Socio-Economic Status of Tuberculosis on Patients and Family In Himachal Pradesh
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: Long-term illnesses like tuberculosis lead to significant morbidity and mortality rates. The tuberculosis problem has not improved, even though the causal bacterium was discovered more than a century ago and nearly 100% effective treatment regimens are now available. The inadequate description of the disease's socioeconomic impact is one of the causes of this. Studies to determine the socioeconomic burden of diseases like tuberculosis have just lately been conducted.
Methods: Approximately 80% of people in India reside in rural areas. Agriculture is the primary occupation, and salaries are paid on a daily basis. Most transportation infrastructure is subpar, and there are many dirt roads. Although there is good rail and road connectivity between urban centers, travel costs are greater there. Compared to a rural setting, the employment profile of the urban population is distinct; most people work for themselves or are salaried. In India, the prevalence of tuberculosis is comparable in rural and urban areas.
Results: Family members on a salary made up 38.46% of the patient population, followed by wage earners (15.3%) and self-employed individuals (46.15%). 17.69% of patients had monthly incomes of less than 1000 rupees, 19.23% had incomes between 1000 and 2000, 43.08% had incomes between 2001 and 6000 rupees, and 20% had incomes exceeding 6000 rupees. Of the patients hospitalized, 60% were to government hospitals and 40% to non-governmental organizations. the percentage of total costs for GH and NGO patients that are made up of direct and indirect costs. 33.08% of patients were dependent on direct costs, while 66.92% of patients were dependent on indirect costs.
Conclusion: The overall expenses were somewhat substantial, especially the indirect costs brought on by tuberculosis. Three months was the average amount of time lost from pay. Female patients' caregiving efforts drastically dropped, and one-fifth of pupils stopped going to school.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Murray CJ. Social, economic and operational research on tuberculosis: recent studies and some priority questions. Bull Int Union Tuberc Lung Dis. 1991;66(4):149-156.
Geetharamani S, Muniyandi M, Rajeswari R, Balasubramanian R, Theresa X, Venkatesan P. Socio-economic impact of parental tuberculosis on children. Indian J Tuberc. 2001;48.
The World Health Report 1995--bridging the gaps. World Health Forum. 1995;16(4):377-385.
A65_REC1-en.pdf. Accessed November 23, 2023. https://apps.who.int/gb/DGNP/pdf_files/A65_REC1-en.pdf
Connolly M, Nunn P. Women and tuberculosis. World Health Stat Q Rapp Trimest Stat Sanit Mond. 1996;49(2):115-119.
Rajeswari R, Balasubramanian R, Muniyandi M, Geetharamani S, Thresa X, Venkatesan P. Socio-economic impact of tuberculosis on patients and family in India. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Off J Int Union Tuberc Lung Dis. 1999;3(10):869-877.
Ananthakrishnan R, Jeyaraj A, Palani G, Sathiyasekaran BWC. Socioeconomic impact of TB on patients registered within RNTCP and their families in the year 2007 in Chennai, India. Lung India Off Organ Indian Chest Soc. 2012;29(3):221-226. doi:10.4103/0970-2113.99103
van Elsland SL, Springer P, Steenhuis IHM, van Toorn R, Schoeman JF, van Furth AM. Tuberculous meningitis: barriers to adherence in home treatment of children and caretaker perceptions. J Trop Pediatr. 2012;58(4):275-279. doi:10.1093/tropej/fmr095