Table 3.
Household characteristics by catastrophic health expenditure, adults 50+ years with diabetes, China and India, SAGE Wave 1, 2007–2010
| China (n = 630) | India (n = 439) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-catastrophic | Catastrophic | Non-catastrophic | Catastrophic | |
| N (a %) | N (a %) | N (a %) | N (a %) | |
| Overall | 524 (83.2) | 106 (16.8) | 410 (93.4) | 29 (6.6) |
| Diabetes medication | ||||
| No | 68 (14.1) | 11 (12.8) | 120 (26.8) | 9 (24.8) |
| Yes | 456 (85.9) | 95 (87.2) | 290 (73.2) | 20 (75.2) |
| Lifestyle modification | ||||
| No | 133 (24.5) | 26 (29.7) | 179 (39.4) | 14 (41.3) |
| Yes | 391 (75.5) | 80 (70.3) | 231 (60.6) | 15 (58.7) |
| Residence | ||||
| Urban | 398 (70.9)*** | 63 (50.7) | 199 (47.6) | 16 (32.6) |
| Rural | 126 (29.1) | 43 (49.3) | 211 (52.4) | 13 (67.4) |
| Household wealth | ||||
| 1 (Richest) | 131 (26.8)*** | 12 (8.8) | 179 (46.1) | 12 (29.5) |
| 2 | 147 (27.9) | 20 (25.4) | 114 (24.7) | 6 (31.3) |
| 3 | 118 (22.9) | 27 (27.9) | 58 (11.5) | 5 (11.5) |
| 4 (Poorest 2 quintiles) | 128 (22.4) | 47 (37.9) | 59 (17.8) | 6 (27.7) |
| Household financial status | ||||
| Very good/Good | 102 (18.9) | 13 (12.9) | 128 (33.0) | 15 (52.4) |
| Moderate | 331 (63.0) | 66 (63.1) | 202 (44.9) | 8 (27.8) |
| Very bad/Bad | 91 (18.1) | 27 (24.1) | 80 (22.2) | 6 (19.9) |
| Educational attainment (household head) | ||||
| University or higher | 45 (8.7)*** | 5 (3.3) | 81 (21.5) | 7 (10.6) |
| Secondary/High school | 246 (44.1) | 37 (29.6) | 155 (41.4) | 7 (35.5) |
| Primary school or less | 233 (47.2) | 64 (67.2) | 174 (37.1) | 15 (53.9) |
Pearson χ 2 tests undertaken for country comparisons. *p-value < 0.10; **p-value < 0.05; ***p-value < 0.01
asurvey sampling weights used to give percentage estimates. Percentages may not sum due to rounding