Dataset Information

Quantifying research output on poverty and non-communicable disease behavioural risk factors in low-income and lower middle-income countries: a bibliometric analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Low-income and lower middle-income countries (LLMICs) bear a disproportionate burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). WHO has repeatedly called for more research on poverty and NCDs in these settings, but the current situation remains unquantified. We aimed to assess research output on poverty and NCD risk factors from these countries in relation to upper middle-income and high-income countries.

Design

Bibliometric analysis of primary research published between 1 January 1990 and 4 May 2017. We searched 13 databases, combining terms for poverty and NCD behavioural risk factors (tobacco, alcohol, diet and physical activity). Independent dual review was used to screen titles, abstracts and full papers. Two-tailed t-testing and multiple linear regression analyses were used to compare differences in means.

Outcomes

(1) Proportion of lead authors affiliated with institutions based in high and upper middle-income countries vs LLMICs. (2) Mean number of citations for publications from each region. (3) Mean journal impact factor for studies from each region.

Results

Ninety-one (67%) of the 136 included studies were led by scientists affiliated with LLMIC-based institutions. These authors represented 17/83 LLMICs (20%), and their studies garnered 4.8 fewer citations per paper than studies led by high-income and upper middle-income-affiliated authors; however, this finding was non-significant (P=0.67). Papers led by authors based in high-income and upper middle-income countries were published in journals with a mean impact factor 3.1 points higher than those from LLMICs (4.9 vs 1.7) adjusting for year of publication and number of citations (P<0.001).

Conclusions

Most poverty and NCD risk factor research is led by authors from a small number of LLMICs. These studies are being published in relatively low-impact journals, and the vast majority of LLMICs are not producing any research in this area that is vital to their social and economic development. The paucity of domestic evidence must be addressed to inform global policy.

SUBMITTER: Allen LN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5695439 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quantifying research output on poverty and non-communicable disease behavioural risk factors in low-income and lower middle-income countries: a bibliometric analysis.

Allen Luke Nelson LN Fox Nicholas N Ambrose Alissa A

BMJ open 20171112 11

<h4>Objectives</h4>Low-income and lower middle-income countries (LLMICs) bear a disproportionate burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). WHO has repeatedly called for more research on poverty and NCDs in these settings, but the current situation remains unquantified. We aimed to assess research output on poverty and NCD risk factors from these countries in relation to upper middle-income and high-income countries.<h4>Design</h4>Bibliometric analysis of primary research published between 1 Ja ...[more]

PMID: 29133311

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNon-communicable diseases are the leading global cause of death and disproportionately afflict those living in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs). The association between socioeconomic status and non-communicable disease behavioural risk factors is well established in high-income countries, but it is not clear how behavioural risk factors are distributed within LLMICs. We aimed to systematically review evidence on the association between socioeconomic status and harmful use of alcohol, tobacco use, unhealthy diets, and physical inactivity within LLMICs.MethodsWe searched 13 electronic databases, including Embase and MEDLINE, grey literature, and reference lists for primary research published between Jan 1, 1990, and June 30, 2015. We included studies from LLMICs presenting data on multiple measures of socioeconomic status and tobacco use, alcohol use, diet, and physical activity. No age or language restrictions were applied. We excluded studies that did not allow comparison between more or less advantaged groups. We used a piloted version of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group data collection checklist to extract relevant data at the household and individual level from the included full text studies including study type, methods, outcomes, and results. Due to high heterogeneity, we used a narrative approach for data synthesis. We used descriptive statistics to assess whether the prevalence of each risk factor varied significantly between members of different socioeconomic groups. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015026604.FindingsAfter reviewing 4242 records, 75 studies met our inclusion criteria, representing 2 135 314 individuals older than 10 years from 39 LLMICs. Low socioeconomic groups were found to have a significantly higher prevalence of tobacco and alcohol use than did high socioeconomic groups. These groups also consumed less fruit, vegetables, fish, and fibre than those of high socioeconomic status. High socioeconomic groups were found to be less physically active and consume more fats, salt, and processed food than individuals of low socioeconomic status. While the included studies presented clear patterns for tobacco use and physical activity, heterogeneity between dietary outcome measures and a paucity of evidence around harmful alcohol use limit the certainty of these findings.InterpretationDespite significant heterogeneity in exposure and outcome measures, clear evidence shows that the burden of behavioural risk factors is affected by socioeconomic position within LLMICs. Governments seeking to meet Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3.4-reducing premature non-communicable disease mortality by a third by 2030-should leverage their development budgets to address the poverty-health nexus in these settings. Our findings also have significance for health workers serving these populations and policy makers tasked with preventing and controlling the rise of non-communicable diseases.FundingWHO.

Project description:Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) disproportionately affect low- and lower-middle income countries (LLMICs) where 80% of global NCD related deaths occur. LLMICs are the primary focus of interventions to address development and poverty indicators. We aimed to synthesise the evidence of these interventions' impact on the four primary NCDs (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease and cancer) and their common behavioural risk factors (unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, tobacco and alcohol use).We systematically searched four online databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Global Health) for primary research conducted in LLMICS, published between January 1st 1990 and February 15th 2016. Studies involved development or poverty interventions which reported on outcomes relating to NCDs. We extracted summary level data on study design, population, health outcomes and potential confounders.From 6383 search results, 29 studies from 24 LLMICs published between 1999 and 2015 met our inclusion criteria. The quality of included studies was limited and heterogeneity of outcome measures required narrative synthesis. One study measured impact on NCD prevalence, one physical activity and 27 dietary components. The majority of papers (23), involved agricultural interventions. Primary outcome measures tended to focus on undernutrition. Intensive agricultural interventions were associated with improved calorie, vitamin, fruit and vegetable intake. However, positive impacts were reliant on participant's land ownership, infection status and limited in generalisability. Just three studies measured adult obesity; two indicated increased income and consequential food affordability had the potential to increase obesity. Overall, there was poor alignment between included studies outcome measures and the key policy options and objectives of the Global Action Plan on NCDs.Though many interventions addressing poverty and development have great potential to impact on NCD prevalence and risk, most fail to measure or report these outcomes. Current evidence is limited to behavioural risk factors, namely diet and suggests a positive impact of agricultural-based food security programmes on dietary indicators. However, studies investigating the impact of improved income on obesity tend to show an increased risk. Embedding NCD impact evaluation into development programmes is crucial in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals and the rapid epidemiological transitions facing LLMICs.

Project description:Action is urgently needed to curb the rising rates of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and reduce the resulting social and economic burdens. There is global evidence about the most cost-effective interventions for addressing the main NCD risk factors such as tobacco use, unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, and alcohol misuse. However, it is unknown how much research is focused on informing the local adoption and implementation of these interventions.To assess the degree of research activity on NCD priority interventions in LMICs by using bibliometric analysis to quantify the number of relevant peer-reviewed scientific publications.A multidisciplinary, multi-lingual journal database was searched for articles on NCD priority interventions. The interventions examined emphasise population-wide, policy, regulation, and legislation approaches. The publication timeframe searched was the year 2000-2011. Of the 11,211 articles yielded, 525 met the inclusion criteria.Over the 12-year period, the number of articles published increased overall but differed substantially between regions: Latin America & Caribbean had the highest (127) and Middle East & North Africa had the lowest (11). Of the risk factor groups, 'tobacco control' led in publications, with 'healthy diets and physical activity' and 'reducing harmful alcohol use' in second and third place. Though half the publications had a first author from a high-income country institutional affiliation, developing country authorship had increased in recent years.While rising global attention to NCDs has likely produced an increase in peer-reviewed publications on NCDs in LMICs, publication rates directly related to cost-effective interventions are still very low, suggesting either limited local research activity or limited opportunities for LMIC researchers to publish on these issues. More research is needed on high-priority interventions and research funders should re-examine if intervention research is enough of a funding priority.

Project description:Delayed acceptance or refusal of COVID-19 vaccines may increase and prolong the threat to global public health and the economy. Identifying behavioural determinants is considered a critical step in explaining and addressing the barriers of vaccine refusal. This study aimed to identify the behavioural determinants of COVID-19-vaccine acceptance and provide recommendations to design actionable interventions to increase uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine in six lower- and middle-income countries. Taking into consideration the health belief model and the theory of reasoned action, a barrier analysis approach was employed to examine twelve potential behavioural determinants of vaccine acceptance in Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Kenya, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and Tanzania. In all six countries, at least 45 interviews with those who intended to get the vaccine ("Acceptors") and another 45 or more interviews with those who did not ("Non-acceptors") were conducted, totalling 542 interviews. Data analysis was performed to find statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between Acceptors and Non-acceptors of COVID-19 vaccines and to identify which beliefs were most highly associated with acceptance and non-acceptance of vaccination based on the estimated relative risk. The analysis showed that perceived social norms, perceived positive and negative consequences, perceived risk, perceived severity, trust, perceived safety, and expected access to COVID-19 vaccines had the highest associations with COVID-19-vaccine acceptance in Bangladesh, Kenya, Tanzania, and the DRC. Additional behavioural determinants found to be significant in Myanmar and India were perceived self-efficacy, trust in COVID-19 information provided by leaders, perceived divine will, and perceived action efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. Many of the determinants were found to be significant, and their level of significance varied from country to country. National and local plans should include messages and activities that address the behavioural determinants found in this study to significantly increase the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines across these countries.

Project description:Background:Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of death globally. Eighty-two percent of premature NCD deaths occur within low- and lower middle-income countries (LLMICs). Research to date, largely drawn from high-income countries, suggests that disadvantaged and marginalized groups have a higher NCD burden, but there has been a dearth of research studying this relationship within LLMICs. The purpose of this systematic review is to map the literature on evidence from LLMICs on the socio-economic status (SES) gradient of four particular NCDs: cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and chronic respiratory diseases. Methods:We conducted a comprehensive literature search for primary research published between 1 January 1990 and 27 April 2015 using six bibliographic databases and web resources. We included studies that reported SES and morbidity or mortality from cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic respiratory diseases within LLMICs. Results:Fifty-seven studies from 17 LLMICs met our inclusion criteria. Fourteen of the 18 papers that reported significant associations between cancer and SES suggested that low SES groups had the highest cancer risk. Eleven of 15 papers reporting significant relationships between CVD and SES suggested that low SES groups have higher risk. In contrast, seven of 12 papers reporting significant findings related to diabetes found that higher SES groups had higher diabetes risk. We identified just three studies on the relationship between chronic respiratory diseases and SES; none of them reported significant findings. Conclusions:Only 17 of the 84 LLMICs were represented, highlighting the need for more research on NCDs within these countries. The majority of studies were medium to high quality cross-sectional studies. When we restricted our analyses to high quality studies only, for both cancer and cardiovascular disease more than half of studies found a significantly higher risk for those of lower SES. The opposite was true for diabetes, whilst there was a paucity of high quality research on chronic respiratory disease. Development programmes must consider health alongside other aims and NCD prevention interventions must target all members of the population. Systematic review registration number:Prospero: CRD42015020169.

Project description:INTRODUCTIONDisability and poverty are believed to operate in a cycle, with each reinforcing the other. While agreement on the existence of a link is strong, robust empirical evidence substantiating and describing this potential association is lacking. Consequently, a systematic review was undertaken to explore the relationship between disability and economic poverty, with a focus on the situation in low and middle income countries (LMICs).METHODSTen electronic databases were searched to retrieve studies of any epidemiological design, published between 1990-March 2016 with data comparing the level of poverty between people with and without disabilities in LMICs (World Bank classifications). Poverty was defined using economic measures (e.g. assets, income), while disability included both broad assessments (e.g. self-reported functional or activity limitations) and specific impairments/disorders. Data extracted included: measures of association between disability and poverty, population characteristics and study characteristics. Proportions of studies finding positive, negative, null or mixed associations between poverty and disability were then disaggregated by population and study characteristics.RESULTSFrom the 15,500 records retrieved and screened, 150 studies were included in the final sample. Almost half of included studies were conducted in China, India or Brazil (n = 70, 47%). Most studies were cross-sectional in design (n = 124, 83%), focussed on specific impairment types (n = 115, 77%) and used income as the measure for economic poverty (n = 82, 55%). 122 studies (81%) found evidence of a positive association between disability and a poverty marker. This relationship persisted when results were disaggregated by gender, measure of poverty used and impairment types. By country income group at the time of data collection, the proportion of country-level analyses with a positive association increased with the rising income level, with 59% of low-income, 67% of lower-middle and 72% of upper-middle income countries finding a positive relationship. By age group, the proportion of studies reporting a positive association between disability and poverty was lowest for older adults and highest for working-age adults (69% vs. 86%).CONCLUSIONSThere is strong evidence for a link between disability and poverty in LMICs and an urgent need for further research and programmatic/policy action to break the cycle.

Project description:ImportanceMany randomized clinical trials (RCTs) led by high-income countries (HICs) now enroll patients from lower middle-income countries (LMICs) and upper middle-income countries (UMICs). Although enrolling diverse populations promotes research collaborations, there are issues regarding which countries participate in RCTs and how this participation may contribute to global research.ObjectiveTo describe which UMICs and LMICs participate in RCTs led by HICs.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional study of all oncology RCTs published globally during January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017, was conducted. The study cohort was restricted to RCTs led by HICs that enrolled participants from LMICs and UMICs. Study analyses were conducted in November 1, 2021, to May 31, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresA bibliometric approach (Web of Science 2007-2017) was used to explore whether RCT participation was proportional to other measures of cancer research activity. Participation in RCTs (ie, percentage of RCTs in the cohort in which each LMIC and UMIC participated) was compared with country-level cancer research bibliometric output (ie, percentage of total cancer research bibliometric output from the same group of countries that came from a specific LMIC and UMIC).ResultsAmong the 636 HIC-led RCTs, 186 trials (29%) enrolled patients in LMICs (n = 84 trials involving 11 LMICs) and/or UMICs (n = 181 trials involving 26 UMICs). The most common participating LMICs were India (42 [50%]), Ukraine (39 [46%]), Philippines (23 [27%]), and Egypt (12 [14%]). The most common participating UMICs were Russia (115 [64%]), Brazil (94 [52%]), Romania (62 [34%]), China (56 [31%]), Mexico (56 [31%]), and South Africa (54 [30%]). Several LMICs are overrepresented in the cohort of RCTs based on proportional cancer research bibliometric output: Ukraine (46% of RCTs but 2% of cancer research bibliometric output), Philippines (27% RCTs, 1% output), and Georgia (8% RCTs, 0.2% output). Overrepresented UMICs include Russia (64% RCTs, 2% output), Romania (34% RCTs, 2% output), Mexico (31% RCTs, 2% output), and South Africa (30% RCTs, 1% output).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, a substantial proportion of RCTs led by HICs enrolled patients in LMICs and UMICs. The LMICs and UMICs that participated in these trials did not match overall cancer bibliometric output as a surrogate for research ecosystem maturity. Reasons for this apparent discordance and how these data may inform future capacity-strengthening activities require further study.

Dataset Information

Quantifying research output on poverty and non-communicable disease behavioural risk factors in low-income and lower middle-income countries: a bibliometric analysis.

Objectives

Design

Outcomes

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Quantifying research output on poverty and non-communicable disease behavioural risk factors in low-income and lower middle-income countries: a bibliometric analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets