Search

Abstract Background Humanitarian crises bring unique, and potentially growing challenges to people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). We aimed to determine, in youth with T1D (mean age (± 1SD) 0–17.9 years) within and coming from humanitarian crises settings (HCS), the reported prevalence that meet international consensus targets for glycaemic, blood pressure and lipid management, and incidence of severe hypoglycaemia or diabetic ketoacidosis. Methods A narrative review of quantitative data was conducted, using a systematic process. MEDLINE (Ovid), Global Health, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane trials, and the reference lists of eligible records were searched (January 2014-February 2024); ten records covering ten separate studies were retrieved. Results Glycaemic management was consistently suboptimal in HCS. However, among individuals coming from HCS, glycaemia varied. Across both groups, data relating to blood pressure, lipids, severe hypoglycaemia or diabetic ketoacidosis were either unavailable or limited. Conclusion Findings expose the dearth of data relating to defined youth with T1D within and coming from HCS, leaving the status of this population largely uncharacterised. With limited data indicating suboptimal T1D management, there is a pressing need for the development of a consensus guideline on, and core indicators relating to such youth within and coming from HCS, plus monitoring systems and outcome data.

Abstract Background In the absence of electronic health records, analysis of direct healthcare costs often relies on resource utilisation data collected from patient-reported surveys. This scoping review explored the availability, use and methodological details of self-reported healthcare service utilisation and cost data to assess healthcare costs in Ireland. Methods Population health surveys were identified from Irish data repositories and details were collated in an inventory to inform the literature search. Irish cost studies published in peer-reviewed and grey sources from 2009 to 2019 were included if they used self-reported data on healthcare utilisation or cost. Two independent researchers extracted studies’ details and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines were used for reporting. Results In total, 27 surveys were identified containing varying details of healthcare utilisation/cost, health status, demographic characteristics and health-related risk and behaviour. Of those surveys, 21 were general population surveys and six were study-specific ad-hoc surveys. Furthermore, 14 cost studies were identified which used retrospective self-reported data on healthcare utilisation or cost from ten of the identified surveys. Nine of these cost studies used ad-hoc surveys and five used data from pre-existing population surveys. Compared to population surveys, ad-hoc surveys contained more detailed information on resource use, albeit with smaller sample sizes. Recall periods ranged from 1 week for frequently used services to 1 year for rarer service use, or longer for once-off costs. A range of perspectives (societal, healthcare and public sector) and costing approaches (bottom-up costing and a mix of top-down and bottom-up) were used. The majority of studies (n = 11) determined unit prices using multiple sources, including national healthcare tariffs, literature and expert views. Moreover, most studies (n = 13) reported limitations concerning data availability, risk of bias and generalisability. Various sampling, data collection and analysis strategies were employed to minimise these. Conclusion Population surveys can aid cost assessments in jurisdictions that lack electronic health records, unique patient identifiers and data interoperability. To increase utilisation, researchers wanting to conduct cost analyses need to be aware of and have access to existing data sources. Future population surveys should be designed to address reported limitations and capture comprehensive health-related, demographic and resource use data.