. 2008;56:497–502. [PubMed]

Articles from International Journal of Diabetes in Developing Countries are provided here courtesy of Springer

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...