Table 1.

Overview of studies reporting prevalence of type 2 diabetes by markers of SES and the association between increasing SES and diabetes in India

First author	Study period	Coverage	Setting	Age	Sample size	Diabetes assessment	SES marker	Gender	Diabetes prevalence: low SES (l); high SES (h)	SES–diabetes association: OR (95% confidence interval) for high SES versus low SES
Singh7	1994	Local	Rural	25–64	1769	Blood glucose	Composite	Male	0.9% (l); 6.1% (h)*	–
								Female	0.9% (l); 6.9% (h)*	–
Singh8	1994	Local	Rural	25–64	1806	Blood glucose	Composite	Male	2.5% (l); 8.6% (h)*	2.03 (1.86 to 2.51)*
								Female	1.2% (l); 6.9% (h)*	1.97 (1.67 to 2.36)*
Singh9	1994	Local	Combined	25–64	3575	Blood glucose	Composite	Male	–	4.07 (1.89 to 10.01)* (Urban)
									–	3.75 (1.37 to 12.78)* (Rural)
								Female	–	1.48 (0.64 to 4.00) (Urban)
									–	2.55 (0.91 to 8.83) (Rural)
Singh10	1998	Regional	Urban	25–64	3257	Blood glucose	Composite	Female	0.5% (l); 4.8% (h)*	–
Ramachandran4	2000	Regional	Urban	20+	11 216	Blood glucose	Income	Combined	12.5% (l); 21.6% (h)*	1.43 (1.30 to 1.57)*; 1.16 (1.05 to 1.30)*
Ramachandran11	1999–2000	Local	Urban	40+	2383	Blood glucose, drug treatment	Income	Combined	12.6% (l); 25.5% (h)*	2.15 (1.70 to 2.72)
Gupta12	1999–2001	Local	Urban	20+	1123	Self-report	Education	Male	6.8% (l); 7.9% (h)	–
								Female	6.6% (l); 8.3% (h)	–
Reddy13	2002–2003	Regional	Urban	20–69	19 973	Blood glucose, drug treatment	Education	Male	7.6% (l); 8.4% (h)	1.11 (0.71 to 1.67)
								Female	11.2% (l); 4.2% (h)*	0.36 (0.23 to 0.56)*
Mohan6	2003–2005	Regional	Combined	15–64	44 523	Self-report	Education	Combined	3.4% (l); 5.6% (h)*	3.02 (2.45 to 3.71)*
Ajay14	2002–2003	Regional	Urban	20–69	10 930	Blood glucose, drug treatment	Education	Combined	11.6% (l); 6.9% (h)*	0.69 (0.54 to 0.89)*
Vijayakumar15	2007	Local	Rural	18+	1990	Blood glucose, self-report	Social caste	Combined	5.9% (l); 17.4% (h)	–
							Wealth	Combined		1.43 (1.04 to 1.95)*
Gupta16	1999–2003	Local	Urban	20–59	1289	Blood glucose, self-report	Education	Male	8.0% (l); 18.8% (h)*	–
								Female	6.0% (l); 34.7% (h)*	–
								Combined	6.9% (l); 26.4% (h)*	–
Kinra17	2005–2007	Regional	Rural	20–69	1983	Blood glucose, self-report	Wealth	Male	1.8% (l); 8.0% (h)*	–
								Female	3.9% (l); 5.1% (h)	–
Samuel18	1969–2002	Regional	Urban	26–32	2218	Blood glucose,†drug treatment	Wealth	Male	26.2% (l); 31.9% (h)*	–
								Female	12.1% (l); 30.3% (h)*	–
			Rural					Male	10.9% (l); 31.8% (h)*	–
								Female	16.1% (l); 32.1% (h)*	–
			Combined					Combined	–	2.8 (1.9 to 4.1)*
			Urban				Education	Male	15.0% (l); 34.7% (h)*	–
								Female	31.5% (l); 32.2% (h)	–
			Rural					Male	25.7% (l); 19.7% (h)	–
								Female	19.1% (l); 50.0% (h)	–
			Combined					Combined	–	1.0 (0.6 to 1.6)
Zaman19	2005	Regional	Rural	30+	4535	Blood glucose, self-report	Income	Male	16.2% (l); 21.2% (h)*	–
								Female	12.1% (l); 15.0% (h)*	–
							Education	Male	12.4% (l); 20.1% (h)*	–
								Female	12.8% (l); 13.1% (h)	–

SES markers defined as education, household wealth, social caste or a composite of two or more measures.

*p<0.05.

–, Indicates not reported; SES, socioeconomic status.

^†Includes impaired glucose tolerance and impaired fasting glucose.