Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Viewpoint
White Paper
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Viewpoint
White Paper
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Commentary
137 (
5
); 878-879

Leprosy remains an important public health challenge in India

Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040 3000 CA Rotterdam The Netherlands

Read COMMENTARY-ARTICLE associated with this -

Licence

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

In the year 2011 a total of 219,075 new leprosy cases were registered in the world, of whom 127,295 were in India1. Among the new cases detected in India, approximately 3 per cent have grade 2 disability, referring to the presence of visible (and often permanent) deformity. It has been estimated that in 2015 there will be nearly 500,000 people living in India with grade 2 disability due to leprosy2. Leprosy affects the peripheral nervous system and in the absence of timely treatment this will lead to irreversible neuropathy in a large proportion of cases. This in turn leads to secondary impairments, such as wounds caused by burns or pressure on the sole of the foot, contractures of fingers and toes and visual impairment. These impairments can finally lead to limitations in activities of daily living and/or restrictions in social participation3. Leprosy is thereby a leading cause of preventable disability in India and poses a major public health challenge for the country.

Although we have some grasp of the extent of the leprosy disability problem in India in terms of individuals affected, it is very difficult to establish the burden of this problem accurately. This is partly due to the inherent difficulty of measuring phenomena such as impairment, activities of daily living, stigma, social participation and quality of life. Such information is essential for planning services for prevention of disability and rehabilitation. Leprosy control worldwide has relied basically on the WHO Disability Grading system for measuring and reporting the disability burden in leprosy4. This is a leprosy-specific measure of severity of impairment of eyes, hands and feet, which can be established easily in field conditions. It has proven useful as a proxy indicator for the success of leprosy control in general. In leprosy control, early diagnosis and treatment are essential in preventing ongoing transmission of Mycobacterium leprae, the causative agent of leprosy, as well as preventing the occurrence of permanent nerve damage. A low proportion of newly detected leprosy cases with grade 2 disability is, therefore, an indicator of a successful control programme (new patients are apparently found in time), but does not provide much information on actual health burden, both at the individual and population levels. More recently, instruments have been developed for persons affected by leprosy to measure level of activity (e.g. the SALSA Scale5) and participation (e.g. the Participation Scale6). These newer approaches and tools for measuring disability in low and middle-income countries have been described comprehensively by Van Brakel & Officer7 and represent important improvements in establishing the disability burden in people affected by leprosy and comparable diseases causing disability.

For measuring disease burden at population level, a standard unit has been developed, namely the disability-adjusted life years (DALY). This measure is useful for establishing (cost) effectiveness of interventions for preventing illness or alleviating disease burden. This measure has been widely used, also for estimating the burden of neglected tropical diseases, a category including leprosy8. DALY is the sum of years of life lost (YLL) plus years lost due to disability (YLD). Mortality in leprosy is not an important issue; a few people die from leprosy9. Therefore, the DALY in leprosy is derived primarily from YLD, which is the number of incident cases times disability weight times the average duration of the case until remission or death (in years). The average disability weight attributed to leprosy WHO Disability Grades 1 and 2 is 0.1528. In comparison, the disability weight for blindness is 0.600. It is however, very difficult to measure disability caused by leprosy and its duration accurately. Disability often starts insidiously at a relatively early age and can develop gradually over time. DALY is, therefore, a problematic indicator to describe the burden of leprosy disease.

Rao and colleagues in their article in this issue10 are commended for developing an alternative indicator to measure the leprosy burden; the disability adjusted working life years (DAWLY). It takes into account loss of (anticipated) productive work years, a meaningful economic indicator for both the individual and society. They showed a reduction of 13.4 years from the ideal productive working life period of 42 years. As the authors state correctly, the DAWLY as indicator needs refinement and further validation, but the concept is appealing because it is practical and easy to understand. In order to face the public health challenge of disability burden due to leprosy in India, it is essential to have suitable ndicators and measurement tools to establish the burden of disability accurately in all its aspects, including physical impairments, activity limitation, and participation restriction. Knowledge of these factors will help developing effective preventive and support programmes and evaluating progress of these activities at individual and population levels. The DAWLY is an innovative contribution towards these ends.

References

  1. . Global leprosy situation, 2012. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2012;87:317-28.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , , , . Potential effect of the World Health Organization's 2011-2015 global leprosy strategy on the prevalence of grade 2 disability: a trend analysis. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89:487-95.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , , , , . Risk factors for participation restriction in leprosy and development of a screening tool to identify individuals at risk. Lepr Rev. 2005;76:305-15.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. . WHO Expert Committee on Leprosy. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1998;874:1-43.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , , , , . The development of a short questionnaire for screening of activity limitation and safety awareness (SALSA) in clients affected by leprosy or diabetes. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29:689-700.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. , , , , , , . The Participation Scale: measuring a key concept in public health. Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28:193-203.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , . Approaches and tools for measuring disability in low and middle-income countries. Lepr Rev. 2008;79:50-64.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , . Measuring the burden of neglected tropical diseases: the global burden of disease framework. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2007;1:e114.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. , , . Leprosy. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2003;1:94-5.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. , , , , , , . Disability adjusted working life years (DAWLYs) of leprosy affected persons in India. Indian J Med Res. 2013;137:907-10.
    [Google Scholar]

    Fulltext Views
    15

    PDF downloads
    8
    View/Download PDF
    Download Citations
    BibTeX
    RIS
    Show Sections
    Scroll to Top