Prevalence of diabetes and pre-diabetes in Sri Lanka: a new global hotspot-estimates from the Sri Lanka Health and Ageing Survey 2018/2019.

INTRODUCTION: This study's objective was to produce robust, comparable estimates of the prevalence of diabetes and pre-diabetes in the Sri Lankan adult population, where previous studies suggest the highest prevalence in South Asia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used data on 6661 adults from the nationally representative 2018/2019 first wave of the Sri Lanka Health and Ageing Study (SLHAS). We classified glycemic status based on previous diabetes diagnosis, and either fasting plasma glucose (FPG), or FPG and 2-hour plasma glucose (2-h PG). We estimated crude and age-standardized prevalence of pre-diabetes and diabetes and by major individual characteristics weighting the data to account for study design and subject participation. RESULTS: Crude prevalence of diabetes in adults was 23.0% (95% CI 21.2% to 24.7%) using both 2-h PG and FPG, and age-standardized prevalence was 21.8% (95% CI 20.1% to 23.5%). Using only FPG, prevalence was 18.5% (95% CI 7.1% to 19.8%). Previously diagnosed prevalence was 14.3% (95% CI 13.1% to 15.5%) of all adults. The prevalence of pre-diabetes was 30.5% (95% CI 28.2% to 32.7%). Diabetes prevalence increased with age until ages ≥70 years and was more prevalent in female, urban, more affluent, and Muslim adults. Diabetes and pre-diabetes prevalence increased with body mass index (BMI) but was as high as 21% and 29%, respectively, in those of normal weight. CONCLUSIONS: Study limitations included using only a single visit to assess diabetes, relying on self-reported fasting times, and unavailability of glycated hemoglobin for most participants. Our results indicate that Sri Lanka has a very high diabetes prevalence, significantly higher than previous estimates of 8%-15% and higher than current global estimates for any other Asian country. Our results have implications for other populations of South Asian origin, and the high prevalence of diabetes and dysglycemia at normal body weight indicates the need for further research to understand the underlying drivers.

Quality of inpatient care in public and private hospitals in Sri Lanka.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of inpatient clinical care in public and private hospitals in Sri Lanka. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional comparison was done of inpatient quality, in a sample of 11 public and 10 private hospitals in three of 25 districts. Data were collected for 55 quality indicators from medical records of 2523 public and 1815 private inpatient admissions. These covered treatment of asthma, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), childbirth and five other conditions, along with outcome indicators, and medicine prescribing indicators. RESULTS: Overall quality scores were better in the public sector than the private sector (77 vs 69%). Performance was similar for management of AMI and childbirth and somewhat better in the private sector for management of asthma. The public sector performed better in those indicators that are not constrained by resources (94 vs 81%), but worse in indicators that are highly resource intensive (10 vs 31%). Quality was comparable in assessment and investigation, but the public sector performed better in treatment and management (70 vs 62%) and drug prescribing (68 vs 60%), and modestly worse in terms of outcomes (92 vs 97%). CONCLUSIONS: For a range of indicators where comparisons were possible, quality of inpatient clinical care in Sri Lanka was comparable to levels reported from upper-middle income Asian countries, and often approaches that in developed countries, although the findings cannot be generalized. Quality in the public sector is better than in the private sector in many areas, despite spending being substantially less. Quality in public hospitals is resource constrained, and needs greater government investment for improvement, but when resource limitations are not critical, the public sector appears able to deliver equal or better quality than the private sector. Overall similarities in quality between the two sectors suggest the importance of physician training and other factors.

The quality of outpatient primary care in public and private sectors in Sri Lanka--how well do patient perceptions match reality and what are the implications?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of clinical care and patient satisfaction in public and private outpatient primary care services in Sri Lanka. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional comparison was done by direct observation of patient encounters and exit interviews of outpatients in 10 public hospital general outpatient clinics and 66 private practitioner clinics in three districts of Sri Lanka. A total of 1027 public sector patients and 944 private sector patients were surveyed. Data were collected for 39 quality indicators covering diarrhoea, cough, hypertension, diabetes, asthma, upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) and five other conditions, along with prescribing indicators. The exit interviews collected data for 10 patient satisfaction indicators. RESULTS: The public sector performed better for some conditions (diarrhoea, cough and asthma) and the private sector performed better for others (hypertension, diabetes, URTI and tonsillitis). Overall quality was similar between the sectors in the domains of history taking, examination and investigations and management, but the private sector performed much better on patient education (57 vs 12%). Overall patient satisfaction was high in both sectors (98%), although the private sector performed much better in interpersonal satisfaction (94 vs 84%) and system-related indicators (95 vs 84%). Comparisons with studies from other countries suggest that both sectors perform considerably better than India, and similarly in many indicators to high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of outpatient primary care in Sri Lanka is generally high for a lower-middle income developing country. The public and private sectors perform similarly, except that private sector patients have longer consultations, are more likely to receive education and advice, and obtain better interpersonal satisfaction. The public system, with its limited funding, is able to deliver care in diagnosis and management that is similar to the private sector, while private sector patients, who spend more on their healthcare receive better quality care in non-clinical areas.