Dataset Information

Integrating tuberculosis and noncommunicable diseases care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are facing a combined affliction from both tuberculosis (TB) and noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), which threatens population health and further strains the already stressed health systems. Integrating services for TB and NCDs is advantageous in tackling this joint burden of diseases effectively. Therefore, this systematic review explores the mechanisms for service integration for TB and NCDs and elucidates the facilitators and barriers for implementing integrated service models in LMIC settings.

Methods and findings

A systematic search was conducted in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Bibliography of Asian Studies, and the Global Index Medicus from database inception to November 4, 2021. For our search strategy, the terms "tuberculosis" AND "NCDs" (and their synonyms) AND ("delivery of healthcare, integrated" OR a range of other terms representing integration) were used. Articles were included if they were descriptions or evaluations of a management or organisational change strategy made within LMICs, which aim to increase integration between TB and NCD management at the service delivery level. We performed a comparative analysis of key themes from these studies and organised the themes based on integration of service delivery options for TB and NCD services. Subsequently, these themes were used to reconfigure and update an existing framework for integration of TB and HIV services by Legido-Quigley and colleagues, which categorises the levels of integration according to types of services and location where services were offered. Additionally, we developed themes on the facilitators and barriers facing integrated service delivery models and mapped them to the World Health Organization's (WHO) health systems framework, which comprises the building blocks of service delivery, human resources, medical products, sustainable financing and social protection, information, and leadership and governance. A total of 22 articles published between 2011 and 2021 were used, out of which 13 were cross-sectional studies, 3 cohort studies, 1 case-control study, 1 prospective interventional study, and 4 were mixed methods studies. The studies were conducted in 15 LMICs in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Our synthesised framework explicates the different levels of service integration of TB and NCD services. We categorised them into 3 levels with entry into the health system based on either TB or NCDs, with level 1 integration offering only testing services for either TB or NCDs, level 2 integration offering testing and referral services to linked care, and level 3 integration providing testing and treatment services at one location. Some facilitators of integrated service include improved accessibility to integrated services, motivated and engaged providers, and low to no cost for additional services for patients. A few barriers identified were poor public awareness of the diseases leading to poor uptake of services, lack of programmatic budget and resources, and additional stress on providers due to increased workload. The limitations include the dearth of data that explores the experiences of patients and providers and evaluates programme effectiveness.

Conclusions

Integration of TB and NCD services encourages the improvement of health service delivery across disease conditions and levels of care to address the combined burden of diseases in LMICs. This review not only offers recommendations for policy implementation and improvements for similar integrated programmes but also highlights the need for more high-quality TB-NCD research.

SUBMITTER: Foo C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8806070 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIntegrated cardiovascular disease (CVD) and HIV (CVD-HIV) care interventions are being adopted to tackle the growing burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) but there is a paucity of studies on the feasibility of these interventions in LMICs. This scoping review aims to present evidence of the feasibility of integrated CVD-HIV care in LMICs, and the alignment of feasibility reporting in LMICs with the existing implementation science methodology.MethodsA systematic search of published articles including systematic and narrative reviews that reported on integrated CVD-HIV care was conducted, using multiple search engines including PubMed/Medline, Global Health, and Web of Science. We examined the articles for evidence of feasibility reporting. Adopting the definition of Proctor and colleagues (2011), feasibility was defined as the extent to which an intervention was plausible in a given agency or setting. Evidence from the articles was synthesized by level of integration, the chronic care continuum, and stages of intervention development.ResultsTwenty studies, reported in 18 articles and 3 conferences abstracts, reported on feasibility of integrated CVD-HIV care interventions. These studies were conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia and South America. Four of these studies were conducted as feasibility studies. Eighty percent of the studies reported feasibility, using descriptive sentences that included words synonymous with feasibility terminologies in existing definition recommended by Proctor and colleagues. There was also an overlap in the use of descriptive phrases for feasibility amongst the selected studies.ConclusionsIntegrating CVD and HIV care is feasible in LMICs, although methodology for reporting feasibility is inconsistent. Assessing feasibility based on settings and integration goals will provide a unique perspective of the implementation landscape in LMICs. There is a need for consistency in measures in order to accurately assess the feasibility of integrated CVD-HIV care in LMICs.

Project description:Currently, more than five times more people live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) than in high-income countries (HICs). As such, the downward trend in cardiac surgical needs in HICs reflects only the situation of one sixth of the world population while the vast majority living in LMICs has still no or limited access to life saving heart operations. In these countries, rheumatic heart disease (RHD) still accounts for a significant proportion of cardiac surgical needs. In low- and lower-middle income countries it remains the single most common cardiovascular disease in young adult and adolescent patients in need of heart surgery outweighing other indications such as congenital cardiac defects almost 4-fold. Compared to HICs with their predominance of calcific aortic stenosis in the elderly mitral valve surgery is required in >90% of the largely young patients with RHD in low-income countries (LICs) and still in 70% of the often middle aged patients in middle-income countries (MICs). Although recent government initiatives in LICs led to the establishment of local, independent cardiac surgical services gradually replacing fly-in missions, these centers still only cover less than 2% of the needs of their populations. In MICs, cardiac surgical needs continually grow with the emergence of degenerative diseases. As such, in spite of the concomitant growth of cardiac surgical capacity, significantly less than half the estimated patients in need have access. Capacities in LICs range from 0.5 to 7 cardiac operations/million population; 100-481/million in MICs and >1,200/million in HICs such as the USA and Germany. While a new level of awareness of the scope and magnitude of the problem has begun to emerge in LICs and the establishment of local cardiac surgical capacity has given rise to a glimpse of hope, the challenges of expanding these fledgling services to a significant proportion of the population still seem insurmountable. Challenges in MICs are on the other hand the widening gap between private cardiac medicine for the affluent few and overwhelmed public services for the many and the rural urban divide with the underappreciation of the ongoing dominance of RHD in the rural and indigent population on the other. Overshadowing all LMICs is the low level of valve-repair skills associated with insufficient cardiac surgical capacity and the unavailability of suitable replacement valves which address the young age of the patients and the difficulties of anticoagulation in a socioeconomic environment distinctly different from the elderly patients of HICs.

Project description:BackgroundLow-to-middle income countries (LMICs) experience a high burden of disease from both non-communicable and communicable diseases. Addressing these public health concerns requires effective implementation strategies and localization of translation of knowledge into practice.AimTo identify and categorize barriers and strategies to evidence implementation in LMICs from published evidence implementation studies.MethodsA descriptive analysis of key characteristics of evidence implementation projects completed as part of a 6-month, multi-phase, intensive evidence-based clinical fellowship program, conducted in LMICs and published in the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports was undertaken. Barriers were identified and categorized to the Donabedian dimensions of care (structure, process, and outcome), and strategies were mapped to the Cochrane effective practice and organization of care taxonomy.ResultsA total of 60 implementation projects reporting 58 evidence-based clinical audit topics from LMICs were published between 2010 and 2018. The projects included diverse populations and were predominantly conducted in tertiary care settings. A total of 279 barriers to implementation were identified. The most frequently identified groupings of barriers were process-related and associated predominantly with staff knowledge. A total of 565 strategies were used across all projects, with every project incorporating more than one strategy to address barriers to implementation of evidence-based practice; most strategies were categorized as educational meetings for healthcare workers.Linking evidence to actionContext-specific strategies are required for successful evidence implementation in LMICs, and a number of common barriers can be addressed using locally available, low-cost resources. Education for healthcare workers in LMICs is an effective awareness-raising, workplace culture, and practice-transforming strategy for evidence implementation.

Project description:BackgroundIn low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is growing against an existing burden of other diseases such as HIV/AIDS. Integrated models of care can help address the rising burden of multi-morbidity. Although integration of care can occur at various levels and has been defined in numerous ways, our aim is to assess the effects of integration of service delivery at primary healthcare level in LMICs.MethodsWe will consider randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series that examine integrated models of care among people with multi-morbidities, of which diabetes or hypertension is one, living in LMICs. We will compare fully integrated models of care to stand-alone care, partially integrated models of care to stand-alone care and fully integrated models to partially integrated models of care. Primary outcomes include all-cause mortality, disease-specific morbidity, HbA1c, systolic blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Secondary outcomes include access to care, retention in care, adherence, continuity of care, quality of care and cost of care. We will conduct a comprehensive search in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials, LILACS, Africa-Wide Information, CINAHL and Web of Science. In addition, we will search trial registries, relevant conference abstracts and check references lists of included studies. Selection of studies, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias will be performed independently by two review authors. We will resolve discrepancies through discussion with a third author. We will contact study authors in case of missing data. If included studies are sufficiently homogenous, we will pool results in a meta-analysis. Clinical heterogeneity related to the population, intervention, outcomes and context will be documented in table format and explored through subgroup analysis. We will assess ?2and I2 tests for statistical heterogeneity. We will use GRADE to make judgements about the certainty of evidence and present findings in a summary of findings table.DiscussionIn light of limited evidence on the provision of comprehensive care for diabetes and hypertension, and its comorbidity in LMCIs, we believe that the findings of this systematic review will provide a synthesis of evidence on effective models of integrated care for diabetes and hypertension and their comorbidities at primary healthcare level. This will enable policy-makers to device policies and programs that are evidence informed.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018099314 .