| 1. |
- Hurst, John R., et al.
(författare)
-
Critical review of multimorbidity outcome measures suitable for low-income and middle-income country settings : perspectives from the Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases (GACD) researchers
- 2020
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 10:9
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives There is growing recognition around the importance of multimorbidity in low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, and specifically the need for pragmatic intervention studies to reduce the risk of developing multimorbidity, and of mitigating the complications and progression of multimorbidity in LMICs. One of many challenges in completing such research has been the selection of appropriate outcomes measures. A 2018 Delphi exercise to develop a core-outcome set for multimorbidity research did not specifically address the challenges of multimorbidity in LMICs where the global burden is greatest, patterns of disease often differ and health systems are frequently fragmented. We, therefore, aimed to summarise and critically review outcome measures suitable for studies investigating mitigation of multimorbidity in LMIC settings.Setting LMIC.Participants People with multimorbidity.Outcome measures Identification of all outcome measures.Results We present a critical review of outcome measures across eight domains: mortality, quality of life, function, health economics, healthcare access and utilisation, treatment burden, measures of ‘Healthy Living’ and self-efficacy and social functioning.Conclusions Studies in multimorbidity are necessarily diverse and thus different outcome measures will be appropriate for different study designs. Presenting the diversity of outcome measures across domains should provide a useful summary for researchers, encourage the use of multiple domains in multimorbidity research, and provoke debate and progress in the field.
|
|
| 2. |
- Owolabi, Mayowa O., et al.
(författare)
-
Gaps in Guidelines for the Management of Diabetes in Low- and Middle-Income Versus High-Income Countries : A Systematic Review
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Diabetes Care. - : AMER DIABETES ASSOC. - 0149-5992 .- 1935-5548. ; 41:5, s. 1097-1105
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE The extent to which diabetes (DM) practice guidelines, often based on evidence from high-income countries (HIC), can be implemented to improve outcomes in low-and middle-income countries (LMIC) is a critical challenge. We carried out a systematic review to compare type 2 DM guidelines in individual LMIC versus HIC over the past decade to identify aspects that could be improved to facilitate implementation. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Eligible guidelines were sought from online databases and websites of diabetes associations and ministries of health. Type 2 DM guidelines published between 2006 and 2016 with accessible full publications were included. Each of the 54 eligible guidelines was assessed for compliance with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards, coverage of the cardiovascular quadrangle (epidemiologic surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation), translatability, and its target audiences. RESULTS Most LMIC guidelines were inadequate in terms of applicability, clarity, and dissemination plan as well as socioeconomic and ethical-legal contextualization. LMIC guidelines targeted mainly health care providers, with only a few including patients (7%), payers (11%), and policy makers (18%) as their target audiences. Compared with HIC guidelines, the spectrum of DM clinical care addressed by LMIC guidelines was narrow. Most guidelines from the LMIC complied with less than half of the IOM standards, with 12% of the LMIC guidelines satisfying at least four IOM criteria as opposed to 60% of the HIC guidelines (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS A new approach to the contextualization, content development, and delivery of LMIC guidelines is needed to improve outcomes.
|
|
| 3. |
- Ramani-Chander, Anusha, et al.
(författare)
-
Applying systems thinking to identify enablers and challenges to scale-up interventions for hypertension and diabetes in low-income and middle-income countries : protocol for a longitudinal mixed-methods study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2044-6055. ; 12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: There is an urgent need to reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), particularly in low-and middle-income countries, where the greatest burden lies. Yet, there is little research concerning the specific issues involved in scaling up NCD interventions targeting low-resource settings. We propose to examine this gap in up to 27 collaborative projects, which were funded by the Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases (GACD) 2019 Scale Up Call, reflecting a total funding investment of approximately US$50 million. These projects represent diverse countries, contexts and adopt varied approaches and study designs to scale-up complex, evidence-based interventions to improve hypertension and diabetes outcomes. A systematic inquiry of these projects will provide necessary scientific insights into the enablers and challenges in the scale up of complex NCD interventions.Methods and analysis: We will apply systems thinking (a holistic approach to analyse the inter-relationship between constituent parts of scaleup interventions and the context in which the interventions are implemented) and adopt a longitudinal mixed-methods study design to explore the planning and early implementation phases of scale up projects. Data will be gathered at three time periods, namely, at planning (T-P), initiation of implementation (T-0) and 1-year postinitiation (T-1). We will extract project-related data from secondary documents at T-P and conduct multistakeholder qualitative interviews to gather data at T-0 and T-1. We will undertake descriptive statistical analysis of T-P data and analyse T-0 and T-1 data using inductive thematic coding. The data extraction tool and interview guides were developed based on a literature review of scale-up frameworks.Ethics and dissemination: The current protocol was approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC number 23482). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and more broadly through the GACD network.
|
|
