Table 6. Likelihood of incurring catastrophic cost using OA1 method of indirect cost calculation.
| General population (N = 528) | Urban slum dwellers (N = 526) | Tea garden families (N = 403) | All participants (N = 1457) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explanatory variables | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | p-value | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | p-value | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | p-value | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | p-value |
| Age (in years) | 0.99 (0.98, 1.01) | 0.37 | 1.00 (0.99, 1.02) | 0.73 | 1.01 (1.00, 1.03) | 0.13 | 1.00 (0.99, 1.01) | 0.58 |
| Sex | ||||||||
| Male (Reference) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Female | 0.41 (0.27, 0.63) | <0.001 | 0.71 (0.47, 1.06) | 0.09 | 0.67 (0.43, 1.03) | 0.08 | 0.57 (0.45, 0.73) | <0.001 |
| Education | ||||||||
| Up to primary education (Reference) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Secondary education | 0.63 (0.39, 1.02) | 0.06 | 0.78 (0.50, 1.22) | 0.28 | 1.17 (0.65, 2.11) | 0.59 | 0.77 (0.58, 1.02) | 0.06 |
| Higher secondary education and above | 0.49 (0.29, 0.83) | 0.01 | 0.73 (0.41, 129) | 0.27 | 0.80 (0.34, 1.85) | 0.60 | 0.69 (0.49, 0.98) | 0.04 |
| Pre-TB annual household income (Indian Rupee) | ||||||||
| Less than 100,000 (Reference) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| 100,000 –less than 200,000 | 0.45 (0.26, 0.77) | 0.00 | 0.54 (0.33, 0.88) | 0.01 | 1.05 (0.67, 1.65) | 0.83 | 0.67 (0.51, 0.88) | 0.00 |
| 200,000 and above | 0.34 (0.20, 0.60) | <0.001 | 0.28 (0.16, 0.47) | <0.001 | 1.30 (1.12, 1.51) | <0.001 | 0.41 (0.29, 0.58) | <0.001 |
| Health insurance | ||||||||
| Having health insurance (Reference) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Not having health insurance | 0.76 (0.49, 1.17) | 0.21 | 0.99 (0.60, 1.61) | 0.96 | 0.81 (0.51, 1.29) | 0.38 | 0.81 (0.62, 1.05) | 0.10 |
| Type of TB | ||||||||
| Pulmonary TB (Reference) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Extrapulmonary TB | 0.71 (0.46, 1.10) | 0.13 | 0.85 (0.54, 1.31) | 0.46 | 1.57 (0.95, 2.59) | 0.08 | 1.02 (0.79, 1.32) | 0.87 |
| Delay from symptom initiation to treatment | 1.01 (0.98, 1.03) | 0.59 | 1.02 (1.00, 1.05) | 0.09 | 1.02 (0.99, 1.05) | 0.24 | 1.01 (1.00, 1.03) | 0.05 |
| Direct cost of TB treatment (Log cost) * | 2.05 (1.67, 2.51) | <0.001 | 1.76 (1.44, 2.14) | <0.001 | 1.30 (1.12, 1.51) | <0.001 | 1.60 (1.45, 1.77) | <0.001 |
| Residential status | ||||||||
| Urban (Reference) | 1.00 | --- | --- | 1.00 | ||||
| Rural | 1.07 (0.72, 1.59) | 0.75 | 1.17 (0.90, 1.51) | 0.24 | ||||
| Wealth quintile | ||||||||
| Poorest (Reference) | --- | --- | --- | 1.00 | ||||
| Poorer | 1.09 (0.76, 1.56) | 0.65 | ||||||
| Middle | 1.34 (0.94, 1.93) | 0.11 | ||||||
| Richer | 0.91 (0.63, 1.30) | 0.60 | ||||||
| Richest | 0.73 (0.49, 1.08) | 0.12 | ||||||
| Adjusted R2 ** | 0.16 | 0.13 | 0.07 | 0.11 | ||||
Notes: OA1: Output approach with household income as denominator; OR: Odds Ratio; CI: Confidence Interval; Blanks indicate Not Applicable;
* One patient among general population and 24 patients among tea garden families did not incur any direct cost, hence, were excluded from this analysis;
**Cox and Snell R2