Dataset Information

Assessing research activity on priority interventions for non-communicable disease prevention in low- and middle-income countries: a bibliometric analysis.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Jones AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3427597 | biostudies-other | 2012 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing research activity on priority interventions for non-communicable disease prevention in low- and middle-income countries: a bibliometric analysis.

Jones Amanda C AC Geneau Robert R

Global health action 20120823

<h4>Introduction</h4>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 ...[more]

PMID: 22944364

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesLow-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.DesignBibliometric 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.ResultsNinety-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).ConclusionsMost 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.

Project description:IntroductionEngaging communities and intended beneficiaries at various stages of health research is a recommended practice. The contribution of community engagement to non-communicable disease research in low- and middle-income countries has not yet been extensively studied or synthesised. This protocol describes the steps towards generating an understanding of community engagement in the context of non-communicable disease research, prevention and health promotion using a realist review approach. A realist lens enables a rich explanatory approach to causation while capturing complexity, and an openness to multiple outcomes, including unintended consequences. The review will thus develop an understanding of community engagement without assuming that such practices result in more ethical research or effective interventions.Methods and analysisWe propose a realist approach aiming to examine how, why, under what circumstances and for whom community engagement works or does not work. The iterative review steps include clarifying the review scope; searching for evidence; appraising studies and extracting data; synthesising evidence and drawing conclusions; and disseminating, implementing and evaluating the findings. Principles of meta-narrative review (pragmatism, pluralism, historicity, contestation, reflexivity and peer review) are employed to ensure practicable and contextualised review outputs. The proposed review will draw on theoretical and empirical literature beyond specific diseases or settings, but with a focus on informing non-communicable disease research and interventions in low- and middle-income countries. The synthesis of existing literature will be complemented by qualitative realist interviews and stakeholder consultation. Through drawing on multiple types of evidence and input from both experts and intended beneficiaries, the review will provide critical and pragmatic insights for research and community engagement in low- and middle-income countries.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained from the University of the Witwatersrand. Dissemination will include traditional academic channels, institutional communications, social media and discussions with a wide range of stakeholders.

Project description:BackgroundWhile the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of most noncommunicable disease (NCD) prevention and treatment interventions is well established, care delivery models and means of scaling these up in a variety of resource-constrained health systems are not. The objective of this review was to synthesize evidence on the current state of implementation research on priority NCD prevention and control interventions provided by health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).Methods and findingsOn January 20, 2021, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1990 through 2020 to identify implementation research studies that focused on the World Health Organization (WHO) priority NCD prevention and control interventions targeting cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and chronic respiratory disease and provided within health systems in LMICs. Any empirical and peer-reviewed studies that focused on these interventions and reported implementation outcomes were eligible for inclusion. Given the focus on this review and the heterogeneity in aims and methodologies of included studies, risk of bias assessment to understand how effect size may have been compromised by bias is not applicable. We instead commented on the distribution of research designs and discussed about stronger/weaker designs. We synthesized extracted data using descriptive statistics and following the review protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021252969). Of 9,683 potential studies and 7,419 unique records screened for inclusion, 222 eligible studies evaluated 265 priority NCD prevention and control interventions implemented in 62 countries (6% in low-income countries and 90% in middle-income countries). The number of studies published has been increasing over time. Nearly 40% of all the studies were on cervical cancer. With regards to intervention type, screening accounted for 49%, treatment for 39%, while prevention for 12% (with 80% of the latter focusing on prevention of the NCD behavior risk factors). Feasibility (38%) was the most studied implementation outcome followed by adoption (23%); few studies addressed sustainability. The implementation strategies were not specified well enough. Most studies used quantitative methods (86%). The weakest study design, preexperimental, and the strongest study design, experimental, were respectively employed in 25% and 24% of included studies. Approximately 72% of studies reported funding, with international funding being the predominant source. The majority of studies were proof of concept or pilot (88%) and targeted the micro level of health system (79%). Less than 5% of studies report using implementation research framework.ConclusionsDespite growth in implementation research on NCDs in LMICs, we found major gaps in the science. Future studies should prioritize implementation at scale, target higher levels health systems (meso and macro levels), and test sustainability of NCD programs. They should employ designs with stronger internal validity, be more conceptually driven, and use mixed methods to understand mechanisms. To maximize impact of the research under limited resources, adding implementation science outcomes to effectiveness research and regional collaborations are promising.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Community engagement (CE) interventions include a range of approaches to involve communities in the improvement of their health and wellbeing. Working with communities defined by location or some other shared interest, these interventions may be important in assisting equity and reach of communicable disease control (CDC) in low and lower-middle income countries (LLMIC). We conducted an umbrella review to identify approaches to CE in communicable disease control, effectiveness of these approaches, mechanisms and factors influencing success. METHODS:We included systematic reviews that: i) focussed on CE interventions; ii) involved adult community members; iii) included outcomes relevant to communicable diseases in LLMIC; iv) were written in English. Quantitative results were extracted and synthesised narratively. A qualitative synthesis process enabled identification of mechanisms of effect and influencing factors. We followed guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute, assessed quality with the DARE tool and reported according to standard systematic review methodology. RESULTS:Thirteen systematic reviews of medium-to-high quality were identified between June and July 2017. Reviews covered the following outcomes: HIV and STIs (6); malaria (2); TB (1); child and maternal health (3) and mixed (1). Approaches included: CE through peer education and community health workers, community empowerment interventions and more general community participation or mobilisation. Techniques included sensitisation with the community and involvement in the identification of resources, intervention development and delivery. Evidence of effectiveness of CE on health outcomes was mixed and quality of primary studies variable. We found: i) significantly reduced neonatal mortality following women's participatory learning and action groups; ii) significant reductions in HIV and other STIs with empowerment and mobilisation interventions with marginalised groups; iii) significant reductions in malaria incidence or prevalence in a small number of primary studies; iv) significant reductions in infant diarrhoea following community health worker interventions. Mechanisms of impact commonly occurred through social and behavioural processes, particularly: changing social norms, increasing social cohesion and social capacity. Factors influencing effectiveness of CE interventions included extent of population coverage, shared leadership and community control over outcomes. CONCLUSION:Community engagement interventions may be effective in supporting CDC in LLMIC. Careful design of CE interventions appropriate to context, disease and community is vital.

Dataset Information

Assessing research activity on priority interventions for non-communicable disease prevention in low- and middle-income countries: a bibliometric analysis.

Publications

Assessing research activity on priority interventions for non-communicable disease prevention in low- and middle-income countries: a bibliometric analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets