Introduction

Diabetes is responsible to 1,281,340 death in 2010 across the world, and its’ attributed mortality has doubled compared to 1990 [1,2]. Surprisingly, about one million death due to diabetes occurred in developing countries [1]. Dietary risk is the leading risk factor in this area and it’s not worthy that, dietary, behavioral and metabolic risk factors are the main risk factors of diabetes [1,3].

In Iran, during the same time period, this considerable problem had remarkable increase and has become the leading cause of death (14.8 per 100,000) in 2010 [1,4]. More than half of premature deaths are due to conditions that could be prevented or treated through effective policies and interventions [5-8].

Although the socioeconomic factors (SEFs) and health status have not straightforward associated, it is inevitable that, various social and economical factors have direct or indirect impact on the health status [9]. Diabetes prevalence is affected by socioeconomic factors [2,10-12]. Moreover, access to health care, treatment choices, and control recommendations are affected by SEFs [13,14]. Thus the Health inequality is important challenge that should be considered in lower socioeconomic groups [15,16]. This requires an active engagement of health providers and policy makers and researchers should be shift from descriptive studies to interventional studies [17].

In particular, diabetes was the subject of the 25 × 25 non-communicable disease mortality reduction target [18,19]. The commitment to this target require consideration various aspect of problem. Several studies showed association between some SEFs and diabetes incidence and revealed that low socioeconomic status is a barrier in access to diabetes care in developing countries [13,20-22].

Within countries, inequality assessment and estimate the effect of socioeconomic factors on diabetes could provide information to priority setting and planning for effective interventions to inequity reduction and socioeconomic modification to decrease the diabetes burden and achievement the 25 × 25 targets [23].

The scarcity of related studies in Iran, motivate us to conduct a systematic review. The aim of this systematic review is to describe the cross-sectional association between socioeconomic factors and diabetes in Iranian population.

Methods

Terms’ Definition

Diabetes defined as “A heterogeneous group of disorders characterized by hyperglycemia and glucose intolerance”[24] and SEFs differentiate the individual or group within the social structure [25]. For each of SEFs, classic definition presented in Table 1 [25].

Table 1 Socioeconomic factors’ definitions
Full size table

Data sources and search strategy

We carried out a systematic search among three international databases; PubMed/Medline, Institute of Scientific Information (ISI), Scopus and three national databases; IranMedex, Scientific Information Database (SID), and Irandoc. To obtain the most comprehensive and efficient results, we searched these data sources using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms, Emtree, and related key words. Moreover, in national databases, we considered related Persian key words in addition to English search terms. To achievement additional studies, we reviewed manually the references and citations of relevant articles. Our search strategy present in Table 2. All kinds of studies which performed in Iran related to diabetes and socioeconomic inequalities were included. There was no limitation on age, time and language.

Table 2 The Search strategy
Full size table

Study selection

At the first stage of study selection process, the reviewers read the titles and abstracts. If they didn’t related to our search objectives, these articles excluded. Studies in non-Iranian population and interventional studies were excluded. If some studies focus on low socioeconomic groups such as slums or considered only high socioeconomic groups such as special high income business, they were excluded from our systematic review because of bias control and intention to normal population.

We included original articles. To achieve comprehensive results, review articles considered for backward and forward assessment of their references and citations. Qualitative studies, letters, editorial and all of other article types were excluded.

In second stage, for all of included articles, full texts reviewed by two independent reviewers for quality assessment and data extraction. In cases of difference between reviewers, the third reviewer resolved discrepancy.

Quality assessment and data extraction

For quality assessment of included articles, we used the critical appraisal skills program (CASP) checklists [26]. The assessment conducted by two independent reviewers. Discrepancies have resolved by a third reviewer.

Data extraction sheet was designed including two main parts of; study characteristics’, and extracted data. The study characteristics sheet contained; article’s specifications, corresponding author’s characteristics, study’s method, and study’s quality scale. The data extraction sheet also, contains detailed information on diabetes prevalence in various SEF status, Odds ratio (OR), main outcome and suggestions.

Data synthesis

We systematically categorize results according to various aspects of outcome. So in this review, each aspect of results summarized and presented in different tables.

Ethical consideration

As this study is systematic review, it didn’t need to ethical approval. Regarding ethical consideration in this study, we cited all scientific documents.

Results

Considering inclusion and exclusion criteria, 15 articles that met eligible criteria remained for data extraction (Figure 1).

Figure 1
figure 1

Study selection process.

Full size image

Descriptive findings

All of searched articles were in English or Persian language. Although, we haven’t limit the search strategy on certain time; retrieving articles were between 1998 and 2014. Included articles were published in 2008-2014 time period and their study year was between 2001 and 2012.

All included studies were Cross sectional. Eight articles were population based study and the others were clinical and hospital based. One of the included articles was at national level and the others were provisional. Forty percent of studies’ participants were from general population and the others were diabetic patients (except one study witch targeted overweight and obese persons). In general, these results are attributed to 13,711 diabetic patients from included studies. Excluding other than one study that focused on female sex, the remained studies covered both sex. According to content of papers, we present results in five domains; a) Inequality and diabetes, b) diabetes prevalence, c) diabetes control, d) diabetes complications, and e) remained information on other related subjects. The details of included studies presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Socioeconomic factors and diabetes
Full size table

Inequality and diabetes

Our systematic review revealed that, in Iran, only one study considered inequality assessment index about diabetes. Based on first run of non-communicable disease surveillance study’ data (STEPs study, 2005) in Shahroud, concentration index for diabetes was (–0.044) for both sex [27]. It showed that concentration index for female sex was negative and it was positive in male sex [27].

Diabetes prevalence

Five papers have assessed the association of SEFs and diabetes prevalence [28-32]. Female sex associated with diabetes and related odds ratio (OR) has reported 1.15, 1.48 and 1.62 among three studies [29-31]. They also reported the positive association between age and diabetes. Fasting blood sugar (FBS) levels and age (more than 50 years old) have odds ratio more than three [30-32]. These studies concluded increasing age especially in women associated with diabetes.

In addition, educational level significantly associated with Fasting Blood Sugar (FBS) levels [32]. According to these results, diabetes is more prevalent in illiterate persons (OR > 1) [29-31]. Also, two studies in Gilan and Zahedan demonstrated educational level less than five year and under diploma has respectively; OR: 1.36 and 1.9 comparison with upper levels of education [28,32].

Among different occupational status, retired status and unemployment had significant association with diabetes (respectively; OR: 2.41 and OR: 2.05) [31]. All ORs were adjusted for age and gender. Considering the residence place, living in urban area is associated with diabetes prevalence (OR: 1.52, 1.56, and 2.73). Diabetes is more prevalent in urban areas [29-31]. Moreover, living in low income area has positive association with diabetes (OR: 1.43) [28]. Economic status has negative association with diabetes, so low economic status and diabetes has OR: 1.52 [29]. According to mentioned studies, socioeconomic class was inversely associated by diabetes prevalence.

Diabetes control

There was a significant negative association between social capital score and diabetes control [33]. In this part, 4 articles included but the results were heterogeneous. In Isfahan, one study reported an association between gender and diabetes control (Female; OR: 1.56 and Male; 0.6) [33] . A national study showed this association; (Female; OR: 1.13 and Male; OR: 1) [34] and a study in Sanandaj showed male sex has OR: 2.46 related to HgA1c <6 in diabetes control [35].

A study considered age and marital status [36]. It revealed that age more than 55 years old have OR: 5.29 and single patients has OR: 0.94 with control of diabetes [34]. Another study showed that retired situation, unemployed, and housewife position accompanied with risk of uncontrolled diabetes (Their OR respectively were; 3.22, 2.59, 2.22) [33,35].

Regarding the educational level as a SEF, two study in Bandarabas and Sanandaj demonstrate illiteracy and diabetes control have OR: 1.24 and 3.42 [35,37] but in a national study, this association wasn’t seen (Illiterate; OR: 1 and literate; OR: 1.11) [34]. It is noticeable that, living in urban area and diabetes control had OR 1.39 [34].

Diabetes complications

Included studies showed significant relationship between diabetes complications frequency and age group [38,39]. A study demonstrated that, onset of diabetes under 45 years old is associated with cardiovascular disease (OR: 1.13) [40]. A study showed, complications’ frequency has significant relation with female sex and the other study revealed that male sex and cardiovascular disease probability in diabetes patients associated with OR: 1.79 [39,40]. Marital status as another SEF was associated with social functioning and general health domains but it is not associated with complications.

Educational level has significant association with number of complications so that more complications were more prevalent in higher education levels [38,39]. Also, occupation is related to diabetes complications. Housewives and retired people have the most number of complications [38]. Also, social class was effective factor and the most of patients belonged to low income group [38,39].

Other related subjects to diabetes

Among included studies, two cases were related to awareness of diabetes and food insecurity [41,42]. A study in Isfahan, Najafabad, and Arak revealed that, female sex, age of more than 30 years, educational levels under diploma, and retired situation have OR > 1 with awareness of diabetes [41].

Another study in Fars showed that, among diabetic patients, income and high economic status were protective factors of food insecurity but family size and number of children have OR more than three [42].

Discussion

Our study has tried to cover all diabetes’ socioeconomic inequality studies in Iran in various domains; Inequality and diabetes, diabetes prevalence, diabetes control, diabetes complications, and other related subjects. Age, gender, educational level, occupation, income, and residence area were assessed in this regards [43].

We found an overall increase of diabetes prevalence among female sex, upper age groups, illiterate situation, retired and unemployed status, low economic condition and urban residency [28-31]. Similarly, several studies showed females and less educated persons are more exposed to diabetes [11,44-47]. Other studies indicate the most chronic disease is more prevalent in less wealthy people [48] and the diabetes prevalence is higher in low income people and retired person [46,49]. The mechanism of relation low socioeconomic position and diabetes are not clear. But, life style pattern may explain these differences [50].

There are controversial reports on association between some variables of SEFs such as educational level and diabetes control [33,35,36,51]. Some studies revealed positive association between educational level [35,37] and control of diabetes but the others have a reverse scenario [43]. Its inverse association also was seen in South Korea [43]. The reason may be that high level educated people are generally in young population and young people have lower treatment coverage [43]. Better control of diabetes in rural area might be due to successful primary health care (PHC) in Iran [43] and effective management of non-communicable disease by community health workers in rural area [52]. It is considerable that, retired position and unemployment situation have less diabetes control because their age and insurance condition exposed them to multi-morbidity and less treatment [33,35,44]. It is remarkable; most diabetic patients with complications were in the low income group [38,40]. Less diabetes control in this group could leads to more complications.

In present study we benefited from some power points; the comprehensive replicable study applied to international and national database with no limitation on time, age and language. Also, we considered restrictive method for quality assessment and data extraction. It should be noted that, this is the first systematic review about socioeconomic factors inequality and diabetes in Iran.

However, we faced to a few limitations. Among some included studies, required measures did not exist. The included studies were mostly heterogeneous. For that reason, we haven’t done meta-analysis and present results without statistical analysis.

Despite these limitations, we provided information could lead to the identification opportunities for health promotion in affected communities by inequitable conditions [53,54].

Evidences reveal that, evaluation of health inequalities, especially with focus on socioeconomic factors has been less intentioned in some developing countries [55]. According to Universal health coverage (UHC), strategic plan regarding health inequalities reduction is a duty of each country’s health system [56-58].

Considering above, the following suggestions proposed; Monitoring and evaluation of health care system regarding NCDs control, Promotion of Primary health care system in urban area, Primary prevention by lifestyle interventions especially in urban area, Applying Community based intervention programs [59,60]. Special attention to low socioeconomic class, Strategic planning to reduce disparity between provinces according to social, economic, and political differences [61,62], Health literacy promotion, improving general living conditions [63], and Providing the supportive resources and strategies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we found that diabetes prevalence is associated with socioeconomic factors and there is a need for appropriate policy making regarding social health determinants. Cost effective interventional programs would improve diabetes prevention, early diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Governments by financial support in poor areas and establish responsible insurance system could help to reduce the inequality. According to limited studies in our country, there is a strong need for further investigation regarding non-communicable diseases and social determinants of health at national and sub-national levels.