↓ Skip to main content

Inequalities in the prevalence of diabetes mellitus and its risk factors in Sri Lanka: a lower middle income country

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
205 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Inequalities in the prevalence of diabetes mellitus and its risk factors in Sri Lanka: a lower middle income country
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-018-0759-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ambepitiyawaduge Pubudu De Silva, Sudirikku Hennadige Padmal De Silva, Rashan Haniffa, Isurujith Kongala Liyanage, Saroj Jayasinghe, Prasad Katulanda, Chandrika Neelakanthi Wijeratne, Sumedha Wijeratne, Lalini Chandika Rajapaksa

Abstract

Explorations into quantifying the inequalities for diabetes mellitus (DM) and its risk factors are scarce in low and lower middle income countries (LICs/LMICs). The aims of this study were to assess the inequalities of DM and its risk factors in a suburban district of Sri Lanka. A sample of 1300 participants, (aged 35-64 years) randomly selected using a stratified multi-stage cluster sampling method, were studied employing a cross sectional descriptive design. The socioeconomic indicators (SEIs) of the individual were education level and occupational category, and at the household level, the household income, social status level and area deprivation level. DM was diagnosed if the fasting plasma glucose was ≥126 and a body mass index (BMI) of > 27.5 kg/m2 was considered high. Asian cut-off values were used for high waist circumference (WC). Validated tools were used to assess the diet and level of physical activity. The slope index of inequality (SII), relative index of inequality (RII) and concentration index (CI) were used to assess inequalities. The prevalence of DM and its risk factors (at individual or household level) showed no consistent relationship with the three measures of inequality (SII, RII and CI) of the different indices of socio economic status (education, occupation, household income, social status index or area unsatisfactory basic needs index). The prevalence of diabetes showed a more consistent pro-rich distribution in females compared to males. Of the risk factors in males and females, the most consistent and significant pro-rich relationship was for high BMI and WC. In males, the significant positive relationship with high BMI for SII ranged from 0.18 to 0.35, and RII from 1.56 to 2.25. For high WC, the values were: SII from 0.13 to 0.27 and RII from 1.9 to 3.97. In females the significant positive relationship with high BMI in SII ranged from 0.13 to 0.29, and RII from 2.3 to 4.98. For high WC the values were: SII from 028 to 0.4 and RII 1.99 to 2.39. Of the other risk factors, inadequate fruit intake showed a consistent significant pro-poor distribution only in males using SII (- 0.25 to - 0.36) and in both sexes using CI. Smoking also showed a pro-poor distribution in males especially using individual measures of socio-economic status (i.e. education and occupation). The results show a variable relationship between socioeconomic status and prevalence of diabetes and its risk factors. The inequalities in the prevalence of diabetes and risk factors vary depending on gender and the measures used. The study suggests that measures to prevent diabetes should focus on targeting specific factors based on sex and socioeconomic status. The priority target areas for interventions should include prevention of obesity (BMI and central obesity) specifically in more affluent females. Males who have a low level of education and in non-skilled occupations should be especially targeted to reduce smoking and increase fruit intake.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 205 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 11%
Student > Master 22 11%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 6%
Student > Postgraduate 10 5%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 93 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 4%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 3%
Other 23 11%
Unknown 95 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 23 February 2024.
All research outputs
#7,912,102
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,247
of 2,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,712
of 333,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#34
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,204 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 333,556 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.