Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Mar 4;21(3):e0344040. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0344040

A comprehensive economic assessment of the burden of obesity in Kuwait

Mouaddh Abdulmalik Nagi 1,*, Hanan Ahmed 1, Mohammad Almari 2,3, Ziyad S Almalki 4, Yasir Mohammed Zaroug Elradi 5
Editor: Sreeram V Ramagopalan6
PMCID: PMC12959657  PMID: 41779808

Abstract

Background

Obesity is a complex public health issue that has risen to epidemic proportions globally. The aim of this study was to estimate the economic costs associated with obesity from governmental and societal perspectives in the State of Kuwait in 2024.

Methods

A disease-specific prevalence-based cost-of-illness framework was applied. Key parameters include prevalence of obesity and its related comorbidities, relative risks, healthcare resources, income rate and growth, and lost workdays for patients and relatives, all were derived from literature. The outcomes measured were total healthcare costs, societal costs, and cost per patient, all reported in 2024 Kuwaiti Dinar (KWD), United States dollar ($), and Purchasing Power Parity (PPP).

Results

In 2024, there were approximately 2 million morbidity cases and 961 mortality cases directly attributed to obesity in Kuwait. The economic burden of obesity was estimated at KWD 4.3 billion ($ 14 billion; PPP$ 21.6 billion) from societal perspective and KWD 3.9 billion ($12.8 billion, PPP 19.7 billion) from governmental perspective, almost 1.3 times healthcare budget. The mean annual societal cost per patient was KWD 1,737 ($5,676; PPP 8,729)—17.6% of 2024 Kuwaiti gross domestic product per capita. Furthermore, the mean direct medical cost per patient was KWD 1,586 ($5,184 or PPP 7,972); comprised 3 times the healthcare expenditure per capita.

Conclusion

Obesity and its comorbidities impose a far greater health and economic burden on Kuwait’s healthcare system and national productivity than previously recognized. This study calls for a paradigm shift toward early prevention, culturally tailored strategies, and comprehensive disease management. Expanding access to emerging innovative treatments and leveraging technology-driven tools are essential to support sustained weight management and reduce long-term impacts.

Introduction

Obesity represents a complex public health challenge that has escalated to epidemic levels worldwide [1], posing significant risks to morbidity and mortality [2]. It is clinically defined by a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m² or higher, a threshold widely used to identify individuals at increased risk for obesity-related complications [2]. The consequences of obesity extend beyond individual health, profoundly impacting public health systems and national economies [3,4]. Besides the escalating healthcare expenditures, obesity imposes a substantial economic burden on societies by contributing to increased absenteeism, early retirement, disability, premature mortality, and diminished productivity among relatives [3,4]. In 2019, the combined burden of obesity and overweight was estimated to account for approximately 2.2% of the global gross domestic product (GDP), with projections indicating a rise to 3.3% by 2060 if current trends persist [3]. Resources currently lost to obesity-related health and productivity burdens could be reallocated to improve economic development, thereby enhancing societal well-being and economic resilience. This substantial economic loss highlights the significant potential gains achievable through effective obesity prevention and management strategies [5].

The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region has witnessed one of the highest prevalence of overweight and obesity globally, with approximately 77.7% of adults aged 25 years and older affected in 2021. Moreover, the rate of increase in obesity within the MENA region has outpaced many other parts of the world, showing a 39.4% relative rise in obesity prevalence between 1990 and 2021 [1]. Particularly, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are experiencing a rapidly escalating prevalence of obesity, with prevalence rates among the highest worldwide [1,6]. This alarming trend is primarily driven by rapid urbanization, infrastructural development, and technological advancements that have fundamentally altered lifestyles. Key contributors include a marked decline in physical activity and shifts toward energy-dense and nutrient-poor diets [7]. Over recent decades, GCC countries—particularly Kuwait—have witnessed rapid proliferation of Western fast-food chains, expansion of 24/7 online food delivery services, rise in sugar-sweetened beverage consumption (2.5 liters per person per week), increase intake of sugary snacks, larger portion sizes, and late-night or irregular eating habits outside the home [810].

Within the GCC countries, Kuwait notably stands out for its high adult obesity prevalence. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the prevalence of obesity among adults in Kuwait was estimated at 41.4% (33.3% of males and 45.6% of females) in 2016 [11]. A more recent global pooled analysis of the obesity trends from 1990 to 2022 showed that 38.9% of males and 49.9% of females had obesity in Kuwait [12]. Additionally, another study analyzed the results of a national survey conducted between 2011 and 2014 reported an obesity prevalence of 42.1% among adults aged 18–82 years, with rates of 38.5% in men and 47.9% in women [13]. Despite these differences in prevalence estimates, all studies highlight a consistently high and concerning rate of obesity in Kuwait, positioning the country among the highest worldwide [10,12].

Even so, the economic burden of obesity in Kuwait remains incompletely understood. For instance, one global study estimated direct and indirect costs attributable to overweight and obesity in Kuwait and other countries from 2019 to 2060, considering 28 obesity-related diseases. Drawing on epidemiological and cost data from published studies and global datasets, it estimated Kuwait’s 2019 burden at US$2.3 billion—1.7% of the country’s GDP—with projections rising to US$33.3 billion (9.42% of the country’s GDP) by 2060 [3]. That year, costs comprised direct medical (US$638 million), direct non-medical (US$360 million), and indirect (US$1,660 million). Relative to other countries, Kuwait’s obesity-related economic burden ranks among the highest, exceeding many high-income countries (e.g., 1.30% of the national GDP in Korea, 1.53% in Qatar, and 0.96% in Singapore) [3]. Moreover, Kuwait also ranks among the highest countries in terms of mortality attributable to high BMI globally. In 2023, high BMI accounted for 21.77% of all deaths in Kuwait, compared with 8.06% in high-income countries and 6.12% worldwide [14]. Complementing these findings, a retrospective micro-costing study from the public payer perspective examined ten key obesity-related comorbidities, collecting healthcare resource utilization data through surveys of public sector clinicians and cost data from the Ministry of Health. This study reported 2022 annual direct healthcare costs per patient with a single obesity-related comorbidity ranging from US$5,682 to US$13,666 [15].

Despite these insights, both studies have notable limitations. For example, neither included costs of treating obesity itself. Furthermore, the global study excluded vital components such as direct non-medical costs (e.g., equipment, home renovation, and housekeeping costs), out-of-pocket expenditures (OOPEs) related to treatment, relatives’ productivity losses, and informal care costs [3]. The micro-costing analysis focused solely on healthcare costs, omitting direct non-medical and indirect costs like absenteeism, early retirement, relatives’ burden, and mortality costs [15]. Given that these elements constitute a significant portion of obesity’ global economic burden, their absence leaves a substantial gap in comprehensively understanding the full societal and economic impact of obesity in Kuwait.

In this context, cost-of-illness (COI) studies offer a comprehensive approach, representing a key form of health economic analysis that quantifies the economic burden of diseases or risk factors like obesity on individuals and society. These analyses delineate direct medical costs (e.g., hospitalizations, pharmaceuticals), direct non-medical costs (e.g., transportation, accommodation), and indirect costs (e.g., productivity losses from morbidity and premature mortality), yielding reliable country-specific estimates vital for evaluating preventive or control interventions [16]. Ultimately, by informing resource allocation, prioritizing policies, raising awareness of obesity’s societal impact, and justifying targeted budget measures—particularly in regions where such expenditures rival major health threats—COI studies underpin evidence-based decision-making and strategies extending beyond clinical outcomes [17].

The aim of this study is to estimate the economic costs associated with obesity, including direct healthcare costs, direct non-medical costs, productivity losses, and other indirect costs in the State of Kuwait during the year 2024. Furthermore, this study aims to identify the main drivers of the economic burden of obesity in Kuwait.

Methods

Study population and design

The study population included all individuals aged 20 and older living with obesity in Kuwait in 2024. The current COI study estimated the direct and indirect costs associated with obesity in Kuwait for the year 2024. Using a disease-specific, prevalence-based approach, the analysis was conducted from both societal and healthcare system perspectives. COI studies assess the economic burden a disease or risk factor places on healthcare system and society by quantifying the resources used and productivity lost due to the condition, highlighting potential economic gains if the condition were eradicated [4,18]. These studies are vital for informing policymakers to set healthcare priorities and allocate limited resources efficiently. COI analyses typically consider both direct costs—such as healthcare services, diagnostics, medications—and indirect costs, like lost productivity and non-medical costs (e.g., transportation, meals) [18]. The prevalence-based method gives an overview of the current economic impact, often combined with methods like the obesity attributable fraction (OAF) to identify disease-specific costs [19] and the human capital method (HCM) to estimate productivity losses [4,20]. Together, these methods provide a comprehensive view of the economic implications of diseases, supporting healthcare planning and interventions. This framework was applied in studies assessing obesity-related costs among adults to guide policy and budget decisions aimed at mitigating obesity impacts [3,4]. Importantly, to ensure methodological rigor, reporting quality, and international comparability, this study followed the consensus-based checklist for critical appraisal of COI studies developed by Schnitzler et al. (2023) [21]. This checklist comprises 17 main questions (plus sub questions) across three domains: study characteristics, methodology and cost analysis, and results and reporting. Notably, it has been adopted in several published COI studies [22,23].

Obesity-associated diseases

This study included obesity and the most common chronic diseases related to obesity among the adult population (32 diseases), as reported by recent large-scale epidemiological studies [2], Table 1 and S1 Table. These diseases are grouped into nine main categories; 1) type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM); 2) cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) including ischemic heart diseases (IHDs), stroke, atrial fibrillation and flutter, and hypertensive heart diseases; 3) chronic kidney diseases (CKDs); 4) cancers covering postmenopausal breast cancer, uterine/endometrial, ovary, colorectal, esophagus adenocarcinoma, gastric cardia, liver, gallbladder, pancreas, prostate, kidney, thyroid, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, meningioma, and leukemia; 5) musculoskeletal disorders comprising osteoarthritis, back pain, and gout; 6) gastrointestinal disorders including gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL), and gallbladder disease; 7) asthma; and 8) mental and neurological disorders comprising depressive disorders and alzheimer’s disease and other dementias; 9) and poly-cystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

Table 1. Relative risks of obesity-associated diseases.

No Disease Morbidity relative risk Ref Mortality relative risk Ref
Male Female Male Female
1 Esophagus cancer 1.21 1.20 [24] 1.39 1.35 [25]
2 Gastric cancer 1.8 1.8 [26] 1.04 1.04 [27]
3 Colorectal cancer 1.95 1.66 [24] 1.29 1.05 [28]
4 Liver cancer 1.8 1.8 [26] 1.47 1.47 [28]
5 Pancreas cancer 2.29 1.60 [24] 1.07 1.09 [25]
6 Breast cancer NA 1.13 [24] NA 1.15 [28]
7 Uterine/Endometrial cancer NA 7.1 [26] NA 1.77 [27]
8 Ovary cancer NA 1.28 [24] NA 2.62 [27]
9 Prostate cancer 1.05 NA [24] 1.45 NA [27]
10 Kidney cancer 1.82 2.64 [24] 1.59 1.59 [27]
11 Meningioma 1.50 1.50 [26] 1.50 1.50 [29]
12 Gallbladder cancer 1.3 1.3 [26] 1.16 1.34 [25]
13 Thyroid cancer 1.10 1.10 [26] 1.22 1.14 [25]
14 Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma 1.40 1.34 [30] 1.09 1.13 [25]
15 Multiple myeloma 1.50 1.50 [26] 1.20 1.20 [27]
16 Leukemia 1.09 1.13 [25] 1.66 1.66 [27]
17 Type II diabetes mellitus 6.47 12.41 [24] 2.16 2.16 [28]
18 Hypertensive heart disease 1.84 2.42 [24] 2.03 2.03 [28]
19 Ischemic heart diseases 1.72 3.10 [24] 1.39 1.39 [28]
20 Stroke 1.51 1.49 [24] 1.39 1.39 [28]
21 Atrial fibrillation and flutter 1.34 1.35 [25] 1.34 1.35 [25]
22 Chronic kidney disease 1.73 1.73 [25] 1.73 1.73 [25]
23 Asthma 1.43 1.78 [24] 1.41 1.40 [25]
24 Gastro-esophageal reflux disease 2.00 2.00 [31] NA NA
25 Nonalcoholic fatty liver 3.53 3.53 [32] 1.82 1.82 [28]
26 Gallbladder disease 1.43 2.32 [24] 1.82 1.82 [28]
27 Depressive disorders 1.31 1.67 [25] NA NA
28 Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias 1.22 1.21 [25] 1.22 1.21 [25]
29 Osteoarthritis 4.20 1.96 [24] NA NA
30 Back pain 2.81 2.81 [24] NA NA
31 Gout 1.63 1.49 [25] NA NA
32 Polycystic ovarian syndrome NA 2.77 [33] NA NA

NA: Not available/applicable.

Obesity attributable fraction (OAF)

To quantify the burden of obesity, it is essential to estimate the OAF, which measures the proportion of disease cases and related costs that can be attributed to obesity by estimating the fraction of cases or deaths that would be prevented if obesity were eliminated, thus isolating the economic impact directly linked to obesity [34]. The OAF is estimated using the following formula [4,19]:

OAFi (%)=P (RRi1)1+P(RRi1)×100

where RRi the relative risk of obesity for disease i (separately estimated for morbidity and mortality), and P is the prevalence of obesity among the adult population (≥ 20 years) in Kuwait. RRs for all obesity-associated diseases included in this analysis were sourced from robust meta-analyses and cohort studies [2433,35,36] (Table 1).

On the other hand, the prevalence of obesity in Kuwait was obtained from WHO 2016 report, which indicated that 33.3% of adult males and 45.6% of adult females were affected [11]. The year 2016 was specifically chosen to account for the latency period between obesity exposure and the development of obesity-related outcomes, including morbidity and mortality. Since most obesity-related conditions are chronic, there is an inherent time lag between the onset of obesity and the manifestation of disease or death. Consequently, morbidity and mortality data from 2024 reflect obesity exposures that occurred several years earlier, rather than more recent ones. In this context, an eight-year lag was selected as a practical compromise balancing data availability and methodological considerations. This approach is consistent with global trends; a recent systematic review found that over two-thirds (68.4%) of COI studies on obesity published between 2016 and 2022 used latency periods shorter than five years, while only about one-third applied longer lag times exceeding six years [4].

Cost estimation

This analysis was conducted from both the healthcare system and societal perspectives. From the healthcare system perspective, the focus was on costs directly incurred by the healthcare sector in providing obesity-related services, including primary care, diagnostics, medications, medical supplies, surgeries, and more. In contrast, the societal perspective encompassed all costs regardless of who bears them. This broader view included OOPE for treatment, direct non-medical costs such as transportation, meals, accommodation, equipment (e.g., walking aid, bed, chair, supporting stick, wheelchair, home exercise equipment, etc.), home modifications, and housekeeping services, as well as indirect costs. Indirect costs accounted for productivity losses due to absenteeism, reduced work output of relatives and housekeepers, and premature mortality. By incorporating these varied cost components, the societal perspective provides a comprehensive estimate of the economic burden of obesity [3,4].

Direct costs.

The direct costs of obesity comprise healthcare costs for treating obesity itself, healthcare costs related to treating obesity-associated comorbidities, OOPE incurred by individuals with obesity, and non-medical costs linked with obesity. To estimate the direct medical costs of obesity treatment, the population of individuals living with obesity in Kuwait in 2024 was first determined based on projections from the World Obesity Atlas for 2022–2030 (S1 Table). The atlas estimated that 2,471,876 individuals in Kuwait were living with obesity in 2024, comprising 1,358,873 men (55%) and 1,113,003 women (45%) [37]. For estimating the direct medical costs of obesity, excluding metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS), a treatment scenario from the literature was applied wherein only 2% of individuals living with obesity (totaling 49,438; 27,177 males and 22,260 females) receive formal obesity treatment [38,39], which in fact validated by real-world data from neighboring countries [17]. Among these treated patients, 18,391 (37.2%) were on Wegovy® (Semaglutide), 15,474 (31.3%) took Saxenda® (Liraglutide), 13,744 (27.8%) on Mounjaro® (Tirzepatide), 1,038 (2.1%) took two of these medications, and 791 (1.6%) on all three medications [40]. To estimate the treatment costs, the number of individuals receiving treatment was multiplied by the annual cost per patient for each corresponding medication. This approach reflects current treatment patterns in the country.

Extensionally, the cost of MBS was calculated separately by multiplying the number of surgeries by the annual per-person cost, which encompasses both the surgical procedure and the management of potential complications and any necessary re-surgeries. Despite the great demand for MBS noticed lately in Kuwait and neighboring countries [41,42], a compound annual growth rate of 12.42% was applied on the number of MBS since 2019 [43]. Consequently, 5,296 MBSs were factored into our cost estimations.

In contrary, this study extracted the number of cases of the 32 obesity-associated morbidities considered in the analysis from the latest Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study [14] (S1 Table). Subsequently, OAF was multiplied by number of morbidity cases of each disease (OAF × number of people affected by the disease) to obtain the number of morbidity cases of that disease attributable to obesity. Then, the number of morbidity cases of each disease attributable to obesity was multiplied by the cost of treating that disease (attributable cases of a disease × the annual perperson cost of that disease).

In the absence of primary cost data specific to Kuwait, this study adopted a hierarchical approach using data from high-income countries (HICs), a methodologically accepted approach in economic evaluations when context-specific data are unavailable but reliable estimates are necessary to inform decision-making [44,45]. For example, 62.5% of health economic evaluations published between 2000 and 2022 in GCC countries transferred direct healthcare costs from other jurisdictions [46]. The rationale for selecting HICs stems from their comparable healthcare system characteristics with Kuwait’s, which enhances the relevance and applicability of their economic data. HICs commonly feature advanced healthcare infrastructure, established financing mechanisms, equitable access to services, efficient administrative systems, and high capacity for universal health coverage, all of which influence healthcare costs and utilization patterns in ways more aligned with Kuwait’s healthcare environment than low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [47,48].

The hierarchy for cost data collection prioritized Kuwaiti data, then expanded to other GCC countries—Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—due to their socioeconomic and cultural similarities, comparable disease profiles (especially for obesity-related conditions), and similar healthcare delivery models and resource availability. If data remained unavailable from these regional sources, information from other HICs was used as a last resort (S2 Table). To ensure data standardization and comparability, costs of obesity-related diseases reported in original studies were first converted to the local currency of the source country—when not originally reported in local currency—at the year of estimation. These figures were then inflated to 2024 values using the average Consumer Price Index (CPI) reported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) World Economic Outlook Database of October 2024 [49]. Subsequently, these costs were adjusted to 2024 international dollar/Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) values using implied PPP conversion rates from the same IMF database [49]. Finally, the amounts were converted into Kuwaiti Dinar (KWD) and United States dollars (US$) based on exchange rates (1 KWD ≈ 5.03 PPP and 3.27 US$) as of July 1st, 2024, provided by Oanda Corporation [50].

Furthermore, to estimate the total OOPE and direct non-medical costs associated with obesity, the previously determined number of individuals living with obesity in Kuwait in 2024 was multiplied by the respective annual per-person costs. These annual per-person OOPE for medical treatment and direct non-medical costs were sourced from a recent study conducted in Saudi Arabia [17] and underwent the same inflation and adjustment steps done for direct medical costs (S2 Table). In the meantime, OOPE encompassed medical costs not covered by health insurance. Direct non-medical costs included costs for meals, transportation, and accommodation during hospital visits or stays, as well as housekeeping, home renovations (e.g., structural modifications), and adaptive equipment (e.g., walking aids, wheelchairs) required by patients to manage the condition [17].

Indirect costs.

Indirect costs represent the foregone opportunities of earning that encompass lost productivity due to absenteeism by patients and their relatives or any other companions (while seeking or waiting for obesity medical care), as well as premature mortality. The cost of absenteeism was quantified by multiplying the average number of workdays lost by people living with obesity and their companions by daily wages, proxied by 2024 Kuwaiti GDP per capita. The annual average number of workdays lost as a result of obesity and its comorbidities was derived from recent study conducted in Saudi Arabia [17] while 2024 Kuwaiti GDP per capita (US$32,214) was obtained from the World Bank database [51] (S1 Table). On the other side, premature mortality costs were estimated using the human capital approach, which values lost productivity as the present value of lifetime earnings (PVLE) from the time of death until expected life expectancy. For context, this calculation incorporated several data elements such as personal income (2024 Kuwaiti GDP per capita; US$32,214), life expectancy, country’s rate of economic growth [51], and a 3% discount rate per the WHO guidelines [52]:

Present value of lifetime earnings =  future value(1 + discount interest rate)cycle

Mortality data for 26 obesity-related comorbidities were sourced from the latest GBD study [14], assumed constant for 2024 due to lack of more recent data. It should be noted that six diseases (i.e., GERD, depressive disorders, osteoarthritis, back pain, gout, and PCOS) were not included in the mortality cost estimation as they lack mortality data. Likewise, data on life expectancy were obtained from the analysis of population forecasting scenarios for the GBD study [53]. Subsequently, OAF was multiplied by total number of deaths for each disease (OAF × number of people died due to the disease in 2024) to obtain the number of deaths of that disease attributable to obesity. The years lost were calculated as the difference between age at death and life expectancy. Then, the number of attributable deaths was multiplied by the PVLE to estimate productivity losses from premature mortality (attributable deaths×PVLE). This method holistically integrated mortality, economic, and demographic data to quantify indirect costs attributable to obesity.

Direct non-medical costs and productivity losses from absenteeism were attributed to obesity as the primary risk factor, not to individual comorbidities, to avoid double counting. This approach, consistent with the attributable fraction framework, consolidates costs under the underlying causal condition rather than dispersing them among associated diseases. Assigning these costs separately to each obesity-related disease risks overlapping estimates, as non-medical and productivity losses are often shared across multiple conditions and cannot be reliably separated in cases of multimorbidity. As such, non-medical and absenteeism costs were aggregated at the obesity level. This method aligns with established COI guidelines that recommend avoiding overlapping cost attribution in multi-condition analyses [4,18,20].

Sensitivity analysis

To evaluate the impact of parameter uncertainty, sensitivity analyses were conducted on key input variables, including the prevalence of obesity, the prevalence of obesity-associated comorbidities, and the costs of treating obesity-related diseases. These analyses were designed to provide a robust framework to quantify the influence of key uncertainties on economic burden estimates and support informed policy decision-making. The first scenario simulated a 20% reduction in the prevalence of obesity and its comorbidities. This hypothetical yet attainable improvement illustrates the potential economic benefits arising from targeted reductions in obesity prevalence achievable through public health interventions such as lifestyle modification programs, awareness campaigns, and behavioral regulations. Similar reductions have been documented in countries implementing comprehensive prevention strategies, supporting the use of this assumption as a practical baseline for policy evaluation [54,55]. A second scenario examined reductions of 30% and 10% in the annual per-patient treatment costs for obesity-related diseases, addressing uncertainties in nationwide treatment expenditures and illustrating the potential impact of improved healthcare system efficiency [56]. Finally, given the recent upward trend in obesity prevalence observed in Kuwait, sensitivity analyses incorporated the rates reported by Phelps et al. (2024)—38.9% in males and 49.9% in female [12] to model the potential impact of continued increases if no intervention is implemented.

Results

Health burden

According to OAF estimates, obesity was responsible for 2,067,311 cases, representing 42% of total morbidity cases (4,903,456) caused by the diseases included in this study among adults aged 20 years or older in Kuwait. Specifically, obesity accounted for 72%, 49%, and 45% of the respective disease burdens of T2DM, NAFL, and PCOS. The highest number of morbidity cases was reported for NAFL (860,612 cases), followed by T2DM (458,859 cases) and GERD (186,448 cases). Conversely, diseases such as liver cancer, esophagus adenocarcinoma, and gallbladder and biliary cancers, with only 2, 4, and 4 cases respectively, were among the lowest in terms of attributable morbidity. Likewise, among 6,636 total deaths from the included diseases, obesity contributed to 961 premature deaths, equating to 14% of deaths. IHD resulting in 347 deaths, followed by T2DM (167 deaths) and hypertensive heart disease (103 deaths). On the opposite end, thyroid cancer, liver cancer, and gallbladder biliary cancers contributed minimally, with just 0–2 reported attributable deaths each (Table 2). Additionally, the findings revealed that premature mortality attributable to obesity resulted in 20,062 years of potential life lost (YPLL) in 2024, meaning an average of 21 potential years of life per obesity-related death. The most significant contributors to YPLL were IHD (8,007 years), T2DM (3,066 years) and stroke (1,802 years). In comparison, thyroid cancer (20 years), gastric cancer (23 years), and liver cancer (23 years) accounted for the fewest YPLL. Collectively, CVDs represent the most severe impact, with 11,576 YPLL reported (58% of the total) (Table 2).

Table 2. OAF, morbidity cases, mortality cases, and YPLL attributable to obesity in Kuwait.

Disease Morbidity Mortality YPLL
OAF (%) Attributable cases OAF (%) Attributable deaths
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Esophagus cancer 7 8 3 2 12 14 2 1 44 21
Gastric cancer 21 27 33 7 1 2 1 0 14 9
Colorectal cancer 24 23 573 377 9 2 14 12 320 44
Liver cancer 21 27 1 1 14 18 1 0 11 12
Pancreas cancer 30 21 24 7 2 4 2 1 44 33
Breast cancer NA 6 NA 652 NA 6 NA 10 NA 367
Uterine/Endometrial cancer NA 74 NA 2,076 NA 26 NA 8 NA 231
Ovary cancer NA 11 NA 51 NA 42 NA 16 NA 550
Prostate cancer 2 NA 87 NA 13 NA 14 NA 186 NA
Kidney cancer 21 43 116 172 16 21 5 2 120 44
Meningioma 14 19 18 6 14 19 6 3 173 107
Gallbladder cancer 0 19 0 4 5 14 1 1 18 34
Thyroid cancer 3 4 27 70 7 6 0 0 10 10
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma 12 13 166 97 3 6 1 1 44 50
Multiple myeloma 14 19 10 9 6 8 1 1 21 20
Leukemia 3 6 9 6 18 23 10 5 286 195
Type II diabetes mellitus 65 84 241,288 217,572 28 35 102 64 1812 1254
Hypertensive heart disease 22 39 900 1,615 26 32 49 53 751 930
Ischemic heart diseases 19 49 29,776 37,075 11 15 281 66 6626 1381
Stroke 15 18 3,492 3,193 11 15 64 30 1187 615
Atrial fibrillation and flutter 10 14 648 481 10 14 4 3 41 45
Chronic kidney disease 20 25 42,632 43,371 20 25 43 38 792 880
Asthma 13 26 6,289 11,659 12 15 2 2 35 38
Gastro-esophageal reflux disease 25 31 80,611 105,837 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nonalcoholic fatty liver 46 54 441,749 418,862 21 27 4 2 80 52
Gallbladder disease 13 38 4,678 27,626 21 27 3 2 43 46
Depressive disorders 9 23 6,662 22,504 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias 7 9 574 681 7 9 17 20 188 249
Osteoarthritis 52 30 67,299 38,509 0 0 0 0 0 0
Back pain 38 45 66,495 101,649 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gout 17 18 3,502 1,020 0 0 0 0 0 0
Polycystic ovarian syndrome 0 45 0 34,456 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 39 46 997,662 1,069,647 13 18 628 342 0 0

OAF: obesity attributable fraction; NA: Not available/applicable; YPLL: years of potential life lost.

Economic burden

The total economic burden of obesity in 2024 was substantial, amounting to approximately KWD 4.29 billion ($14.03 billion, PPP 21.58 billion) in both public and private healthcare facilities. This figure includes KWD 3.92 billion ($12.82 billion, PPP 19.71 billion) in direct medical costs, KWD 38 million ($124 million, PPP 191 million) in direct non-medical costs, KWD 225.45 million ($736.7 million, PPP 1.13 billion) in indirect morbidity costs (absenteeism costs), and KWD 180.75 million ($355.36 million, PPP 546.46 million) in mortality costs. Of the direct medical costs, only 0.79% (around KWD 31.10 million, $101.63 million, PPP 510.7 million) was related to the treatment of obesity itself while the rest was related to the associated comorbidities. When considering the total costs—including both direct and indirect costs—of each single disease, T2DM stood out as the highest contributor, incurring approximately KWD 1.23 billion ($4.03 billion, PPP 6.20 billion). This was followed closely by NAFL, with total costs nearing KWD 1.04 billion ($3.40 billion, PPP 5.22 billion), and GERD, with KWD 474.67 million ($1.55 billion, PPP 2.39 billion). In contrast, diseases such as liver cancer KWD 152,060 ($496,896, PPP 764,121), gallbladder and biliary cancers KWD 361,525 ($1.18 million, PPP 1.82 million), and esophagus adenocarcinoma KWD 420,894 ($1.38 million, PPP 2.12 million) presented the lowest economic impact attributable to obesity (Table 3).

Table 3. Costs of obesity and attributable diseases in Kuwait (Kuwaiti Dinar).

Disease Direct medical costs Direct non-medical costs Absenteeism costs Indirect mortality costs
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Esophagus adenocarcinoma 43,088 28,963 NA NA NA NA 242,636 106,207
Gastric cancer 539,391 111,950 NA NA NA NA 75,110 42,822
Colon and rectum cancers 11,248,633 7,402,163 NA NA NA NA 1,689,294 208,888
Liver cancer 16,060 15,618 NA NA NA NA 59,034 61,348
Pancreas cancer 380,491 107,825 NA NA NA NA 234,827 168,474
Breast cancer NA 10,828,654 NA NA NA NA NA 1,583,176
Uterine/Endometrial cancer NA 33,516,538 NA NA NA NA NA 1,094,723
Ovary cancer NA 363,506 NA NA NA NA NA 2,425,528
Prostate cancer 1,225,883 NA NA NA NA NA 1,261,742 NA
Kidney cancer 1,876,513 2,769,581 NA NA NA NA 623,925 205,542
Meningioma (Brain, central nervous system) 297,289 97,033 NA NA NA NA 787,105 443,932
Gallbladder cancer 54,868 37,437 NA NA NA NA 96,629 172,591
Thyroid cancer 437,277 1,124,813 NA NA NA NA 52,864 47,873
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma 2,686,026 1,566,729 NA NA NA NA 201,464 215,393
Multiple myeloma 168,085 146,018 NA NA NA NA 111,779 94,700
Leukemia 141,814 97,184 NA NA NA NA 1,296,290 798,270
Type II Diabetes mellitus 639,016,448 576,207,482 NA NA NA NA 10,675,407 7,193,920
Hypertensive heart disease 556,605 998,797 NA NA NA NA 4,657,563 5,575,927
Ischaemic heart disease 112,561,722 140,155,258 NA NA NA NA 34,223,607 7,521,227
Stroke 35,885,259 32,815,067 NA NA NA NA 6,685,312 3,387,223
Atrial fibrillation and flutter 4,784,438 3,546,980 NA NA NA NA 291,426 314,337
Chronic kidney disease 174,966,361 177,996,587 NA NA NA NA 4,447,097 4,557,391
Asthma 3,380,656 6,266,835 NA NA NA NA 200,527 207,253
Gastro-esophageal reflux disease 205,222,573 269,444,659 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Nonalcoholic fatty liver 532,951,846 505,339,443 NA NA NA NA 446,339 287,531
Gallbladder diseases 5,643,223 33,329,356 NA NA NA NA 257,317 256,628
Depressive disorders 6,878,445 23,236,820 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias 535,808 635,954 NA NA NA NA 1,369,415 1,788,285
Osteoarthritis 70,485,975 40,332,546 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Back pain 69,644,088 106,463,511 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Gout 7,656,244 2,230,188 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Polycystic ovarian syndrome NA 23,972,761 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Obesity 11,841,844 19,258,565 20,860,800 17,086,323 123,935,094 101,510,734 NA NA
Total 1,901,126,951 2,020,444,823 20,860,800 17,086,323 123,935,094 101,510,734 69,986,707 38,759,189

NA: Not applicable.

A comparison of cost components indicated that direct medical costs KWD 3.92 billion ($12.82 billion, PPP 19.71 billion) far account for the highest part of obesity burden in Kuwait (91.33%) while the share of direct non-medical costs represents 0.88%. Nonetheless, indirect costs of productivity loss due to absenteeism and premature mortality (KWD 334.20 million, $1.09 billion, PPP 1.68 billion) present a considerable component (7.78%) of the total economic burden in the country (Table 3). An analysis of the total costs across various disease groups reveals substantial variability in the economic burden. Notably, GIT diseases emerge as the most burdensome, with total costs amounting to KWD 1.55 billion ($5.08 billion, PPP 7.80 billion or 36% of the total economic burden). T2DM ranks second, incurring KWD 1.23 billion ($4.03 billion, PPP 6.20 billion or 29% of the total economic burden), driven predominantly by high direct medical costs. CVDs and CKD also impose considerable economic burdens, with total costs of KWD 393 million ($1.29 billion, PPP 1.98 billion or 9% of the total economic burden) and KWD 362 million ($1.18 billion, PPP 1.82 billion or 8% of the total economic burden), respectively. At the lower end of the spectrum, asthma and PCOS contribute KWD 10.06 million ($32.86 million, PPP 50.53 million) and KWD 23.97 million ($78.34 million, PPP 120.47 million) in total costs, respectively. Musculoskeletal disorders, despite a notable case burden (278,474 cases), result in a comparatively modest total cost of KWD 296.81 million ($970 million, PPP 1.49 billion). Obesity itself is particularly notable in this analysis; despite the absence of reported mortality costs, it generates KWD 294.49 million ($962.33 million, PPP 1.48 billion) in total costs through significant indirect morbidity costs. In summary, this comparative analysis reveals that GIT diseases and T2DM are the leading contributors to both direct and total healthcare costs, whereas CVDs have the most profound impact in terms of premature mortality and YPLL. While conditions such as asthma, PCOS, and neuro/mental disorders impose relatively lower economic burdens (S3 Table).

From a macroeconomic point of view, the economic burden of obesity was estimated at KWD 4.29 billion ($14.03 billion; PPP 21.58 billion) from societal perspective and KWD 3.92 billion ($12.82 billion; PPP 19.71 billion) from governmental perspective, equivalent to 1.3 times the Ministry of Health budget in 2024—KWD 3.04 billion ($10 billion; PPP 15.3 billion) [57]. The mean annual societal cost per patient was KWD 1,737 ($5,676; PPP 8,729)—17.62% of 2024 Kuwaiti GDP per capita. Furthermore, the mean direct medical cost per patient was KWD 1,586 ($5,184 or PPP 7,972); comprised 3 times the health expenditure per capita KWD 520 ($1,700, PPP 2,614) [58].

Findings of sensitivity analysis

The sensitivity analysis indicated that the prevalence of obesity and its comorbidities, along with the cost of treating obesity-related diseases, have the greatest impact on the total societal cost of obesity. A 20% decline in the prevalence of obesity and its comorbidities resulted in a 28% reduction in the total societal cost. Similarly, a 30% and 10% decrease in the cost of treating obesity-related diseases would result in corresponding declines of 27% and 9% in the total societal cost of obesity. Furthermore, adopting the prevalence rates reported by Phelps et al. (2024) resulted in a 6% increase in the total societal cost compared to the inputs used in the base-case analysis (Table 4).

Table 4. Findings of sensitivity analysis.

Scenario Total Costs (KWD billion) Change from the base case (%)
Base case 4.29 NA
Reducing the prevalence of obesity and its comorbidities by 20% 3.10 −28
Reducing the cost of treating obesity-associated diseases by 30% 3.13 −27
Reducing the cost of treating obesity-associated diseases by 10% 3.90 −9
Prevalence reported by Phelps et al. (2024) 4.56 6

KWD: Kuwaiti Dinar; NA: Not applicable.

Discussion

This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of the health and economic burden of obesity in Kuwait, revealing critical insights for public health policy and clinical practice. Key findings indicate that obesity accounted for 2.07 million cases of morbidity and 961 premature deaths, representing 42% and 14%, respectively, of the total disease burden. Additionally, obesity accounted for 20,062 years of potential life lost (YPLL). Economically, obesity imposes a heavy burden from societal perspective (KWD 4.3 billion, $14.03 billion, or PPP 21.58 billion) and healthcare system perspective (KWD 3.92 billion, $12.82 billion, PPP 19.71 billion). This is substantially higher than previous estimates, such as the 2019 global study that reported an economic burden of $2.3 billion [3] from the societal perspective. This sharp increase reflects both the rising obesity prevalence and the improved inclusion of broader cost domains in the present analysis. In contrast to previous Kuwaiti estimates that focused solely on healthcare costs [15], the current study offers a broader societal lens by incorporating productivity losses (indirect costs) due to absenteeism and premature mortality, amounting to KWD 334.2 million ($1.09 billion, PPP 1.68 billion). This expands understanding of the burden beyond clinical treatment costs. A similar approach was recently taken in Saudi Arabia, where indirect costs were found to comprise around 12% of total obesity-related burdens [17], nearly matching the 7.78% found in our study.

When compared to recent COI studies from high-income countries like Portugal [59], Saudi Arabia [17], and Italy [60], several similarities emerge, such as the high contribution of T2DM and CVDs to total costs, the consistent dominance of direct medical costs over the economic burden, and the relatively lower proportion of obesity treatment costs versus comorbidity costs. For example, direct medical costs represented approximately 85% of the total obesity-related expenditures and the proportion of obesity treatment costs accounted for ~1% of the total obesity-related expenditures in Portugal [59]. Likewise, a recent COI from Saudi Arabia reported that direct medical costs represented 94% of the total cost and the obesity treatment costs accounted for ~2% [17]. Similarly, Switzerland’s COI showed high direct cost proportions (97%), with T2DM and CVDs as leading cost drivers, while only 3% of the total costs were due to the combined direct management of overweight and obesity [61]. In contrast, earlier estimates reported direct medical costs comprising 43% of the total cost in the USA in 2019 [3] and 23.4% in 2023 [5]. In Kuwait, the findings of the present analysis indicated that the majority of the obesity burden come from managing obesity-associated comorbidities (90.6%) while obesity treatment costs accounted for only 0.72%.

The disproportionate economic burden incurred by obesity-related comorbidities (KWD 4.3 billion, $14.03 billion, or PPP 21.58 billion) compared to the relatively low direct costs of treating obesity itself (KWD 3.92 billion, $12.82 billion, PPP 19.71 billion), illustrates the low rates of obesity diagnosis and treatment at early stages which may lead to more complex, costly healthcare needs and poorer health outcomes and consequently to such a significant economic burden. In Kuwait and neighboring countries, obesity is frequently undiagnosed despite its high prevalence [62]. This is partly due to patients’ limited recognition of obesity as a medical condition and consequently low healthcare-seeking behavior, as well as healthcare providers’ reluctance to initiate weight-lowering therapies in routine clinical practice [6365]. Contributing to poor diagnosis are insufficient routine screening protocols and the absence of dedicated prevention and treatment centers. Even when diagnosis occurs, evidence suggests that patient acceptance and adherence to obesity treatment are commonly low, often ranging between 2% and 10% [38,39,63,64,66]. This discrepancy indicates the underutilization of dedicated obesity treatment modalities, a pattern mirrored in other HICs [39,63,64,66] and reflects a healthcare system focused more heavily on the treatment of obesity-related complications rather than prevention or early intervention, which highlights a significant missed opportunity. Early targeted interventions could prevent progression to costly chronic diseases such as T2DM, NAFL, GERD, CKDs, and IHDs, which together comprise a cost over KWD 3.40 billion ($ 11 billion, PPP 17.10 billion) equivalent to 79.3% of the total economic burden. These findings call for a paradigm shift toward preventive care strategies aimed at addressing obesity as a root cause rather than treating its downstream consequences. In the context, while only 2% of individuals with obesity receive formal obesity treatment, this analysis assumed that all individuals with obesity-associated diseases received the needed care. This assumption likely contributes to the high estimated costs associated with obesity-related comorbidities.

On the other side, despite the minimal direct medical costs associated with obesity itself, the substantial indirect costs (KWD 225.45 million, $736.70 million, and PPP 1.133 billion) and associated non-medical costs (KWD 38 million, $124 million, and PPP 190.69 million) highlight a significant yet less visible economic impacts. This indicates the importance of considering both direct and indirect impacts when assessing the full economic consequences of obesity. Furthermore, the imminent availability of precision pharmacotherapies, such as semaglutide, tirzepatide, retatrutide, and a promising pipeline of novel agents, may substantially transform obesity management [67,68]. Current evidence demonstrates that GLP-1 receptor agonists are both effective and cost-effective, not only in promoting weight reduction but also in improving metabolic parameters, thereby mitigating complications associated with obesity [69,70]. As this analysis reflects current standards of care, future access to more effective or more costly treatments could reshape the COI landscape and consequently influence estimates of the obesity-related burden.

Nevertheless, the prominence of GIT diseases as a major source of economic burden (KWD 1.60 billion, $ 5 billion, and 7.80 PPP or 36% of the total) reflects a distinctive aspect of the obesity profile in Kuwait. Probably, the early onset and chronic nature of GIT diseases (NAFL and GERD) in individuals with obesity [71] may lead to persistent healthcare utilization over a lifetime. This burden is further influenced by prevalent dietary habits and sedentary lifestyles among Kuwaitis [72], justifying their prominence in the overall obesity-related burden assessment. At the same time, CVDs, despite a relatively lower number of attributable cases (77,180 morbidity cases) compared to some other conditions, disproportionately exerted the most significant impact in terms of premature mortality (11,576 YPLL). This is likely attributable to the earlier onset of CVDs in individuals with obesity, the large number of deaths related to these diseases in the population, and their elevated case-fatality rates. These findings highlight the critical need for focused cardiovascular risk reduction strategies within obesity management, particularly targeting young and middle-aged adults.

Interestingly, certain conditions—including some cancers, musculoskeletal disorders, and neurological or mental health disorders— display notable morbidity burdens yet relatively modest total costs. This pattern may reflect factors such as later age of onset, and relatively low OAFs for these conditions which may reduce the per capita economic loss. Another possible contributing factor may be underdiagnosis or underreporting, particularly for mental health conditions, which are often under-prioritized in obesity research despite known associations with the disease. Moreover, the disabling nature of these disorders likely results in costs associated more with long-term functional impairment than acute medical care, which in this study were attributed to obesity rather than its comorbidities.

The enormous economic burden of obesity observed in the present study may result from greater obesity prevalence, younger affected populations, scale of prevention efforts, and differences in methodology across studies, such as variations in the inclusion of obesity-related diseases and different cost components. This high economic burden relative to Kuwait’s GDP and Ministry of Health budget highlights the potential return on investment in prioritizing obesity prevention and integrated chronic disease management. Of note, Kuwait’s national healthcare system is predominantly publicly funded. In the 2023/24 fiscal year, the government allocated approximately 11.5% of its total budget—about KWD 3.04 billion ($10 billion; PPP 15.3 billion)—to healthcare, ensuring free access to public healthcare services for Kuwaiti citizens [57]. Per capita health expenditure was estimated at KWD 520 ($1,700; PPP 2,614) in 2022, with more than 80% of spending directed to the public sector [58].

Policy implications

In light of these findings, several policy recommendations emerge. First, implement culturally tailored comprehensive public health strategies that address lifestyle factors, dietary habits, social determinants, and clinical care pathways. These strategies may include school-based nutrition programs, public education campaigns promoting traditional Kuwaiti dietary practices, restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods, and taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages. Worthy mentioning, the WHO has updated its list of “best buys” and recommended interventions to combat noncommunicable diseases. Key strategies include community-based public education promoting physical activity, taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages, and front-of-package nutritional labeling. Additionally, policies that affect the price and availability of fruits and vegetables are advocated to support healthier dietary choices [73]. Second, early detection and management programs for obesity in primary care settings are essential to mitigate progression to high-cost conditions. Third, investments in workplace wellness programs and community-based interventions could reduce productivity losses and promote sustained behavior change. Fourth, the implementation of mobile-based behavior changes tools, AI-driven diet coaching, and wearable-connected monitoring can all play a crucial role in supporting long-term weight maintenance [74,75]. Finally, expanding access to obesity-specific treatments—such as new and innovative pharmacotherapies, behavioral counseling, and metabolic bariatric surgery—should be considered to directly reduce disease incidence and healthcare system strain. This study reinforces the call for serious initiatives to elevate obesity as a public health priority, with particular emphasis on early detection and management across all levels of healthcare facilities.

Limitations

While this COI study provides valuable insights, certain limitations should be acknowledged. A key limitation of this study is the absence of primary epidemiological and cost data specific to the Kuwaiti context, stemming from the lack of registries tracking multimorbidity and population-level information. To mitigate this, the authors utilized the best available evidence from multiple sources in comparable high-income countries [46], as previously detailed. Strengthening data infrastructure and establishing continuous surveillance systems are crucial to accurately monitor trends, improve cost estimates, and effectively evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various interventions. Although this study employed a broad societal perspective to estimate the economic burden of obesity, it excluded costs associated with overweight among adults and obesity in children and adolescents, representing a notable limitation. Overweight and obesity significantly impact these age groups, suggesting that the total burden is likely underestimated. For instance, a study reported that 40.9% of children aged 6–8 was either had overweight or obesity. Additionally, research on school children aged 5–19 indicated prevalence rates exceeding 50%, which are higher than those observed in other regions and some high-income countries [76]. Future research should incorporate the entire population to provide more comprehensive burden estimates. Similarly, the cost of presenteeism was not estimated in this COI. Moreover, intangible costs such as psychological distress, stigma, and quality-of-life loss were not captured, likely leading to underestimation of the true societal burden.

Conclusion

Obesity and its associated comorbidities impose a significantly greater health and economic burden in Kuwait than previously recognized, representing a major threat to the healthcare system and national productivity. This underscores the urgent need for comprehensive, population-level preventive interventions. This COI study advocates for a paradigm shift that targets obesity as a root cause by prioritizing early prevention, culturally tailored strategies, and integrated disease management, rather than focusing solely on managing its complications. Expanding access to obesity-specific treatments—including emerging innovative pharmacotherapies—and leveraging technology-driven tools such as mobile behavior change applications, AI-based diet coaching, and wearable monitoring devices are essential to support sustained weight management and alleviate the long-term burden.

Given Kuwait’s unique cultural context, public health strategies must be culturally sensitive, incorporating community engagement and gender-specific approaches to effectively address diverse prevalence patterns. Furthermore, bridging existing gaps in epidemiological and economic data through enhanced registry systems and real-world evidence collection is critical to enable accurate monitoring, evaluation, and informed policymaking.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Sources of non-cost data.

(DOCX)

pone.0344040.s001.docx (34.4KB, docx)
S2 Table. Annual cost inputs per case (person).

(DOCX)

pone.0344040.s002.docx (53.8KB, docx)
S3 Table. Morbidity cases, mortality cases, costs (KWD), and YPLL attributable to obesity in Kuwait (per disease group).

(DOCX)

pone.0344040.s003.docx (19.3KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors express their sincere gratitude to Mr. Anas Naji for his dedicated efforts in data collection.

AI Tools Utilization: During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used Perplexity AI tool to assist with language editing, grammar correction, and to improve overall readability, in accordance with ethical standards.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.GBD 2021 Adult BMI Collaborators. Global, regional, and national prevalence of adult overweight and obesity, 1990-2021, with forecasts to 2050: a forecasting study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet. 2025;405(10481):813–38. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)00355-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zhou X-D, Chen Q-F, Yang W, Zuluaga M, Targher G, Byrne CD, et al. Burden of disease attributable to high body mass index: an analysis of data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. EClinicalMedicine. 2024;76:102848. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102848 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Okunogbe A, Nugent R, Spencer G, Powis J, Ralston J, Wilding J. Economic impacts of overweight and obesity: current and future estimates for 161 countries. BMJ Glob Health. 2022;7(9):e009773. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009773 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Nagi MA, Ahmed H, Rezq MAA, Sangroongruangsri S, Chaikledkaew U, Almalki Z, et al. Economic costs of obesity: a systematic review. Int J Obes (Lond). 2024;48(1):33–43. doi: 10.1038/s41366-023-01398-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dall TM, Sapra T, Natale Z, Livingston T, Chen F. Assessing the economic impact of obesity and overweight on employers: identifying opportunities to improve work force health and well-being. Nutr Diabetes. 2024;14(1):96. doi: 10.1038/s41387-024-00352-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Okati-Aliabad H, Ansari-Moghaddam A, Kargar S, Jabbari N. Prevalence of obesity and overweight among adults in the Middle East Countries from 2000 to 2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obes. 2022;2022:8074837. doi: 10.1155/2022/8074837 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Valdez GFD, Ajzoon M, Zuwameri NA. A scoping review of the biological, socioeconomic and environmental determinants of overweight and obesity among Middle Eastern and Northern African Nationalities. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2024;24(1):20–7. doi: 10.18295/squmj.10.2023.059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Al Kharusi AY, Ambusaidi SK, Al Raisi MA, Al Mahrouqi HM, Al Kendi AA, Almatrushi MM, et al. The prevalence of online food delivery service usage and its association with anthropometric measurements in Muscat, Oman; a cross-sectional study. Prev Med Rep. 2025;50:102966. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2025.102966 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Shaban L, Alkazemi D. Trends in Fast-food Consumption among Kuwaiti Youth. Int J Prev Med. 2019;10:44. doi: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_480_18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.World Obesity Federation. World Obesity Atlas 2025. Overweight, obesity and non-communicable diseases. London: World Obesity Federation; 2025. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.WHO. Prevalence of obesity among adults, BMI ≥ 30, age-standardized Estimates by country. Global Health Observatory data repository. 2022. [cited 2024 Dec 8]. Available from: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/prevalence-of-obesity-among-adults-bmi-=-30-(age-standardized-estimate)-(-) [Google Scholar]
  • 12.NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC). Worldwide trends in underweight and obesity from 1990 to 2022: a pooled analysis of 3663 population-representative studies with 222 million children, adolescents, and adults. Lancet. 2024;403(10431):1027–50. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02750-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Oguoma VM, Coffee NT, Alsharrah S, Abu-Farha M, Al-Refaei FH, Al-Mulla F, et al. Prevalence of overweight and obesity, and associations with socio-demographic factors in Kuwait. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):667. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10692-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network. Global Burden of Disease Study 2021 (GBD 2021) Results. Seattle, United States: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). 2022. [cited 2024 Oct 12]. Available from: https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-results/ [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Al-Sabah S, ElShamy A, Jois S, Low K, Gras A, Gulnar EP. The economic impact of obesity in Kuwait: a micro-costing study evaluating the burden of obesity-related comorbidities. J Med Econ. 2023;26(1):1368–76. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2023.2265721 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Brodszky V, Beretzky Z, Baji P, Rencz F, Péntek M, Rotar A, et al. Cost-of-illness studies in nine Central and Eastern European countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20(Suppl 1):155–72. doi: 10.1007/s10198-019-01066-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Nagi MA, Almalki ZS, Thavorncharoensap M, Sangroongruangsri S, Turongkaravee S, Chaikledkaew U, et al. The burden of obesity in Saudi Arabia: a real-world cost-of-illness study. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2025;17:233–46. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S504462 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Onukwugha E, McRae J, Kravetz A, Varga S, Khairnar R, Mullins CD. Cost-of-illness studies: an updated review of current methods. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(1):43–58. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0325-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Flegal KM, Panagiotou OA, Graubard BI. Estimating population attributable fractions to quantify the health burden of obesity. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;25(3):201–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Goettler A, Grosse A, Sonntag D. Productivity loss due to overweight and obesity: a systematic review of indirect costs. BMJ Open. 2017;7(10):e014632. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014632 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Schnitzler L, Roberts TE, Jackson LJ, Paulus ATG, Evers SMAA. A consensus-based checklist for the critical appraisal of cost-of-illness (COI) studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2023;39(1):e34. doi: 10.1017/S0266462323000193 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wijers A, Evers SMAA, Tissingh G, van Mastrigt GAPG. A bottom-up analysis of the cost of illness of Parkinson’s disease in the Netherlands from a societal perspective. Mov Disord Clin Pract. 2025;12(11):1849–58. doi: 10.1002/mdc3.70165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.de Graef N, Morris Gouveia A, Paulus A, van der Putten I, Frew E, Pokhilenko I. Costs of mental health care resource use in people with obesity: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2025;20(10):e0333123. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0333123 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Guh DP, Zhang W, Bansback N, Amarsi Z, Birmingham CL, Anis AH. The incidence of co-morbidities related to obesity and overweight: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:88. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-88 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Murray CJ, Aravkin AY, Zheng P, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abbasi-Kangevari M, et al. Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1223–49. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lega IC, Lipscombe LL. Review: diabetes, obesity, and cancer-pathophysiology and clinical implications. Endocr Rev. 2020;41(1):bnz014. doi: 10.1210/endrev/bnz014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Parr CL, Batty GD, Lam TH, Barzi F, Fang X, Ho SC, et al. Body-mass index and cancer mortality in the Asia-Pacific Cohort Studies Collaboration: pooled analyses of 424,519 participants. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(8):741–52. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70141-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Prospective Studies Collaboration, Whitlock G, Lewington S, Sherliker P, Clarke R, Emberson J, et al. Body-mass index and cause-specific mortality in 900 000 adults: collaborative analyses of 57 prospective studies. Lancet. 2009;373(9669):1083–96. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60318-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, Grosse Y, Bianchini F, Straif K, et al. Body fatness and cancer--viewpoint of the IARC working group. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(8):794–8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1606602 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Castillo JJ, Ingham RR, Reagan JL, Furman M, Dalia S, Mitri J. Obesity is associated with increased relative risk of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2014;14(2):122–30. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2013.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hampel H, Abraham NS, El-Serag HB. Meta-analysis: obesity and the risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease and its complications. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(3):199–211. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-143-3-200508020-00006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Li L, Liu D-W, Yan H-Y, Wang Z-Y, Zhao S-H, Wang B. Obesity is an independent risk factor for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: evidence from a meta-analysis of 21 cohort studies. Obes Rev. 2016;17(6):510–9. doi: 10.1111/obr.12407 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lim SS, Davies MJ, Norman RJ, Moran LJ. Overweight, obesity and central obesity in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18(6):618–37. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dms030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Talbot D, M’esidor M, Trenou KC, Lavigne-Robichaud M, Trudel X, Eslami A. Estimation of the attributable fraction for time to event outcomes using an inverse probability of exposure weighted Kaplan-Meier estimator. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Aboulghate M, Elaghoury A, Elebrashy I, Elkafrawy N, Elshishiney G, Abul-Magd E, et al. The burden of obesity in Egypt. Front Public Health. 2021;9:718978. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.718978 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Barber TM, Franks S. Obesity and polycystic ovary syndrome. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2021;95(4):531–41. doi: 10.1111/cen.14421 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lobstein T, Brinsden H, Neveux M. World Obesity Atlas 2022. 2022. [cited 2022 Aug 30]. Available from: https://www.worldobesityday.org/assets/downloads/World_Obesity_Atlas_2022_WEB.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Roser P, Bajaj SS, Stanford FC. International lack of equity in modern obesity therapy: the critical need for change in health policy. Int J Obes (Lond). 2022;46(9):1571–2. doi: 10.1038/s41366-022-01176-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Thomas CE, Mauer EA, Shukla AP, Rathi S, Aronne LJ. Low adoption of weight loss medications: A comparison of prescribing patterns of antiobesity pharmacotherapies and SGLT2s. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2016;24(9):1955–61. doi: 10.1002/oby.21533 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Alali S, Al-Otaibi W, Ashodian K, Achour N, Almulla A, Mutlaq H. A comparison of Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on weight change, side effects, and quality of life in Kuwait. Front Nutr. 2025;12:1590379. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2025.1590379 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Inocian EP, Nolfi DA, Felicilda-Reynaldo RFD, Bodrick MM, Aldohayan A, Kalarchian MA. Bariatric surgery in the Middle East and North Africa: narrative review with focus on culture-specific considerations. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2021;17(11):1933–41. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2021.06.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Salem V, AlHusseini N, Abdul Razack HI, Naoum A, Sims OT, Alqahtani SA. Prevalence, risk factors, and interventions for obesity in Saudi Arabia: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2022;23(7):e13448. doi: 10.1111/obr.13448 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Al-Sabah S, Haddad E. The utilization of bariatric surgery in patients with and without diabetes: results from the second Kuwait national bariatric surgery database report. 2022.
  • 44.Dahham J, Kremer I, Hiligsmann M, Hamdan K, Nassereddine A, Evers SMAA, et al. Valuation of Costs in Health Economics During Financial and Economic Crises: A Case Study from Lebanon. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2023;21(1):31–8. doi: 10.1007/s40258-022-00769-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.AlAujan SS, Almazrou SH, Al-Aqeel SA. A systematic review of sources of outcomes and cost data utilized in economic evaluation research conducted in the Gulf Cooperation Council. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021;14:209–20. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S285359 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Fgaier M, Al-Abdulkarim H, Motahari-Nezhad H, Nkwanyana N, Péntek ProfM, Gulácsi ProfL, et al. Systematic review of transferred costs in economic evaluations from the Middle East North Africa Region. Health Policy Technol. 2025;14(1):100975. doi: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2025.100975 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Moolla I, Hiilamo H. Health system characteristics and COVID-19 performance in high-income countries. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):244. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09206-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Gumas E, Lewis C, Horstman C, Gunja M. The state of primary health care systems in ten high-income countries. Eur J Public Health. 2024;34(Supplement_3). doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckae144.298 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.International Monetary Fund (IMF). World Economic Outlook Databases. 2024. [cited 2025 Jun 28]. Available from: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2024/October [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Oanda Corporation. Forex data services. Currency Converter. Foreign echange rates. 2025. [cited 2025 Feb 24]. Available from: https://www.oanda.com/currency-converter/en/ [Google Scholar]
  • 51.World Bank. National accounts data. GDP growth (annual %) - Kuwait. 2025. [cited 2024 Dec 3]. Available from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?end=2024&locations=KW&start=2005 [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Baltussen R, Adam T, Tan-Torres Edejer T, Hutubessy R, Acharya A, Evans DB. Making choices in health: WHO guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Vollset SE, Goren E, Yuan C-W, Cao J, Smith AE, Hsiao T, et al. Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1285–306. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Taillie LS, Reyes M, Colchero MA, Popkin B, Corvalán C. An evaluation of Chile’s Law of Food Labeling and Advertising on sugar-sweetened beverage purchases from 2015 to 2017: A before-and-after study. PLoS Med. 2020;17(2):e1003015. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Tham KW, Lim AYL, Baur LA. The global agenda on obesity: what does this mean for Singapore? Singapore Med J. 2023;64(3):182–7. doi: 10.4103/singaporemedj.SMJ-2023-018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Thomas L, Robinson S, Burns S, Mitchell H, Begley A. Engaging health system, service and consumer representatives in the co-design of a multi-criteria decision-making framework for commissioning overweight and obesity programs and services. Health Res Policy Syst. 2025;23(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s12961-024-01263-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Ministry of Finance, Kuwait. The General Budget for the Fiscal Year 2023/2024. 2024. [cited 2025 Jul 28]. Available from: https://www.mof.gov.kw/mofbudget/PDF/Budget24-23Eng.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 58.World Bank. Current health expenditure per capita (current US$), Kuwait. 2024. [cited 2025 Jul 28]. Available from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD?locations=KW [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Borges M, Sampaio F, Costa J, Freitas P, Matias Dias C, Gaio V, et al. Burden of disease and cost of illness of overweight and obesity in Portugal. Obes Facts. 2025;18(2):107–20. doi: 10.1159/000541781 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.d’Errico M, Pavlova M, Spandonaro F. The economic burden of obesity in Italy: a cost-of-illness study. Eur J Health Econ. 2022;23(2):177–92. doi: 10.1007/s10198-021-01358-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Steinl D, Holzerny P, Ruckdäschel S, Fäh D, Pataky Z, Peterli R. Cost of overweight, obesity, and related complications in Switzerland 2021. Frontiers in Public Health. 2024;12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Nagi MA, Turongkaravee S, Almalki ZS, Thavorncharoensap M, Sangroongruangsri S, Chaikledkaew U, et al. Cost-utility analysis of metabolic bariatric surgery for individuals with obesity in Saudi Arabia. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2025;17:519–33. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S527169 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Tucker S, Bramante C, Conroy M, Fitch A, Gilden A, Wittleder S, et al. The most undertreated chronic disease: addressing obesity in primary care settings. Curr Obes Rep. 2021;10(3):396–408. doi: 10.1007/s13679-021-00444-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Ciciurkaite G, Moloney ME, Brown RL. The incomplete medicalization of obesity: physician office visits, diagnoses, and treatments, 1996-2014. Public Health Rep. 2019;134(2):141–9. doi: 10.1177/0033354918813102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Kanj A, Levine D. Overcoming obesity: weight-loss drugs are underused. Cleve Clin J Med. 2020;87(10):602–4. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.19102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.de Heer H, Kinslow B, Lane T, Tuckman R, Warren M. Only 1 in 10 patients told to lose weight seek help from a health professional: a nationally representative sample. Am J Health Promot. 2019;33(7):1049–52. doi: 10.1177/0890117119839904 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Kesavadev J, Basanth A, Shankar A, Saboo B, Mohan AR, Joshi S, et al. An overview of currently available injectable therapies in diabetes: a guide to practitioners. Adv Ther. 2025;42(8):3634–56. doi: 10.1007/s12325-025-03250-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Janić M, Janež A, El-Tanani M, Rizzo M. Obesity: recent advances and future perspectives. Biomedicines. 2025;13(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Arredouani A. GLP-1 receptor agonists, are we witnessing the emergence of a paradigm shift for neuro-cardio-metabolic disorders? Pharmacol Ther. 2025;269:108824. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2025.108824 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Hu Y, Zheng S-L, Ye X-L, Shi J-N, Zheng X-W, Pan H-S, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of 4 GLP-1RAs in the treatment of obesity in a US setting. Ann Transl Med. 2022;10(3):152. doi: 10.21037/atm-22-200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Germer C-T, Scherübl H. Excess body weight and gastrointestinal disease. Visc Med. 2021;37(4):243–5. doi: 10.1159/000517251 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Allafi A, Al-Haifi AR, Al-Fayez MA, Al-Athari BI, Al-Ajmi FA, Al-Hazzaa HM, et al. Physical activity, sedentary behaviours and dietary habits among Kuwaiti adolescents: gender differences. Public Health Nutr. 2014;17(9):2045–52. doi: 10.1017/S1368980013002218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.WHO. Tackling NCDs: best buys and other recommended interventions for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases, 2nd edition. 2024. [cited 2025 Aug 3]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240091078 [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Koo TH, Leong XB, Ng JK, Tan NKB, Mohamed M. Emerging trends in telehealth and ai-driven approaches for obesity management: a new perspective. Malays J Med Sci. 2025;32(1):26–34. doi: 10.21315/mjms-08-2024-614 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Couto F da FS, de Almeida CPB. Mobile and web apps for weight management in overweight and obese adults: an updated umbrella review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2025;22(7):1152. doi: 10.3390/ijerph22071152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Al-Haifi AR, Al-Awadhi BA, Al-Dashti YA, Aljazzaf BH, Allafi AR, Al-Mannai MA, et al. Prevalence of overweight and obesity among Kuwaiti adolescents and the perception of body weight by parents or friends. PLoS One. 2022;17(1):e0262101. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Humaira Nisar

21 Jan 2026

A comprehensive economic assessment of the burden of obesity in Kuwait

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Nagi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 04 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Humaira Nisar

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information .

3. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Title and Abstract,

The title accurately reflects the manuscript's focus on assessing the comprehensive economic burden of obesity in Kuwait. The abstract is well-structured, covering the study’s background, methodology, results, and conclusion concisely.

I suggest the following comments to improve the manuscript.

Introduction:

1. Add information about the economic burden (e.g, medical direct cost, non-medical direct costs, and indirect costs) of obesity in Kuwait. Through statistics, the mortality rate and comparison with other countries should be reported. Through statistics, the mortality rate, economic burden, and comparison with other countries should be reported.

2. I invite the authors to write a summary of the importance of COI analysis in health care, and in measuring medical and other costs

3.

Methods:

- To follow this section better, I invite the authors to write this section according to the EQUATOR network and related checklist/guideline.

URL: https://www.equator-network.org/

Discussion

"Policy implication" section is missing (please add before limitation section)

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Mar 4;21(3):e0344040. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0344040.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


26 Jan 2026

Reviewer #1: Title and Abstract,

The title accurately reflects the manuscript's focus on assessing the comprehensive economic burden of obesity in Kuwait. The abstract is well-structured, covering the study’s background, methodology, results, and conclusion concisely.

I suggest the following comments to improve the manuscript.

Author response:

We wanted to take a moment to show our appreciation for the time and effort you put into reviewing this manuscript. We have addressed all comments, which we agree have further enhanced the paper's clarity and policy relevance.

● Comment: Introduction:

1. Add information about the economic burden (e.g, medical direct cost, non-medical direct costs, and indirect costs) of obesity in Kuwait. Through statistics, the mortality rate and comparison with other countries should be reported. Through statistics, the mortality rate, economic burden, and comparison with other countries should be reported.

○ Response: We thank the reviewer for this very helpful framing suggestion.

○ Action: The text has been revised accordingly. Sentences have been added to provide this context and clarify the economic burden of obesity in Kuwait and the mortality rate and comparison with other countries.

○ Revised Text (Line 93-100): "This analysis used epidemiological and cost data from published studies and global datasets. It estimated Kuwait's 2019 burden at US$2.3 billion—1.7% of the country’s GDP—with projections rising to US$33.3 billion (9.42% of the country’s GDP) by 2060 [3]. In 2019, this compromised direct medical costs (US$638 million), direct non-medical costs (US$360 million), and indirect costs (US$1,660 million). Relative to other countries, Kuwait's obesity-related economic burden ranks among the highest, exceeding many high-income countries (e.g., 1.30% of the national GDP in Korea, 1.53% in Qatar, and 0.96% in Singapore) [3]. Moreover, Kuwait also ranks among the highest countries in terms of mortality attributable to high BMI globally. In 2023, high BMI accounted for 21.77% of all deaths in Kuwait, compared with 8.06% in high-income countries and 6.12% worldwide [14]. Complementing these findings, a retrospective micro-costing study from the public payer perspective focused on ten key obesity-related comorbidities."

● Comment:

2. I invite the authors to write a summary of the importance of COI analysis in health care, and in measuring medical and other costs.

○ Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment regarding the importance of COI analysis in health care.

○ Action: We have added a summary as a new paragraph in the Introduction section to address the importance of cost-of-illness (COI) analysis in healthcare and its role in measuring medical and other costs.

○ Revised Text (Line 115-125): " In this context, cost-of-illness (COI) studies offer a comprehensive approach, representing a key form of health economic analysis that quantifies the economic burden of diseases or risk factors like obesity on individuals and society. These analyses delineate direct medical costs (e.g., hospitalizations, pharmaceuticals), direct non-medical costs (e.g., transportation, accommodation), and indirect costs (e.g., productivity losses from morbidity and premature mortality), yielding reliable country-specific estimates vital for evaluating preventive or control interventions [16]. By informing resource allocation, prioritizing policies, raising awareness of obesity's societal impact, and justifying targeted budget measures—particularly in regions where such expenditures rival major health threats—COI studies underpin evidence-based decision-making and strategies extending beyond clinical outcomes [17]."

● Comment: Methods:

3. To follow this section better, I invite the authors to write this section according to the EQUATOR network and related checklist/guideline.

URL: https://www.equator-network.org/

○ Response: We thank the reviewer for this invitation to enhance the Methods section’s structure and alignment with EQUATOR Network guidelines. While no specific reporting guideline exists for cost-of-illness (COI) studies within the EQUATOR Network, our manuscript already adheres to the consensus-based checklist for critical appraisal of COI studies, which promotes methodological rigor, transparency, and international comparability [Schnitzler L, Roberts TE, Jackson LJ, Paulus ATG and Evers SMAA. A consensus-based checklist for the critical appraisal of cost-of-illness (COI) studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2023;39(1):e34. doi:10.1017/S026646232300019].

○ Action: We have added the following sentence to contextualize the adherence to the consensus-based checklist for critical appraisal of COI studies developed by Schnitzler et al. (2023).

○ Revised Text (Line 148-153): " Importantly, to ensure methodological rigor, reporting quality, and international comparability, this study followed the consensus-based checklist for critical appraisal of COI studies developed by Schnitzler et al. (2023) [21]. This checklist comprises 17 main questions (plus sub questions) across three domains: study characteristics, methodology and cost analysis, and results and reporting. Notably, it has been adopted in several published COI studies [22-23].

● Comment: Discussion

Policy implication section is missing (please add before limitation section)

○ Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s emphasis on the importance of including policy implication section to enhance the relevance and usefulness of this manuscript. A comprehensive policy implication section already exists in the Discussion part, outlining culturally tailored public health strategies, early detection programs, workplace interventions, digital tools, and expanded access to obesity treatments.

○ Action: To enhance its prominence and address this comment, we have added a clear subheading—"Policy implications"—immediately before the Limitations section.

Revised Text (Line: 519): " Policy implications."

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0344040.s005.docx (27.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Sreeram V Ramagopalan

11 Feb 2026

Dear Dr. Nagi,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 28 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sreeram V. Ramagopalan

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: As a peer reviewer, I have carefully evaluated the submitted manuscript in terms of structure, scientific quality, methodology, and presentation.

Below are my detailed comments and recommendations for each section of the paper.

This paper estimates “The economic costs associated with obesity from governmental and societal perspectives in the State of Kuwait. The subject is of interest and very important in the field of Health Economics.

Abstract:

• This section is enough.

Main text:

Introduction:

1. The introduction section is written well.

Method:

1.Unit costs should be provided.

Result:

1.This section is missing.

Discussion

1. This section is written well. However, I invite the author compare the main results with those conducted in developed countries like the USA.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Mar 4;21(3):e0344040. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0344040.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


11 Feb 2026

PONE-D-25-47395R1

A comprehensive economic assessment of the burden of obesity in Kuwait

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Nagi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 28 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Author response:

Date Sent: 11-Feb-2026

Dear Editor,

We are thrilled to have the opportunity to revise our manuscript and would like to express our gratitude to you and the reviewers for providing valuable comments and suggestions. These insights have been incredibly helpful in improving our manuscript. As a result, we have uploaded a revised copy of the manuscript with all the changes made during the revision process highlighted in blue.

We wanted to take a moment to show our appreciation for the time and effort you put into providing such insightful guidance. Our hope is that these revisions will elevate the paper and make it worthy of publication in PLOS ONE Journal. Herein, we offer detailed responses to all the comments and suggestions.

Thank you once again for your help and support.

Sincerely,

Corresponding author

● Comment: Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

○ Response: We thank the editorial team for these clarifications.

○ Action: The items have been included as instructed.

● Comment: If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

○ Response: We thank the editorial team for this offer.

○ Action: No action has been taken as we have no changes to our financial disclosure.

● Comment: If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results.

○ Response: We thank the editorial team for this recommendation.

○ Action: No action has been taken as this recommendation is not applicable to our manuscript.

Journal Requirements:

● Comment: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

○ Response: We thank the editorial team for this clarification.

○ Action: No action has been taken as this recommendation is not applicable to our manuscript.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

○ Response: We thank the editorial team for this recommendation.

○ Action: We reviewed our reference list and ensured it is complete and correct.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

○ Response: We have no response.

________________________________________

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

○ Response: We wanted to take a moment to show our appreciation for the time and effort you put into reviewing this manuscript.

________________________________________

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

○ Response: We wanted to take a moment to show our appreciation for the time and effort you put into reviewing this manuscript.

________________________________________

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

○ Response: We wanted to take a moment to show our appreciation for the time and effort you put into reviewing this manuscript.

________________________________________

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

○ Response: We wanted to take a moment to show our appreciation for the time and effort you put into reviewing this manuscript.

________________________________________

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1:

As a peer reviewer, I have carefully evaluated the submitted manuscript in terms of structure, scientific quality, methodology, and presentation.

Below are my detailed comments and recommendations for each section of the paper.

This paper estimates “The economic costs associated with obesity from governmental and societal perspectives in the State of Kuwait. The subject is of interest and very important in the field of Health Economics.

We wanted to take a moment to show our appreciation for the time and effort you put into reviewing this manuscript. We have addressed all comments, which we agree have further enhanced the paper's clarity.

● Comment: Abstract:

This section is enough.

○ Response: We thank the reviewer for this feedback.

○ Action: No action has been taken.

● Comment: Introduction

The introduction section is written well.

○ Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s encouraging statement.

○ Action: No action has been taken.

● Comment: Methods:

Unit costs should be provided.

○ Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable recommendation. All unit costs are comprehensively detailed in S2 Table (Annual cost inputs per case) within the Supporting Information file, enhancing transparency in the Methods section.

Hope this is satisfying.

● Comment: Results

This section is missing

○ Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this issue. Upon submission/resubmission, we confirm that the manuscript includes a comprehensive Results section (lines 329–415, pages 15–21), detailing all findings. This is further supplemented by S3 Table in the Supporting Information file. We apologize for any submission error that may have caused the section to appear missing and have verified its presence in the revised files.

● Comment: Discussion

This section is written well. However, I invite the author compare the main results with those conducted in developed countries like the USA.

○ Response: We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion.

○ Action: As suggested, we have incorporated findings from key US studies alongside previously cited high-income country comparisons (Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Italy, Switzerland) to strengthen the international benchmarking in the Discussion section (Line 434-448).

○ Revised Text (Line 444-446): In contrast, earlier estimates reported direct medical costs comprising 43% of the total cost in the USA in 2019 [3] and 23.4% in 2023 [5].

________________________________________

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

________________________________________

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

● Comment: To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

○ Response: We thank the editorial team for this recommendation.

○ Action: No action has been taken as this recommendation is not applicable to our manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

pone.0344040.s006.docx (27.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Sreeram V Ramagopalan

15 Feb 2026

A comprehensive economic assessment of the burden of obesity in Kuwait

PONE-D-25-47395R2

Dear Dr. Nagi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sreeram V. Ramagopalan

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Sreeram V Ramagopalan

PONE-D-25-47395R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Nagi,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sreeram V. Ramagopalan

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Sources of non-cost data.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0344040.s001.docx (34.4KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Annual cost inputs per case (person).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0344040.s002.docx (53.8KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Morbidity cases, mortality cases, costs (KWD), and YPLL attributable to obesity in Kuwait (per disease group).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0344040.s003.docx (19.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0344040.s005.docx (27.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

    pone.0344040.s006.docx (27.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES