Marc Suhrcke

Prof. Dr. Marc Suhrcke

1. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK
+1
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

22Years (2005-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 July 2009 in The Lancet
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
DSDavid Stuckler
David Stuckler
SBSanjay Basu
Sanjay Basu
Marc SuhrckeMarc Suhrcke
Marc Suhrcke
ACAdam Coutts
Adam Coutts
MMMartin McKee
Martin McKee

19 March 2015 in PharmacoEconomics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
TSTill Seuring
Till Seuring
OAOlga Archangelidi
Olga Archangelidi
Marc SuhrckeMarc Suhrcke
Marc Suhrcke
Background There has been a widely documented and recognized increase in diabetes prevalence, not only in high-income countries (HICs) but also in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), over recent decades. The economic burden associated with diabetes, especially in LMICs, is less clear. Objective We provide a systematic review of the global evidence on the costs of type 2 diabetes. Our review seeks to update and considerably expand the previous major review of the costs of diabetes by capturing the evidence on overall, direct and indirect costs of type 2 diabetes worldwide that has been published since 2001. In addition, we include a body of economic evidence that has hitherto been distinct from the cost-of-illness (COI) work, i.e. studies on the labour market impact of diabetes. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, EconLit and IBSS (without language restrictions) for studies assessing the economic burden of type 2 diabetes published from January 2001 to October 2014. Costs reported in the included studies were converted to international dollars ($) adjusted for 2011 values. Alongside the narrative synthesis and methodological review of the studies, we conduct an exploratory linear regression analysis, examining the factors behind the considerable heterogeneity in existing cost estimates between and within countries. Results We identified 86 COI and 23 labour market studies. COI studies varied considerably both in methods and in cost estimates, with most studies not using a control group, though the use of either regression analysis or matching has increased. Direct costs were generally found to be higher than indirect costs. Direct costs ranged from $242 for a study on out-of-pocket expenditures in Mexico to $11,917 for a study on the cost of diabetes in the USA, while indirect costs ranged from $45 for Pakistan to $16,914 for the Bahamas. In LMICs—in stark contrast to HICs—a substantial part of the cost burden was attributed to patients via out-of-pocket treatment costs. Our regression analysis revealed that direct diabetes costs are closely and positively associated with a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, and that the USA stood out as having particularly high costs, even after controlling for GDP per capita. Studies on the labour market impact of diabetes were almost exclusively confined to HICs and found strong adverse effects, particularly for male employment chances. Many of these studies also took into account the possible endogeneity of diabetes, which was not the case for COI studies. Conclusions The reviewed studies indicate a large economic burden of diabetes, most directly affecting patients in LMICs. The magnitude of the cost estimates differs considerably between and within countries, calling for the contextualization of the study results. Scope remains large for adding to the evidence base on labour market effects of diabetes in LMICs. Further, there is a need for future COI studies to incorporate more advanced statistical methods in their analysis to account for possible biases in the estimated costs.

5 July 2012 in Obesity Reviews
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
GDG. D. Dinsa
G. D. Dinsa
YGY. Goryakin
Y. Goryakin
EFE. Fumagalli
E. Fumagalli
Marc SuhrckeMarc Suhrcke
Marc Suhrcke
Summary: We undertook a systematic review of studies assessing the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and measured obesity in low‐ and middle‐income countries (defined by the World Bank as countries with per capita income up to US$12,275) among children, men and women. The evidence on the subject has grown significantly since an earlier influential review was published in 2004. We find that in low‐income countries or in countries with low human development index (HDI), the association between SES and obesity appears to be positive for both men and women: the more affluent and/or those with higher educational attainment tend to be more likely to be obese. However, in middle‐income countries or in countries with medium HDI, the association becomes largely mixed for men and mainly negative for women. This particular shift appears to occur at an even lower level of per capita income than suggested by an influential earlier review. By contrast, obesity in children appears to be predominantly a problem of the rich in low‐ and middle‐income countries.

15 August 2013 in BMC Public Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SDStephanie Diepeveen
Stephanie Diepeveen
TLTom Ling
Tom Ling
Marc SuhrckeMarc Suhrcke
Marc Suhrcke
MRMartin Roland
Martin Roland
TMTheresa Marteau
Theresa Marteau
Background: Governments can intervene to change health-related behaviours using various measures but are sensitive to public attitudes towards such interventions. This review describes public attitudes towards a range of policy interventions aimed at changing tobacco and alcohol use, diet, and physical activity, and the extent to which these attitudes vary with characteristics of (a) the targeted behaviour (b) the intervention and (c) the respondents.Methods: We searched electronic databases and conducted a narrative synthesis of empirical studies that reported public attitudes in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand towards interventions relating to tobacco, alcohol, diet and physical activity. Two hundred studies met the inclusion criteria.Results: Over half the studies (105/200, 53%) were conducted in North America, with the most common interventions relating to tobacco control (110/200, 55%), followed by alcohol (42/200, 21%), diet-related interventions (18/200, 9%), interventions targeting both diet and physical activity (18/200, 9%), and physical activity alone (3/200, 2%). Most studies used survey-based methods (160/200, 80%), and only ten used experimental designs.Acceptability varied as a function of: (a) the targeted behaviour, with more support observed for smoking-related interventions; (b) the type of intervention, with less intrusive interventions, those already implemented, and those targeting children and young people attracting most support; and (c) the characteristics of respondents, with support being highest in those not engaging in the targeted behaviour, and with women and older respondents being more likely to endorse more restrictive measures.Conclusions: Public acceptability of government interventions to change behaviour is greatest for the least intrusive interventions, which are often the least effective, and for interventions targeting the behaviour of others, rather than the respondent him or herself. Experimental studies are needed to assess how the presentation of the problem and the benefits of intervention might increase acceptability for those interventions which are more effective but currently less acceptable.

25 January 2011 in BMJ
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
TMTheresa Marteau
Theresa Marteau
DODavid Ogilvie
David Ogilvie
MRMartin Roland
Martin Roland
Marc SuhrckeMarc Suhrcke
Marc Suhrcke
MKMichael P Kelly
Michael P Kelly
Nudging has captured the imagination of the public, researchers, and policy makers as a way of changing human behaviour, with both the UK and US governments embracing it. Theresa Marteau and colleagues ask whether the concept stands up to scientific scrutiny

1 December 2014 in Preventive Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
AMAdam Martin
Adam Martin
YGYevgeniy Goryakin
Yevgeniy Goryakin
Marc SuhrckeMarc Suhrcke
Marc Suhrcke
The aim of this study is to explore the relationship between active travel and psychological wellbeing. This study used data on 17,985 adult commuters in eighteen waves of the British Household Panel Survey (1991/2-2008/9). Fixed effects regression models were used to investigate how (i.) travel mode choice, (ii.) commuting time, and (iii.) switching to active travel impacted on overall psychological wellbeing and how (iv.) travel mode choice impacted on specific psychological symptoms included in the General Health Questionnaire. After accounting for changes in individual-level socioeconomic characteristics and potential confounding variables relating to work, residence and health, significant associations were observed between overall psychological wellbeing (on a 36-point Likert scale) and (i.) active travel (0.185, 95% CI: 0.048 to 0.321) and public transport (0.195, 95% CI: 0.035 to 0.355) when compared to car travel, (ii.) time spent (per 10minute change) walking (0.083, 95% CI: 0.003 to 0.163) and driving (-0.033, 95% CI: -0.064 to -0.001), and (iii.) switching from car travel to active travel (0.479, 95% CI: 0.199 to 0.758). Active travel was also associated with reductions in the odds of experiencing two specific psychological symptoms when compared to car travel. The positive psychological wellbeing effects identified in this study should be considered in cost-benefit assessments of interventions seeking to promote active travel.