Impact of noncommunicable diseases in the State of Qatar

Abstract

This study, commissioned by the Supreme Council of Health in the State of Qatar, focuses on the main noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) globally and regionally, in order to gauge their potential impact on Qatar. The research shows that the Gulf Cooperation Council is projected to be affected dramatically by NCDs in the coming years. The top five NCDs that will affect Qatar in terms of economic burden and disability-adjusted life years are cardiovascular diseases, mental health and behavioral disorders, cancer, respiratory diseases, and diabetes. Whilst these diseases have diverse effects on patients, their causes can be traced to “… common lifestyle-related, or behavioral, risk factors such as tobacco use, a diet heavy in fat, and physical inactivity”. The total direct and indirect costs to the Gulf Cooperation Council calculated for the above five NCDs were $36.2 billion in 2013, which equates to 150% of the officially recorded annual health care expenditure. If this trajectory is maintained, spending per head of population in Qatar will reach $2,778 by 2022. These figures demonstrate not only the potential financial impact of the main NCDs, but also give an idea of how the current health system is working to address them.

Evaluating quantity and quality of literature focusing on health economics and pharmacoeconomics in Gulf Cooperation Council countries

“…The majority of studies (n= 34) were published in international journals 14,[17][18][19]21,24,25,[27][28][29][30][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][45][46][47][48][50][51][52][53][54][57][58][59][60][61] and the remaining 15 studies were published in journals based in G.C.C. countries.…”

“…25,27,35,60 ; these included Canada, 25 USA , 27 UK 35 and Poland. 60 The primary author in 40 of the included studies (81.6%) had a medical or clinical background [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][26][27][28][29][30][32][33][34][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]49,51,53,[55][56][57][58][59]61 , compared with 4 studies were the primary background was health economics 48,52,60,…”

“…Thirty four studies were national, 14,15,[18][19][20][21][22][23][24]26,[29][30][31][32][33][34][38][39][40][41][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][59][60][61][62] 9 studies were sub-national (where they covered cities of interest in a country) 16,28,36,42,44,50,[56][57][58] and 6 studies were multinational. 17,25,27,35,37,43 Eighteen of the studies published were based on data from Saudi Arabia, …”

“…Thirty-four studies stated they did not receive any funding to conduct the research [14][15][16][17][19][20][21][22][23][26][27][28][30][31][32][33]36,[38][39][40][44][45][46]50,51,53,[55][56][57][58][59]62 Six studies were funded by government organizations, 18,24,34,35,37,41 6 studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry 25,29,42,47,60,61 and 3 studies were funded by non-profit organizations. 48,52,54…”

“…The majority of studies (35[71.4%]) did not state the pharmacoeconomics perspective. [14][15][16][17]19,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]39,41,43,45,[49][50][51][53][54][55][56][57][58][59] Ten (20.4%) studies were from the provider perspective, 18,20,21,42,44,46,48,52,60,62 3 studies (6%) were from the society perspective 38,40,61 and one study (2%) was from the patient perspective . 47 Forty two (85.7%) studies were published in open access journals 14,…”