4.5 Article

Prevalence and risk factors of diabetes in a large community-based study in North India: results from a STEPS survey in Punjab, India

期刊

DIABETOLOGY & METABOLIC SYNDROME
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13098-017-0207-3

关键词

Diabetes; Epidemiology; STEPS survey

资金

  1. National Health Mission, Punjab, India
  2. Department for International Development (DFID), UK
  3. La Fondation Veuve Emile Metz-Tesch (Luxembourg)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: India is the diabetes capital with home to 69.1 million people with DM, the second highest number of cases after China. Recent epidemiological evidence indicates a rising DM epidemic across all classes, both affluent and the poor in India. This article reports on the prevalence of diabetes and pre-diabetes in the North Indian state of Punjab as part of a large household NCD Risk Factor Survey. Methods: A household NCD STEPS survey was done in the state of Punjab, India in a multistage stratified sample of 5127 individuals. All the subjects were administered the WHO STEPS questionnaire, anthropometric and blood pressure measurements. Every alternate respondent in the sample (n = 2499) was assayed for blood parameters. Results: Overall prevalence of DM among the study participants was found out to be 8.3% (95% CI 7.3-9.4%) whereas prevalence of prediabetes was 6.3% (5.4-7.3%). Age group (45-69 years), marital status, hypertension, obesity and family history of DM were found to be the risk factors significantly associated with DM. Out of all persons with DM, only 18% were known case of DM or on treatment, among whom only about one-third had controlled blood glucose status. Conclusions: The study reported high prevalence of diabetes, especially of undiagnosed cases amongst the adult population, most of whom have uncontrolled blood sugar levels. This indicates the need for systematic screening and awareness program to identify the undiagnosed cases in the community and offer early treatment and regular follow up.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据