RESUMO
Mental disorders in India form a major public health concern and the efforts to tackle these dates back to four decades, by way of the National Mental Health Programme (NMHP) and its operational arm, the District Mental Health Programme (DMHP). Although the progress of NMHP (and DMHP) was relatively slower till recently, the last 4-5 years have seen rapid strides with several initiatives, including (i) expansion of DMHPs to 90 per cent of the total districts of the country, (ii) the National Mental Health Policy and (iii) strengthening the Mental Health Legislation by way of providing explicit provisions for rights of persons with mental illnesses. Among others, factors responsible for this accelerated growth include the easily accessible digital technology as well as judicial activism. Federal and State cooperation is another notable feature of this expansion. In this review, the authors summarize the available information on the evolution of implementation and research aspects related to India’s NMHP over the years and provide a case for the positive turn of events witnessed in the recent years. However, the authors caution that these are still baby steps and much more remains to be done.
RESUMO
Background: Headache disorders are common and burdensome throughout the world, placing high demand on health care services. Good information on their prevalence and distribution through sectors of the population are a prerequisite for planning interventions and organizing services, but unavailable for India. Objectives: To fi nd out the prevalence of headache disorders in Karnataka State and establish important sociodemographic associations. Materials and Methods: Using a door to door survey technique, amongst 2997 households, 2329 individuals were interviewed with a validated structured questionnaire by randomly sampling one adult member (aged 18-65 years) from eligible households in urban (n = 1226) and rural (n = 1103) areas of Bangalore, during the period April 2009 and January 2010. Statistical Analysis Used: Chi-square, odds ratio (OR), and logistic regression. Results: The 1-year prevalence of headache was 63.9% (62.0% when adjusted for age, gender and habitation) and 1-day prevalence (headache on the day prior to the survey) was 5.9%. Prevalence was higher in the age groups of 18-45 years, among females (OR = 2.3; 95% confi dence interval: 1.9-2.7) and those in rural areas. Prevalence was higher in rural (71.2 [68.4-73.8]) than in urban areas (57.3 [54.5-60.1]) even after adjusting for gender. The proportion of days lost to headache from paid work was 1.1%, while overall productivity loss (from both paid and household work) was 2.8%. Conclusions: Headache disorders are a major health problem in India with signifi cant burden. It requires systematic efforts to organize effective services to be able to reach a large number of people in urban and rural India. Education of physicians and other health-care workers, and the public should be a pillar of such efforts.
RESUMO
Context: In 2010, nearly 37 lakh Indians have been estimated to be suffering from dementia. Estimated costs of care in published literature do not reflect the actual expenses of individual households. Hence, a household budget approach was undertaken to arrive at the costs of dementia care in India. Materials and Methods: We identified and listed the different components of care, classified the applicability of care for the different components with respect to mild, moderate, and severe cases. This framework was utilized to assign costs of care and arrive at the household costs of care for a Person with Dementia (PwD) in both urban and rural areas. Results: The total expense was similar to that reported by individual households. The annual household cost of caring for a person with dementia in India, depending on the severity of the disease, ranged between INR 45,600 to INR 2,02,450 in urban areas and INR 20,300 to INR 66,025 in rural areas. Costs increased with increasing severity of the disease process. The costs of informal care contributed to nearly half of the total costs either in rural or urban area. With increasing severity, proportion of medical costs decreased while social cost increased. Medical costs in rural areas were nearly one-third of the total costs as against less than one-fifth in urban areas. Conclusion: The household budget model realistically estimated the household costs of care. It is hoped that the comprehensive and generic framework would prompt health professionals, researchers, and policy makers in India to catalyze geriatric health services, particularly for care for PwD.